Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality Rules
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VanGosroth
 Posts: 299 |
|
|||||
|
>> In the hear 2025
>> Open up Microsoft Firefox >> Ad pops up >> "You may skip this ad and return to the internet in 20 seconds" >> Click skip as soon as I can >> go to netflix to watch Sailor Moon "20th anniversary" series that just came out this year >> You have exceeded the bandwidth of streaming for this month. Add more bandwith for just 20.00 dollars? >> Click No. >> Ad pops up. It's a 3 minute unskippable ad for Walmart's new Motion Picture Department's latest movie. >> Ad finishes >> Log onto ANN to check some news >> The page loads with nothing but text as to not incur high bandwidth costs on both ends. >> Log off. Build time machine and go back in time with some winning lottery numbers in hand. >> Win lottery. Start up ISP. >> 2014 comes along. Tell Comcast and everyone to GTFO. VanGosroth Communications supports net neutrality. >>Make billions. |
||||||
|
||||||
GiriOni
 Posts: 218 |
|
|||||
|
Not liking this. This is not fun.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
ajr
Posts: 465 |
|
|||||
|
I'm of mixed opinions on this. First, the "net neutrality" moniker is fancy packaging for more rules on how a business can run it's own, well, business. I'm against that on general principles; if you don't like their practices, go get internet elsewhere. Wherein lies the problem, as (as I understand it) most cable companies operate as local monopolies for most intents and purposes. It's a contentious enough issue that I would think having a well-advertised "content neutral" policy would be good for business, except of course that monopolies don't need to worry about retaining customers, by and large. Still, not all ISP's are owned by cable companies.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
itachi06103570
Posts: 200 |
|
|||||
|
So what does this mean for me like do they have to charge extra for which sites I go to because I currently am not using any cable providers but I'm using a phone service provider that also has the aforementioned service above?
I would like to know since I already know that my provider is already monitoring what I do on the net anyway |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nayu
Posts: 676 |
|
|||||
|
Basically, what it means is that your ISP can throttle bittorrent, streaming and other high bandwidth services that are increasing the costs of them providing you with internet service.
It also allows them to legally create tiers of service that will, for a premium, allow unrestricted access to said internet protocols. It takes the decision making out of the hands of people in Washington who have no fricking clue how to even work their web-browsers and places it back into the hands of those who know wtf they are doing. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
itachi06103570
Posts: 200 |
|
|||||
So in short they could put up any charge to a site I go to? Like for example I go to watch nobunagun on xxxxxx.com and since they deem that site not to be (one of their premium) sites they can charge you for being on that site? I say pineapples to the ludracisy on this subject and btw I read like 4 artices from fox news, the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times on the subject and the thought of them charging you for those sorts of ridiculous fees almost makes me want to give up internet for good |
||||||
|
||||||
DerekTheRed
 Posts: 3544 Location: ::Points to hand:: |
|
|||||
|
Not sure if this is just like a placebo effect or what, but it feels like ATT has already started throttling Hulu. I have been having the damndest time trying to stream shows.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nayu
Posts: 676 |
|
|||||
Kinda. Sorta. It comes down to traffic type. The cable providers really want customers to watch cable, not stream. But it also has to do with people using torrents, streaming video and the cost problems with these more bandwidth intensive services over plain old web traffic. Basically, streaming services are causing the cost to provide your internet traffic to go up whereas cable television traffic remains a constant cost since the age of dinosaurs (in internet time) and the ISPs not being able to really figure out a good solution to the problem. And of course, regulation hamstringing what solutions they do come up with.... Net neutrality is a good idea, the implementation is just... riddled with problems.
This could also be not related to ATT throttling you. There isn't really a good way to answer why your streaming sucks, it could be a router issue between you, your ISP and Hulu. Or it could be that the location you're at is saturated. I live in an apartment and on Friday and Saturdays, I don't even think about trying to stream anything. Everyone is swamping the network and the hardware involved is overloaded. America is way behind when it comes to providing internet service because, like always, the infrastructure to provide service is lagging behind the technology. As an example, I'd suggest looking at the recent ice storms in Michigan which took large sections of the electrical service down for hundreds of thousands of customers due to the power companies not burying their lines and having them exposed to the weather and consequential downing of tree limbs caused by the storm. Heaven help us if we do get a direct hit by a solar mass eruption cause our electrical grid is so exposed and weak against cosmic radiation events. |
||||||
|
||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||
|
The cable companies would like to throttle Netflix and other web streamers. Why pay monthly fees for unrestricted service when you can rent a single film or show for a high cost from their PPV menu?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
DerekTheRed
Posts: 3544 Location: ::Points to hand:: |
|
|||||
|
The ice might have been a valid reason if it hadn't started just today, and I doubt there is much other traffic at 3:30 AM. And most of the highly publicized long term power outages were in Flint, where I am not.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nayu
Posts: 676 |
|
|||||
From the ISP's point of view: Because these streaming things are johnny-come-lately, costly bandwidth heavy streams that are causing undue load on the wires and networking devices which were not designed and implemented to deal with such heavy traffic. The "unrestricted" service you are paying for does not cover such things as they were not foreseen when the pricing points were created ten years ago when the worst someone could do was download shit from napster which would take days to download causing less constant load on the devices handling the delivery of internet to your home. (See also: Why does the rental modem my cable provider suck so much compared to the ones I can buy from Best Buy?) |
||||||
|
||||||
|
itachi06103570
Posts: 200 |
|
|||||
|
Since I've absorbed all of this in a matter of hours I guess the best thing right now for me is to lay low on what I usually do on the net since they'll most likely charge in anything and everything now
I should try to get more information on how to protest this but I honestly don't know what to do since I'm not new to the internet but I'm relatively new to owning internet from a phone provider |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Nayu
Posts: 676 |
|
|||||
Seriously, don't panic. The internet survived before these regulations were imposed. Nothing crucial has changed. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dimlos
Posts: 226 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
Kikaioh
 Posts: 1205 Location: Antarctica |
|
|||||
|
I remember years ago when net neutrality first became a public issue, and everyone on the internet was up in arms about the idea of the government placing regulations on the internet. But I think over time people have started to actually understand the issue, and realize that leaving the internet unrestricted allows service providers to put their own regulations into practice, some of which can be unfair. There are two sides to the issue, and it isn't easy to balance the rights of the service providers against the interests of the public good.
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group