Seeing it often nowadays, especially from American sources. What's up with that?
Printable View
Seeing it often nowadays, especially from American sources. What's up with that?
It's an issue of not wanting the Internet bought out by corporations or regulated by the government in any way. Conceptually, it's kind of really important, but at this point I don't think there's much risk of anyone taking over the Internet beyond what's already done. People are addicted to the idea of their freedom, so there's not going to be an overt takeover. And as far as covert takeovers go...
Net neutrality is about seizing private property in the name of "fairness" and dictating the terms of supply to bandwidth providers.
Few days until the bill gets passed. American members on here, call your Representatives :flame:
Don't. It's a trap. Also, your representatives don't care.
Net Neutrality is about removing the ability of ISPs to charge large businesses like Facebook, Youtube, and Netflix for the bandwidth they use. That is why Google, Facebook, etc. have all come out in favor of net neutrality: it is better for their bottom lines. We didn't have slow lanes or fast lanes or blocked websites before internet service became a utility. Anyone who comes out and says that net neutrality is good for you is just propagandizing you into supporting these mammoth net businesses who really don't like paying for the bandwidth they use.
can you support that assertion with economic data?
in other words, I'm curious as to what the actual cost is to ISPs for the disproportionate amount of bandwidth facebook, netflix, etc all take up. my understanding is that the costs associated with data usage are small and are mainly pretense to create an illusion of unfairness via disproportionality, when in fact whether you use 1g or 10tb a month its largely immaterial to the operating costs of ISPs. that said, I don't think net neutrality is particularly good, because I think as soon as it goes away it will introduce competition into the market, so we might see a spike in costs at the onset, but it will eventually balance itself out, unless the industry is monopolized. the entire thing is sort of a fake issue, since whatever happens, there stands to be little actual change from the point of view of the consumer. the only way it could possibly go bad is if ISPs collude so as to essentially rip off consumers, which presumably protections are in place to prevent such a thing
if ISPs want to charge more to power netflix it just means the competing ISP who can charge less for the same service will do so in order to get more customers. If actual cost of supplying bandwidth is low then competition will drive prices down the a point where the cost of netflix tracks its actual usage. if cost is high and net neutrality remains a thing, it means ISPs will be forced out of business if it is an unviable business model [1]. at that point net neutrality will be the death knell of actual internet service, in which case there are 2 options 1) revisit the issue and do away with net neutrality 2) make internet a government subsidized industry. neither is particularly bad. for whatever reason people have decided to make this an ideological issue when its a pretty straightforward non issue with controls already in place to manage it, because the issue is not particularly novel in light of history
in other words, its one of those silly facebook debates people busy themselves with in order to give their lives meaning, but its a pretty trivial issue in reality
[1] if costs are high, but not unviable, it just means ISPs stand to not make a lot of money, which is something they are not entitled to as a matter of right. this comes down to from where do the rights flow, and the "right to gross profits" is not a right that exists. in other words, the possibility of ISP as a business model becoming less profitable over time is a risk any entrepreneur accepts up front. the solution is not to enshrine their desire for profit as a matter of law. it gets the issue precisely backwards, if ISP is a right, its a right that accrues to consumers not business owners hence businesses are not entitled to a profit in order to maintain the service, rather consumers are entitled to internet as if it were a basic utility, which means, like many other basic rights, the profit motive behind it is subject to equal access to members of society. the alternative is to make internet a luxury available only to those who can afford it, which is a bad idea, because society stands to make less money and the economy is less likely to grow, because the internet is a source of education and other benefits which actually does "trickle down" to society, or "trickle up" as it were. in other words, making the internet available at low cost (including netflix) actually creates more long term economic benefit for society than it incurs. even stuff like netflix and facebook, which seem to serve no business purposes on their face, are actually the basis for a zillion transactions but for their existence would not occur. not to mention the "benefit" society attaches to being able to use those mediums that from the point of view of quality of life go directly to the purpose of having an economy to begin with, which is to improve it
in other words, the idea that internet has become so ubiquitous business wants to seem to leverage the population's reliance on it into a legal guarantee of their continued profits for providing the service, when in fact the phenomenon militates toward the need to collectivize the service because it has become so fundamental to society. it seems to me whether net neutrality comes or goes, ultimately society will realize this on a long enough timeline and internet will be rolled into all your other local public utilities, unless it can be provided so cheaply via the market that to do so is redundant
Bill has been introduced today ----> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/4585
The operating costs are not minimal. All the technology involved in those systems requires constant maintenance, monitoring, and support. Also, the technology isn't equal in different areas. For example, latency rates are different between different endpoints across the nation. So, internet is not a fungible commodity. Also, it costs money to improve the networks and make them more efficient.
As far as ISPs not being entitled to money, you must be joking. We don't live in the USSA yet, comrade.
lol stay in school kids
An even better reason. Learn from my country - it has to escalate for real, then you get rid of it and you gain what you want. Bound to happen sooner or later as I see where it is going. The process is natural and cyclic. So you either sit back or get with the programme, makes no difference long-term.
Large software companies that also own a chunk of the internet (think Google, Microsoft) have already taken steps to becoming ISPs by investing in their own infrastructure. The time may well come when new versions of Windows come preloaded with an internet subscription.
Verizon has recently acquired Yahoo, possibly in an effort to enter a market dominated by these and other tech giants. If Verizon et al. are hoping to undercut Google as content providers, their plan to kill the rules might really backfire on them.
Why is this vote occurring exactly a span of 911 weeks from the founding of Verizon? (June 30, 2000 - December 14, 2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQI28hhBFbA&t=
....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Y8xrh7XyI
What a fucking dick this Pai guy is. In the video it's like some warlord shows up to your front door and is like," I may have destroyed your house and taken your family, but hey, at least I let you keep all those cute stuffed animals you love so much, so cheer up bro and thank me for shoving my cock in your throat."
Fuck you, Pai.
It's getting more and more surreal. Don't like where this is going. Hope for congress to step in, otherwise the next president has one hell of a job to destroy this corporate scheme. European media say we could be next.
I'm not predicting anything, but this could be a huge gift to Google if these big ISPs start abusing their powers. Google has an incentive to offer cheap (maybe even free) internet service since the bulk of their revenue comes from content, advertising, and selling your on-line activity to marketers.
EDIT: just checked; yup, they're in the game: https://fiber.google.com/about
It doesn't seem too big a deal. Mostly the issue here is profit - companies will charge you money for faster service (which isn't really an issue, since they're there to make money.)
If it comes down to a question of free speech - a few things on this. There's little financial incentive to offer speed variance on a site hardly anyone accesses. If it's a big deal from a supposed political perspective, then that's also OK - if there's some cult or some 'Russian' propaganda site, making it more difficult to access will only increase it's popularity, something like the martyr effect.
Damn didn’t this guy just joke about being a Verizon Puppet?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...et-at-the-fcc/
Then has a pretend “vote” where his organization gains power exactly a span of 911 (this number sounds familiar) weeks from the founding/naming of Verizon, the joke’s namesake?
Isn’t that joke looking a lot less funny and a lot more Ritualistic?
They said the vote couldn’t be stalled and had to be on that day, but why?
Honestly, I don't think so. In Europe most organizations want to keep net neutrality, at least for wired internet connections.
For mobile data, there is (in Germany) the Deutsche Telekom with the StreamOn option that violates net neutrality already.
The problem without net neutrality is that a few big companys can sponsor your internet access with counteraction to favor data they selected for you.
I see it more as "censorship light" – unlimited data transfer to big companys only; full access to the internet only for people who can afford it.
It's bad for small internet startup companys because they usually can't afford to pay ISP for fast data transport.
Maybe some companys install more servers in other countrys or continents now. Some companys might install mirror servers outside of the USA to save traffic data cost.
P.S.: I loved the days when the internet was for developers and researchers only, and next to no commercials were found on webpages...
Hmm I'm glad I'm not in America and Japanese doesn't know English lol xDDD
Just use a fucking VPN GUYS, connect to countries with less strictions to sites.
https://youtu.be/5uXsCaakZD8
Yeah, I guess that's always an option. But it's still kind of annoying. It's just another way to give corporations monetary controls.
Websites also need an internet connection to let you connect to them.
Any website with American servers will be affected; for that matter, any web traffic, regardless of source or destination, that gets routed through American "pipes" will be open to internet service provider interference-- if you're accessing a Latin American or Canadian website from another part of the world, you may have to use an American conduit.
Looking into this a little more: This is just a big hoo-haa by people who equate neutrality with not having to pay for stuff. Everybody likes free stuff but at the same time companies are quite right to protect themselves from piracy, hacking. Affecting the speed of pirate site is a good way to clamp down on pirated material, and to speed it up, who's going to pay to access an illegal channel? I would not feel comfortable having that showing on my credit card or paypal record, I would instead use a genuine site.
...true. :(
I think most people are okay with a crackdown on illegal stuff...because it's illegal to begin with, even if people disagree on whether the copyright holders are greedy.
But what a lot of people are worried about is throttling and having to pay a premium to access legal websites at reasonable speeds or access them at all. This gives ISPs the opportunity to slowly introduce "packages" that you pay more for to get what you had before. And it won't happen immediately. It'll slowly happen over time. Then they can charge premiums on websites to "allow" good access to their customers.
Of course, none of this matters if there is enough competition in the market to prevent that from happening. But ISPs generally have little competition, since the infrastructure needed requires a lot of money, time, construction, and planning to set up. Wireless and satellite could be good options, but they are incredibly expensive, so that's not viable, plus they have latency problems due to random interference.
I'm really curious if this could effect cryptocurrencies as well, since ISPs could charge their own fees for mining over their networks or outright block and slowdown ones they choose and benefit others they prefer. Especially if it hits a high enough market cap.
edit: oh and if you are worried about being tracked using illegal websites you can use a vpn from a neutral foreign nation that doesn't keep records of anything through their vpn. You can even pay in bitcoin so nothing shows up on a credit card statement. It's fun to be anonymous. Not that I'm encouraging this, but just saying.
These are issues for sure, but if there's premium sites, they'll be looking to liaise with ISPs too, which will affect costing, ie will the Web company foot the bill, the Web hosting company, or the consumer. So it might raise prices for some, but it's not going to affect freedom of speech imo - there's no money to be made in targeting small sites and also the potential backlash - if Mr Joe suspicious thinks 'they' are trying to silence a website, he'll endure the slower Web speed to get his 'pandoras box'.
If it's for TV shows, films, there's ways round this, just let it buffer for a few minutes, even if you can't download it to watch later.
I don't know about bitcoin, I don't know enough about it, but what I hear is that mining even peer to peer gives little rewards even now.
VPNs - afaik they hold your data for 3 months, but how do you pay? By card anyway. I can't think of a reason to use a VPN, other than to watch shows not available in my country due to copyright restrictions. I have to work on my fun :)