Net Neutrality ...

Discussion in 'Legislative and Regulatory Issues' started by SayWhat?, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Yes, for consumers it's downhill.
    Yes, for consumers it's likely to be similar to the time when C-band open feeds slowly disappeared and create-your-own package options became package options: not-very-expensive, expensive, very-expensive, outrageously-expensive. Then the international media conglomerates bought up most channels after creating a number of their own. And just like most of this forum's members won't read this thread, within a decade most Americans will think Netflix, HULU+, etc., at $43.99 a month each is outrageous not because of Comcast, Disney, News Corp, etc., and the government but because of Netfix management. And they certainly won't think it's their fault because they thought the important issues in the 2014 Congressional elections were gay rights and Obamacare and voted accordingly.

    But international conglomerates are just greedy selfish persons too....
     
  2. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    From FCC says don’t convict it just yet, it’s not killing net neutrality:

    Yeah, right. He's got to do some explaining to other FCC members over drinks at the club. :nono2:

    Tom Wheeler, Chairman: Term expires in 2018. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). He was a Democratic Party nominee.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    392
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Yeah, that's goofy logic.

    Saying essentially "ISPs can charge for faster access to some services" and acting as if that's a different statement than "ISPs can slow down services that don't pay more"...

    It's the same thing.

    If Netflix has to pay for faster access... then only if they pay every ISP will it "equal" out across all customers... and even then, the customers will end up paying more for Netflix as Netflix has to raise prices to account for that... meanwhile the ISPs aren't reducing costs to customers due to the influx of new revenue from this... so in the end, consumers lose.

    We aren't talking long-distance vs local phone calls... in the olden days where long distance cost substantially more to consumers but it did at least require more infrastructure to implement...

    This would be like if it cost more for you to call your local Pizza delivery guy than it cost to call the local grocery store.... but there was a promise that the clarity of the call to the Pizza guy would be better and would have less random disconnections.
     
  4. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,387
    1,746
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It is not supposed to be the same thing. The FCC does not want the latter - intentionally slowing down services that don't pay more. The FCC would like ISPs to treat companies that don't pay more the same as they should be treated today - neutrally - data is data with no slow down placed on certain sites.

    The new priority service should be offered in a way that does not affect the current regular service. For example, Netflix placing server mirrors on an ISP's network or paying for a high capacity pipe between the servers and that ISP's network. Such treatment will improve Netflix's offering to their customers using that ISP - but it does not lower the service level given to other content providers. (It may end up improving service as the "normal" pipe is not clogged with Netflix traffic and can be used for other services.)

    In the FCC's view providing a better connection is OK ... but providing a higher internal QoS (quality of service) for a fee would be bad.
     
  5. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    392
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    And yet, to the end-user it's the same thing. That's why it is a screwy semantic way of making regulations. The next (or perhaps already happening) step is to make sure the regular pipe is slow.

    Think...

    This is like having a line at the store... then having a "priority customer" line where you can pay more for a shorter line with faster service.

    The problem is... eventually this evolves not just to be a priority customer fast lane BUT the normal line becomes slower, in part to encourage you to join the priority line... they just stop trying with the normal line and say "well, you could pay for the priority line"..

    That's the way this thing will evolve too.
     
  6. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    49,387
    1,746
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It would be much easier to discuss the topic, Net Neutrality, than to try to shoot down some strawman comparison.
     
  7. yosoyellobo

    yosoyellobo Icon

    2,948
    223
    Nov 1, 2006
    Jacksonville Fl
    In ten years I would have no problem paying $43.99 a month for my viewing needs.
     
  8. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Maybe, but what is being sorted out right now is "exclusive" licensing for content. One could easily end up having to subscribe to four "bundlers" at $43.99 each to watch the shows you want to see. Somehow I think there is every possibility it won't look to our budgets any different than the cable packages we're faced with right now. Of course that's a prediction 10 years out, so maybe they'll be sending it straight to our brains.
     
  9. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    392
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    We're kind of forced into trying to find examples because the whole naming "net neutrality" is vague. It doesn't seem to mean what the two words usually mean, when associated with the FCC and the internet.
     
  10. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    22,011
    250
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
  11. peds48

    peds48 Genius.

    20,073
    1,072
    Jan 10, 2008
    NY
    Awesome, let's hope this is for the better.
     
  12. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    The devil is always in the details and always is an office holder speaking in sound bites. From SiliconBeat on SiliconValley.com, the Silicon Valley Mercury News tech website

    The "fast lane" metaphor is almost correct. Imagine an existing one-lane highway. Traffic has slowed to a crawl because it is quadruple what the lane can effectively carry. So "they" build a toll-road fast lane. Only to be sure it works for those who will pay the toll, the fast lane is six-vehicles wide and "they" paint some dots along the full length showing drivers that it is wide so you can go around slower drivers using it. But only if you pay the toll.

    "They" didn't block the slow lane. "They" didn't slow the slow lane. In fact "they" are required to allow more and more traffic on the slow lane. And "they" will be happy to take the toll from any driver who wants to use the fast lane.

    And that's exactly the spin Wheeler offers in his letter: "I will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service." The companies aren't forcing users into anything. And they are creating a superior service for those who are willing to pay for locating and maintaining dedicated servers inside their infrastructure.

    All that means is that if the movie you want to see is through Netflix which pays the ISP's for those dedicated servers, you will get sufficient speed. If the movie is through a small, independent source that can't afford to pay every ISP ...well ... remember you weren't forced into the slow lane when you see this:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    It's a good article. Her description of the financial battle that's going on is excellent. And you get a complete picture of the economic environment in which the regulators are supposed to be functioning.

    But in a sense, she has avoided the thorny question I ask: "What does it all mean for me?"

    None of the players, including the FCC, discussed in the article prints money - the Federal Reserve isn't involved. All of the players, including the FCC, get their money from me and you. That includes Netflix and Comcast, both of whom pretend the extra costs are only of concern to the corporation's cash drawer.

    It's my money that pays the ISP charge and the Netflix membership. And I do not want my money used in a way that gives priority to wealthy major corporations.

    I don't care if Netflix is used by millions of Americans. I do not want my money used to build infrastructure to give Netflix traffic priority over the 10 Best Free Movie Streaming Sites. If after I'm dead one of my granddaughters experiences a period of "tight money" in her life, even if she has to put up with ads, I want to be sure that she can access those free sites and receive the packets of data at exactly the same speed that the richer family on the other side of town gets packets from Netflix.

    This is really the turning point as far as I'm can tell. Do we treat the ISP company like a pre-1980 regulated copper wire phone company required to provide essentially the same service to everyone at carefully regulated prices? Or do we treat them like the 2014 cellular phone companies that provide crappy service in my area but provide good service in other areas and great service in wealthy suburban communities using a pricing structure that excludes those with low incomes from many services?

    It is too easy to get bogged down in the technology and financial issues and lose sight of the socioeconomic implications.
     
  14. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,297
    389
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    And the fun story today is from here:

     
  15. Joe Tylman

    Joe Tylman Legend

    368
    55
    Dec 13, 2012
  16. mkdtv21

    mkdtv21 Legend

    424
    19
    May 27, 2007
    So could someone here answer these simple questions for me who doesn't feel like reading huge articles and documents about an explanation. Now that it looks like net neutrality is official.

    Will there no longer be bandwidth caps on isp's or cell phone providers?

    Will internet prices increase?

    Will innovation and infrastructure upgrades happen less?

    Will Internet speeds decrease?
     
  17. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,626
    392
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Those aren't simple questions.

    Not being a smart-ass, seriously, those aren't simple questions with or without net neutrality.
     
  18. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    7,138
    630
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    And any answer would be pure speculation.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall