FCC Moves To Kill Net Neutrality — Now What?

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,037
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Net Neutrality is what stops ISP's from cherry picking Internet content and blocking your access to the rest, ISP's are desperate to formulate a business model like that of Pay Per View TV, only with the Internet you can have it both ways, Internet content creators pay the ISP to stream their content to their customers who in turn also pay the ISP for 'per view access' to it, another example of profit for the select few uber alles, government's also love it because in that way they can also control what information you have access to.

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/11/27/net-neutrality-repeal
 
Mynight said:
Wonder how long before we follow suit.
Click to expand...

Its inevitable. The political and commercial will for it in this country is just as insane, it will be reasoned under the 'Child protection and terrorism' banner and everyone will wave it through because no one will stand in the way of anti terror and child protection policies.
 
People will find ways around it, they always find a way.

Also, I suppose if not enough people subscribe to those models as a stance against it, then surely they can't continue with it and just disband it.
 
mrk said:
People will find ways around it, they always find a way.

Also, I suppose if not enough people subscribe to those models as a stance against it, then surely they can't continue with it and just disband it.
Click to expand...

In many parts of America individual companies have a monopoly on fast internet access with extensive lobbying at local levels to keep other providers out. These providers could, and regularly do charge more money for poor service, have no incentive to reduce prices or keep their investment working. Here is a good example of a provider being forced to reduce prices when Google Fiber moved into a city where they previously had a monopoly. The FCC even says so in one of their own reports. If Verizon or AT&T or Comcast want to introduce this and they're your only choice for fast internet access, you're **** out of luck. Suck it up, pay an extra $10 for the Netflix/Amazon Prime fast lane all while your Netflix sub goes up by $5 because the providers are also charging Netflix too.

OFCOM may be seen by some as relatively toothless but they do, and consistently have, come down on anti-competitive companies where they believe consumers aren't benefiting. Indeed BT Retail was handicapped for a long time, over a decade AFAIK in order to improve competition. I can't see anything like this happening here, but it is scary that it's happening over there and the majority aren't aware, don't think it will affect them or don't care, because capitalism and anything is for **********, ********, socialists or Commies.
 
A little early, the vote isn't until 14th December.

All signs are pointing towards it happening this time, but there's a way to go yet.

Hotwired said:
Depends. Unlike the USA we have a large variety of ISPs.
Click to expand...

Not really. BT own the LLU infrastructure, and then there's Virgin Media. FTTP is a way off yet, and even so I'd wager this bill will go further than just ISPs. Companies and sites will take full advantage of this money making opportunity too, this bill will do more than just change ISPs. It will reshape and monetise the entire Internet in a trickle down fashion, globally.
 
randal said:
A little early, the vote isn't until 14th December.

All signs are pointing towards it happening this time, but there's a way to go yet.



Not really. BT own the LLU infrastructure, and then there's Virgin Media. FTTP is a way off yet, and even so I'd wager this bill will go further than just ISPs. Companies and sites will take full advantage of this money making opportunity too, this bill will do more than just change ISPs. It will reshape and monetise the entire Internet in a trickle down fashion, globally.
Click to expand...

Openreach own the LLU, not BT Retail. There are dozens of small ISPs that sell services using the Openreach infrastructure and they could (and would) find a niche to work around this model. The big players (BT retail, VM etc) might implement something like this, but that doesn't mean that the smaller operators will.
 
Gotta love how something that would cause mass outrage if it were applied to the postal system is perfectly fine when its on the internet.

All i can see this acheiving is pushing the download/streaming users from the big legal sites to smaller independant (read pirated) options who arent big enough to be on the isp's money finding radar.

I suppose theyre annoyed at the explosion of cheap/free video streaming hammering their services recently
 
Sorry, I meant BT OpenReach when I said BT.

Maybe not at first, but I can see LLU base costs going up along with BT retail's prices which in turn would make it challenging for a smaller idealistic ISP with good intentions to keep afloat. Even if they did manage it, LLU speeds are fairly limited so would people want to drop from their Net Hostile ISP's speeds for 350-400MBps down to FTTC or lower speeds.

If this happens **** sandwich gets served over here too, I truly hope you're right that we would see a new net neutral breed of ISPs rise however I think the way forward might be a meshed or overlaid network.
 
Hotwired said:
Depends. Unlike the USA we have a large variety of ISPs.
Click to expand...
Yep, I only have one option for my internet. It's a local company who's office is less than a 10 minute drive away in a small building shared with the police, fire and local electric company. They have 1 or 2 customer service reps so you know the person on the other end of the phone and you can pop in to pick up gear if the router or cable box breaks and people usually come out same/next day if you have an issue you need to get an engineer out for. It's great, however, I'd be screwed if they started charging for individual services.

This Net Neutrality repeal will also make services like Netflix go up in price as they'd have to pay the ISPs for the faster 'lines' and the cost would be passed on to the end users.

The only people that this benefits are the big CEOs. I honestly can't think of one person outside of that that this will benefit.
 
Comcast supposedly removed their pledge not to monitise/prioritise lanes the day Pai announced it back in April. We all know exactly what's going to happen (plus they have already passes a law where ISPs can sell their customer's data without consent).
 
MissChief said:
In many parts of America individual companies have a monopoly on fast internet access with extensive lobbying at local levels to keep other providers out. These providers could, and regularly do charge more money for poor service, have no incentive to reduce prices or keep their investment working. Here is a good example of a provider being forced to reduce prices when Google Fiber moved into a city where they previously had a monopoly. The FCC even says so in one of their own reports. If Verizon or AT&T or Comcast want to introduce this and they're your only choice for fast internet access, you're **** out of luck. Suck it up, pay an extra $10 for the Netflix/Amazon Prime fast lane all while your Netflix sub goes up by $5 because the providers are also charging Netflix too.

OFCOM may be seen by some as relatively toothless but they do, and consistently have, come down on anti-competitive companies where they believe consumers aren't benefiting. Indeed BT Retail was handicapped for a long time, over a decade AFAIK in order to improve competition. I can't see anything like this happening here, but it is scary that it's happening over there and the majority aren't aware, don't think it will affect them or don't care, because capitalism and anything else is for **********, ********, socialists or Commies.
Click to expand...


HAHA! Lib-tards and snow-flakes are censored!
 
That's the same as Broadband and FTTC speeds, different tiers. You don't pay more to send something to a retailer because they use the postal network more than others and congest it.
 
Nasher said:
Thing is the ISP that DOESN'T do it will hoover up all the business. So it could be more profitable to keep neutrality.
Click to expand...

This would be fine if there was choice over which ISP you use in the US. In many areas people only have one option. There's no way to vote with your feet.
 
I can just see it happening - all of our browsing history (except MP's of course) will be made publicly available to everyone in an attempt to "make the internet safe" again.
 
Streaming Media companies must be very concerned, Netflix could find themselves in the “slow lane” pretty quick, the only options I can see is

1. Netflix Have to pay ISPs do deliver their traffic unmolested

2. Consumer has to pay more to their ISP to deliver their traffic unmolested

Ugly!
 
HEADRAT said:
Streaming Media companies must be very concerned, Netflix could find themselves in the “slow lane” pretty quick, the only options I can see is

1. Netflix Have to pay ISPs do deliver their traffic unmolested

2. Consumer has to pay more to their ISP to deliver their traffic unmolested

Ugly!
Click to expand...

Yep, ISPs in the UK won't oppose this as it's a potential money spinner for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom