End of net neutrality

02goswej · 5 Aug 2010 at 15:36

It most likely won't go ahead. The amount of people that will be boycotting, petitioning etc this will flop. 2 Companies (Even though they may be big) they don't, and wont own the Internet.

Edit:

Anywho, I just skimmed over it but I think the main point was that they want to make the ISP or Provider pay for the content. Meaning there may only be slightly higher BB bills. But I doubt there will be a whole new subscription added to your bills if you want to actually experience the broadband (Which you're already paying for btw)

/Johnathan

Begbie · 5 Aug 2010 at 15:41

I sometimes wish the internet had never became so popular.

The times of being a geek if you used dial up where much better.

lunarwolf · 5 Aug 2010 at 16:14

how about ISP actually deliver on the speeds they charge and advertise first of all. I have an 8mb sub and only get 4mb in reality. as far as i am concerned this is abuse and should be illegal. so they can take a walk on a short pier before they start charging for "premium" speeds. ofc such additional costs would be passed on to end users.

hominid · 5 Aug 2010 at 16:25

If google/news/whoever web pages start to load so slowly that it affects me then I will just switch to a provider that will give me the service I expect - simple really.

They will soon learn that people will not pay for something that they expect for free, just like the Murdoch paywalls. If their revenue stream doesn't pay for the business then the business must change, they are trying to force the revenue streams to change in an established business - good luck with that.

platypus · 5 Aug 2010 at 16:39

It would set a very dangerous precedent if you ask me.

rypt · 5 Aug 2010 at 16:50

britboy4321 said:
Isn't that like saying 'how is it fair to pay for high octane petrol to go faster, we all pay for normal petrol already - so nothing else should be available. ?

but it's not the same.

I pay my ISP (O2) a certain amount a month to access the internet at the speed that they give me

Google pays their ISP a certain amount a month to access the internet at a certain speed

Why should either of us pay someone else to access the internet, Google pays its ISP, I pay mine.

bam0 · 5 Aug 2010 at 17:00

Telescopi said:
Or pay for the toll road and whizz past everyone queueing on the normal road.

It's no different to anything else, you can even pay to jump the queue if you are ill, people have died waiting even in this country.

My concern would be how it was paid - do you have a premium subscription for Youtube or a premium account with your isp? This is the former but it's far from certain Google would try to pass on the cost to end users.

As a precedent though it could be significant.

This isn't you paying, in your example YouTube would be paying your ISP to prioritise their traffic over that of other websites. Or rather the ISPs are trying to extort money from companies like google to not degrade their traffic.

zzzJonny · 5 Aug 2010 at 23:27

lunarwolf said:
how about ISP actually deliver on the speeds they charge and advertise first of all. I have an 8mb sub and only get 4mb in reality. as far as i am concerned this is abuse and should be illegal. so they can take a walk on a short pier before they start charging for "premium" speeds. ofc such additional costs would be passed on to end users.

Regarding line speeds, most of it is not under their control because of physical reasons like distance affecting attenuation for example; but you are right that ISPs do falsely advertise like "unlimited" with fair usage caps or traffic "shaping".

BigglesPiP · 5 Aug 2010 at 23:35

This is just going to be hugely funny, watch people flock to other ISPs.

Tefal · 5 Aug 2010 at 23:36

BigglesPiP said:
This is just going to be hugely funny, watch people flock to other ISPs.

Verizon are the only provider in large areas of the US.

Berserker · 5 Aug 2010 at 23:51

With few exceptions net neutrality died a long time ago in the UK anyway. How many ISPs do you know who don't traffic-shape?

Dave M · 5 Aug 2010 at 23:52

bam0 said:
This isn't you paying, in your example YouTube would be paying your ISP to prioritise their traffic over that of other websites. Or rather the ISPs are trying to extort money from companies like google to not degrade their traffic.

I doubt google would pass on any cost they incur because it doesn't fit the model they have for youtube (if they indeed do have one atm).

But in most cases you do pay, if that is paying in more adverts, less upgrades or an in your face subscription charge - you pay.

mattmos · 6 Aug 2010 at 01:19

platypus said:
It would set a very dangerous precedent if you ask me.

Quoted for complete agreement. Net neutrality is what has allowed the internet to become what it is, and is well worth preserving. Lets not start chipping away at it.

bam0 · 6 Aug 2010 at 11:36

Telescopi said:
I doubt google would pass on any cost they incur because it doesn't fit the model they have for youtube (if they indeed do have one atm).

But in most cases you do pay, if that is paying in more adverts, less upgrades or an in your face subscription charge - you pay.

You're somewhat missing the point, this is not about the user paying for access to a service, it's about the supplier paying your ISP for preferential treatment in their network (or at least not having their traffic degraded/capped).

For example site A and site B both serve videos and have paid their ISPs for the same level of uplink speed. You're with ISP C and have paid for your usual ADSL2 at 16-20MB, site A has paid ISP C £x to not deprioritise their traffic and you can watch all their videos fine. site B hasn't paid and has traffic coming into ISP C restricted making their videos unwatchable.

This is wrong because but the consumer and the supplier have paid for the network service, for no technological reason you as the consumer can no longer effectively use site B, because of the intervention of an unrelated 3rd party.