The death of Net Neautrality and the Raping of the American Consumer

[useless]

Guys stop complaining, it's the free-market! It's never been wrong has it now?

 

[illram]

No instead they'll do what cable companies do and charge you extra for access to websites like Youtube, Hulu, Amazon, and so forth. This is what they're already planning for real:

The only people who oppose net neutrality are the one's who stand to profit or sado-masochists.

From everything I am reading, this is one of the few good things the "net neutrality" bill does, i.e. prevent charging extra for this kind of website favoritism. (For legal content, of course.)

Look, I dislike anything that gets in the way of a completely unhindered, fast internet regardless of what you're doing, and I am sure there is plenty of stuff wrong in the FCC regs (it's the FCC, do they do anything right??) but we should be accurate in what it is that the regulations do. As it stands, I doubt anyone is precisely sure on what these regulations will do and what they actually mean, but they do provide some general guidelines and it seems that discriminating amongst legal content providers by a pay to play system is one of the things the regs intend to prevent. Which is good.

I do agree, on the other hand, that if there is any loophole they will attempt to run a mack truck through it, and the loopholes of "reasonable" restrictions on bandwidth management seems to the big question mark, as well as how they will define "lawful" content.

 

[negZero]

From everything I am reading, this is one of the few good things the "net neutrality" bill does, i.e. prevent charging extra for this kind of website favoritism. (For legal content, of course.)

Okay gotta ask, are the bad things your reading on this?

 

[illram]

What?

 

[FriendlyFire]

From everything I am reading, this is one of the few good things the "net neutrality" bill does, i.e. prevent charging extra for this kind of website favoritism. (For legal content, of course.)

You do know theres a great huge loophole in this right ?

As ISP can shape access speeds at will. An ISP can legally reduce say WOW to 1 baud speed making it completely unplayable or say BlackOp making it impossible to connect to any server since your ping is too high and is automaticly rejected.

Technically their not "blocking" access and its perfectly legal. Dont like it ? pay up.

 

[illram]

The ISP can't "shape access speeds" at will. That's the point of the regulation.

 

[negZero]

Look, I dislike anything that gets in the way of a completely unhindered, fast internet regardless of what you're doing, and I am sure there is plenty of stuff wrong in the FCC regs (it's the FCC, do they do anything right??) but we should be accurate in what it is that the regulations do. As it stands, I doubt anyone is precisely sure on what these regulations will do and what they actually mean, but they do provide some general guidelines and it seems that discriminating amongst legal content providers by a pay to play system is one of the things the regs intend to prevent. Which is good.

Actually we do know what this regulation does and how it affect people. Now you could say the general population doesn't know or care about this issue but people who visit /. and other tech people know this stuff forward and backwards. This is ISPs trying the best to keep there "unlimited 10Mbps" plans without investing in the infrastructure to actual support them and make a lot more money.

I do agree, on the other hand, that if there is any loophole they will attempt to run a mack truck through it, and the loopholes of "reasonable" restrictions on bandwidth management seems to the big question mark, as well as how they will define "lawful" content.

The entire thing is can of worms of bad wording from people that don't understand how technology work which allow the ISPs to charge extra for anything they deem more demanding on there network. Which is about everything in the opinion especially since they be forced to support IPv6 soon.

The ISP can't "shape access speeds" at will. That's the point of the regulation.

Actually they can and they have. Comcast has already been caught doing this to anything use Bittorrent (yes people there legal reasons to use it), though you can't pay extra yet to get this throttling to stop.

 

[cardgame]

This kind of sh- excrement is one reason I disadvise anyone to use Comcast.

 

[negZero]

This kind of sh- excrement is one reason I disadvise anyone to use Comcast.

In perfect world where people have choice on ISP that would work. However Comcast and others have monopoly in the majority of America & Canada allowing them to do as they please.

 

[illram]

Actually we do know what this regulation does and how it affect people.

Says the guy who just admitted being wrong about what the regs actually do, on the previous page of the thread no less.

All we know is generalities. I have not read the regs. Have you? Yes, the FCC is a bloated bureaucracy that does not understand technology. Yes, the regulations are flawed. All I am saying (futile, I know) is people should take a brief step back from the ledge. This is not the end of the internet. These regulations do not allow (in fact they specifically prevent) the kind of unhindered, pay to play content restrictions people seem to be discussing. Yes, comcast and other ISPs will try and do whatever they can to keep their business model thriving. Yes, allowing reasonable restrictions for the purposes of managing bandwidth is a loophole that companies will likely try and abuse. We can all speculate, but we don't know what, in the end, any of this will actually mean.

And Yes, Comcast got caught throttling bittorrent. And do you remember who tried to stop Comcast from doing that? The FCC...

What people should be concerned about is net neutrality is dead on wireless networks under these regulations. When you consider how much more wireless internet via cellphone providers such as Verizon and AT&T will dominate the market in the years to come, (e.g., iPads, smartphones and the integration of 4G and future iterations of mobile internet into everything) this should be more concerning.

 

[GamezRule]

Comcast and others have monopoly

Do we need to bring out the definition of Monopoly?

 

[negZero]

Says the guy who just admitted being wrong about what the regs actually do, on the previous page of the thread no less.

No I gave example of what the ISPs want that hasn't yet been passed. They are still pushing for this to come to pass.

All we know is generalities. I have not read the regs. Have you? Yes, the FCC is a bloated bureaucracy that does not understand technology. Yes, the regulations are flawed. All I am saying (futile, I know) is people should take a brief step back from the ledge.

Again this argument has been happen for 8 years people people know what the ISPs want, wording they use to pass and what it means. With this now getting by and courts ruling that FFC don't have legal authority to slap net neutrality regulation on ISPs.

This is not the end of the internet. These regulations do not allow (in fact they specifically prevent) the kind of unhindered, pay to play content restrictions people seem to be discussing.

It is known fact that ISPs are throttling Bittorrent regardless of its usage even through it is protocol that is used for numerous legal reason outside of downloading copyrighted material.

Yes, comcast and other ISPs will try and do whatever they can to keep their business model thriving. Yes, allowing reasonable restrictions for the purposes of managing bandwidth is a loophole that companies will likely try and abuse. We can all speculate, but we don't know what, in the end, any of this will actually mean.

Again people have caught ISPs throttling entire protocol just because it puts to much on there underdeveloped network.

And Yes, Comcast got caught throttling bittorrent. And do you remember who tried to stop Comcast from doing that? The FCC...

Actually no the customers caught them first, then FCC stepped in and failed big.

What people should be concerned about is net neutrality is dead on wireless networks under these regulations. When you consider how much more wireless internet via cellphone providers will dominate the market in the years to come, this should be more concerning.

The reason why people aren't concerned with it being dead in wireless networks is because wireless doesn't make up the last-mile. Plus there are whole alot of other things wrong with North America cellphone market.

Do we need to bring out the definition of Monopoly?

monopoly ((economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller) "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"

The are majority of Americans only have access to one ISP where they live, meaning that ISP can charge as they please in that region. Note many ISPs are built on different bigger ISP so if big ISP starts charging the smaller ISP more money your rates go up. Example of this can be seen in Canada there are only 2 independent ISPs (Bell & Rogers) everyone else must pay them at one point, yes even wireless ISPs since they have to use there last-mile to provide there service.

 

[Tacitusitis]

YouTube degrades quality and megaupload/rapidshare have filesize limits. Just sayin'

Youtube has added higher-definition formats. That trend will continue. The upload sites have limits, but you can use splitter programs to divide anything into ok-size chunks.

My point is that illegal copyright violation on the Internet continues basically unabated and is both more widespread and more convenient for the average user than it was in 1999.

If you know the right keywords to google you can find a .flv copy of any movie and watch it. Virtually all music is online. The other day I downloaded all 6 LOST soundtracks to my hard drive, it took minutes to find download links.

 

[negZero]

My point is that illegal copyright violation on the Internet continues basically unabated and is both more widespread and more convenient for the average user than it was in 1999.

Kazaa, limewire, winmx, ares, mininova, eDonkey, basically MAFIAA has shown that they can shut down anyone now a days with ease there are only a few that can still stand up to them and the rest bend over backwards to keep them happy (Youtube). The funny part is Anime studios are loving this since there products are being freely marketed to audience they would never have access too. In

 

[GamezRule]

I know what you meant, you just worded it weird.

 

[negZero]

I know what you meant, you just worded it weird.

Well its very strange way to obtain monopoly that people thought would never happen.

 

[civ_king]

Try 1968. After that companies like Xerxo spent the 70s trying to get one with a home computer, by the time the 80s got around it started to become a standard goal to release a product that uses a mouse and GUI with all you need is a point and click.

Alot of computers ideas are older then what most people think.




And with this law passed they just legalize rape and abuse when it comes to the internet.

No I mean it was "magical" and "revolutionary"

 

[JerichoHill]

Monopoly only works when there are no rivalrous products.

(i dont think that holds here)

 

[negZero]

Monopoly only works when there are no rivalrous products.

(i dont think that holds here)

It does with the last-mile and in parts of America where there is only 1 ISP, this is the situation for most of America. Also Canada is good example of 2 ISP holding monopoly together without hurting the other.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

It does with the last-mile and in parts of America where there is only 1 ISP, this is the situation for most of America. Also Canada is good example of 2 ISP holding monopoly together without hurting the other.

There are only 2 ISPs here. Funny thing is, there used to be a telephone company that held a legal monopoly. And you had to rent phones from them. They disappeared a few years after I was born so I dont remember it too well but until recently you could still see their logo on microwave towers and payphones around town