|
Considering Net Neutrality, as law, didn't exist before 2015, I'm wondering why people are terrified of the internet becoming what it was for the majority of its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
Might be due to the fact that there were no proposals to limit access in those days for the sake of more revenues.
By your argumentation, we do not need protection for any criminal activity, since that was the way things were before laws.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Limit what access? The only I've seen that comes close is the Netflix/Comcast fight.
Frankly, if I were running an internet service and one particular site was hogging all the bandwidth, effectively blocking my other customers, I'd want to charge the culprit more, too. Or just block him completely.
And the oversight isn't going away, anyway. It's shifting to the FTC, where it really belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
Some business depend on very low latencies - stock trading being one.
Companies currently move geographically so that they can have lower latencies in trading.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
was a long time ago but even years back I remember NY stock trading companies all wanted to be hosted right in the same exchange as the NYSE - of course space was limited but they'd pay a fortune for the privilege (or pay an even bigger fortune and buy out somebody that was already there.)
But that raises the point, those stock traders have got endless supplies of money, and with governments auctioning wireless bandwidths surely they can finance their own network.
Or are we going with the money rules theory that only people driving Mercedes AMG or better should be allowed in the fast lane?
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
The prime difference being in your situation you are a SERVICE provider. You do not regulate internet business. You do not regulate market viability. This is exactly what removing net neutrality allows.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the argument isn't that one site hogs all of an ISPs bandwidth. It is more that all of your customers want to use their allotted connection to access a particular site, and you tell the site to cough up the money or else you'll slow the delivery of their data to said customers.
So the first two aren't pure Net neutrality, but goes to pattern.
Verizon blocking Google Wallet while they worked on their own similar product (2011)
AT&T blocking Facetime over cellular for users with unlimited plans (2012)
Comcast using packet forging to disrupt BitTorrent traffic (2007)
Comcast throttling all BitTorrent traffic (2008)
AT&T exempting AT&T owned DirectTV from data caps for cell customers, but charging other similar services (2016)
Verizon throttling all video traffic* (2017)
* Verizon claims this was for network management. My reply is that I pay for X data speed. It doesn't matter what I use it for, so long as it is legal don't touch it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yet it has existed in the US in regulatory form since 2004. The only reason it even came into being as a concept is because the ISPs started doing exactly the sort of shady things that we know they'll do when it gets revoked.
Net neutrality is why the internet has grown in such an exponential fashion; if you can't see that then I have nothing for you.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Benjamin Disraeli
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any chance revoking Net neutrality will kill off Twitter and Facebook? Because let's be honest, it might just be the best thing for western civilization.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be exactly the other way around.
They would be the only ones able to pay for being connected everywhere, all the small ones would be blocked everywhere except on their own ISP.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the current Net neutrality rules were not in effect when Facebook and Twitter were born and became giants I'm not sure how you can be so sure. Seems like we're doing a little "Minority Report" here, no?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's simply because they have enough money.
Comcast vs Netflix has already shown the way.
They want to charge at both ends.
A better solution would be to charge the enduser per GB, but that won't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: No, it's simply because they have enough money.
I'm confused. When Twitter and Facebook first started they were poor start-ups - no different from today's start-ups. At the time there were no Net neutrality rules... yet they thrived. IMHO it's silly to claim that start-ups cannot compete without these rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Before the internet, computers didn't get regular security updates, and they survived. So why do we need them now? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
False comparison and it's also untrue.
Untrue because we did need regular security updates before the internet. Viruses and hacks existed before the internet - they spread via internal networks, floppy disks, etc...
False comparison because hackers are criminals while US based ISP's are legal companies operating in a free market economy.
Personally I'd prefer my government keep it's hands out of things and let the free market do its magic until it's actually proven that regulation is required.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, clear something up for me.
Do you believe that ISPs were doing the kind of blocking/throttling that's forbidden by Net Neutrality laws before those laws were introduced, and that poor start-ups like Facebook and Twitter thrived despite that?
Or do you believe that the ISPs who are spending a lot of time and money campaigning to revoke Net Neutrality laws are not intending to do that kind of blocking/throttling once the laws are revoked?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Do you believe that ISPs were doing the kind of blocking/throttling that's forbidden by Net Neutrality laws before those laws were introduced, and that poor start-ups like Facebook and Twitter thrived despite that?
I believe that ISPs will have no need or desire to block / throttle small start-up traffic because it will be inconsequential. I believe the folks pushing that story are fear mongering.
Richard Deeming wrote: Or do you believe that the ISPs who are spending a lot of time and money campaigning to revoke Net Neutrality laws are not intending to do that kind of blocking/throttling once the laws are revoked?
I believe that I'd like the free market economy to be given a chance to deal with any issues before involving the government. ISPs may do any number of things, but unlike the government which can hide their actions in red tape the tech community will be able to "out" any ISP blocking / throttling quite easily and businesses & the public will be able to take their ISP business elsewhere or shame the ISP in the court of public opinion.
I believe that western societies are fast becoming nanny states that want their governments to cater to their every whim and I believe that this in itself is detrimental to our long term success.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I believe that ISPs will have no need or desire to block / throttle small start-up traffic because it will be inconsequential.
That's a very optimistic view.
I believe it's highly unlikely they would be campaigning to have the laws revoked if they weren't planning on doing things that are currently forbidden by those laws.
And the concern is not so much about throttling traffic to small sites, but the idea that they might start charging sites to be included in their standard bundle, as cable TV providers do. In which case, only the large sites would be able to afford to pay, and most users wouldn't be able to access the smaller sites. Only those who paid for the "unlimited" bundle would be able to reach beyond the ISP's walled garden.
But as you say, that's just speculation. I'm sure the accountants aren't currently rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of gouging both ends of the pipe for extra cash.
I mean, it's not like large ISPs can't be trusted, right?
Are you aware? Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of ... - Xfinity Help and Support Forums[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: I mean, it's not like large ISPs can't be trusted, right?
I personally can change my ISP or drop internet service all together if my ISP gets out of line. Much more difficult (ie. almost impossible) for me personally to change my government.
I trust neither...
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: I personally can change my ISP or drop internet service all together if my ISP gets out of line.
Maybe I've misunderstood, but I got the impression that large parts of the USA don't have that choice; that there's only a single ISP serving each area. 
Of course, dropping internet service would still be possible. But I suspect many of the younger generation would rather put up with a crappy ISP than go off-line. How would they ever find out what idiotic things their friends have been doing if they couldn't poke them on TwitFaceGram? 
Mike Mullikin wrote: I trust neither...
A wise decision.  
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: large parts of the USA don't have that choice; that there's only a single ISP serving each area.
Geographically... yes. Population wise... no. Look at a population map of the US and you see huge concentrations in the cities and along the coasts. It's common to have high speed internet from cable TV providers, telephone providers and independent ISPs in these areas. Google Fiber is expanding to many of the big cities and will continue to do so. If you live in rural Idaho you're probably f***ed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't see Net neutrality as a non-issue. I just prefer we let it play out a bit more before jumping to conclusions and involving the government.
One last point: When (if ever) was the last time you said "Wow! The government did a great job on this. Really nailed it. Exceeded my expectations!" For me the answer is never... not once in 54 years. Yet once or twice a year I can say it about some product or service I buy from a business.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: When (if ever) was the last time you said "Wow! The government did a great job on this. Really nailed it. Exceeded my expectations!"
Have you seen the omnishambles that claims to be the UK government these days?
Never mind a brewery - this lot couldn't organize a piss-up in a beer festival!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Net neutrality is what we mostly have now, you pay for your connection (and speed) and the ISP has nothing to say about what you do on the net.
This is part reason why small startups can quickly thrive.
Some ISPs, (read the large ones having local defacto monopolies) want to charge money at both ends, and will effectively control what you do or watch if there is no net neutrality. Imagine that your ISP has political opinions and they set the cost differently for CNN or Fox and you end up on the wrong end of your own opinions.
It would be a bit going back to the walled garden of Compuserve if you remember them, but a lot worse.
|
|
|
|
|
All very scary and all very hypothetical.
I'd much prefer we let the free market have a chance before we let the heavy hand of government (which can also show blatant bias) control the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
That's assuming you have a free market. But you hardly have a selection of cable companies to choose from do you?
Do you remember why AT&T we're split up in 11 parts where the most important part was to split service providers from cable providers?
The reason was and still is that the market doesn't work on monopolies.
The cable companies only task is to provide profits to the owners.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
