End of net neutrality

Sounds fair to me, or am i missing something?

Would it not just be like megaupload (i think thats what its called) where you pay more to have it download faster?
 
COULD pass costs onto consumers but looks to be a a deal to allow corporations to pay ISPs to serve their content quicker.

Not consumers pay to get content quicker.
 
The objective of net neutrality makes sense, but if corporations want to strike deals such as these I do not see a huge issue.

As long as 'normal' access is not restricted then anyone can pay for whatever they want.
 
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. ?
Click to expand...

No, it's like saying that if you want to pay for it you can have blue lights and get priority over everyone else.
 
Something that may happen. You may at some point have to pay extra for high value content delivery. I‘ll wait and see how this pans out as it will be playing for a long time. It may well come to nothing for end users.
 
Or if you want to pay you can use a toll road....

Nothing necessarily needs to change for existing users. ISPs have been doing tiering for decades as well as traffic shaping or having users pay for unshaped traffic. Arguably that is worse.
 
Neodite said:
Sounds fair to me, or am i missing something?

Would it not just be like megaupload (i think thats what its called) where you pay more to have it download faster?
Click to expand...

Not quite, if you wish to pay for extra services over the internet thats fine, this is about restricting access. A hypothetical example of this issue is say BT sign a contract with google, all search engine traffic must go google unless you purchase a higher internet package (if even provided - They will be no obligation to) which allows access to other search engines.

More idiots thinking up problems which don't exist to get money which also doesn't exist :facepalm:. What next, higher tier internet packages which allow for international internet access?
 
The reason it's unfair is that high profile sites like Youtube already pay their Internet connectivity bills with their ISPs. The users already pay their Internet connectivity bills with their ISPs. The users ISPs are then bitching because their networks are too slow to handle the traffic, so rather than re-negotiating their peering arrangements with the Youtube ISPs, they are attempting to charge Youtube directly.
 
Strict "net nuetrality" is and has, as I understand it never happened - ping requests for example get dropped much earlier than most traffic as they are very low priority ;)

I don't have any problems with the basic idea that some traffic gets priority - if you're a gamer would you prefer your ISP to treat mr Idownloa20filmsaday's torrent traffic with the same priority as your games traffic, when the reality is that the torrent traffic could be put at a very slightly lower priority and give a massive boost to the other types of traffic that are much more time sensitive...(drop a couple of percent of torrent traffic and most isp's would have masses more capacity for things like games, VOIP etc).
 
Werewolf said:
Strict "net nuetrality" is and has, as I understand it never happened - ping requests for example get dropped much earlier than most traffic as they are very low priority ;)

I don't have any problems with the basic idea that some traffic gets priority - if you're a gamer would you prefer your ISP to treat mr Idownloa20filmsaday's torrent traffic with the same priority as your games traffic, when the reality is that the torrent traffic could be put at a very slightly lower priority and give a massive boost to the other types of traffic that are much more time sensitive...(drop a couple of percent of torrent traffic and most isp's would have masses more capacity for things like games, VOIP etc).
Click to expand...

But would you want your games traffic slowed down because someone is streaming from Youtube and Google has paid for priority but your games server hasn't?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
No, it's like saying that if you want to pay for it you can have blue lights and get priority over everyone else.
Click to expand...

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.
 
KNiVES said:
How the hell is it fair? We all pay our ISPs every month already!
Click to expand...

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users.
Click to expand...

Guessing you didn't actually read the article? It's for companies to pay. Which might lead to customers paying higher charges to their ISPs.

You're not going to be forking money over to google and your ISP.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
But would you want your games traffic slowed down because someone is streaming from Youtube and Google has paid for priority but your games server hasn't?
Click to expand...

What difference is that to today though? Right now if you play an onilne game and someone starts watching iPlayer or a HD Youtube video then your game ping does increase and you experience rubber banding.

This joint effort by Verizon and Google won't change anything for the worse in that respect.
 
I think the main point is that the internet providers could be paid out to effectively censor certain websites by slowing them down to a halt while other major businesses can pay to guarantee that people will turn to them for accessible web pages and this would start to kill the fact that small blogs and so on cannot be viewed equally so that the web starts to lose its freedom and neutrality, instead having bias for certain content.

My opinion is... well, we won't know yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom