If you love the Internet, speak up now

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Kagavi, May 15, 2014.

  1. Kagavi

    Kagavi Active Member

    Surprised no one is really talking about this. Apologies if I missed it. The FCC just paved the way for Internet fast lanes, which is severely opposed by just about everyone except AT&T, TWC, and Comcast. Unfortunately, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler used to be a *cue mock surprise* lobbyist for the cable industry.

    The United Nations asserts the Internet is a basic human right and as such, Kagavi strongly believes in Net Neutrality rules. If you pay for Internet, you should get Internet without any interference from a corporate monolith. As a small business, we will not be able to afford the extortion that is now legal (pending public feedback, which is open now) from ISPs. However, there is an answer: classify the Internet as a public utility/common carrier, like electricity or water.

    Without this step, we are ceding control over free information to others who have profit as a primary motive. This is a step backwards into a totalitarian state. The state of ISPs is already ridiculous enough with vast swaths of America subject to oligarchies. We keep lurching towards Big Brother more and more.

    Despite what the cable industry would have you believe, they have already received hundreds of millions of dollars in public money to wire America for broadband Internet, a promise which they have left unfinished. Such websites as http://www.techdirt.com and https://www.eff.org are doing wonderful work reporting on this travesty.

    Both Lori and I emailed the FCC commissioners here to demand the Internet be classified as a public utility: http://www.fcc.gov/contact-us and I hope you can do the same. The EFF is also providing an easy way for us to contact our congressional representatives: https://dearfcc.org/call

    With enough public pressure, perhaps they will stop cashing checks from the cable industry long enough to do something right. One can only hope.
     
  2. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    Funny how bills to do these things in Congress fail but then are implemented anyway.
     
  3. Incyte

    Incyte Well-Known Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    4,587
    201
    63
    Disagree completely. Why shouldn't ISP's be able to charge a fee base on bandwidth? Because the united nations said so?
     
  4. Mr Janny

    Mr Janny Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
    Staff Member

    Mar 27, 2006
    28,496
    1,067
    113
    #4 Mr Janny, May 15, 2014
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
    Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, I don't think that's what this is about. It's about allowing access to say, Netflix, at a faster speed than you could access Youtube. Like, if you're paying for a 5 Mbps connection it's 5 mbps across the board. Your ISP can't say that some sites you can access at 5mbps, but others will only be at 2.5 mbps.
     
  5. Incyte

    Incyte Well-Known Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    4,587
    201
    63
    And why shouldn't Netflix, which requires the most bandwidth due to the type or service and # of users, not have to pay a premium to allow it's users to access at 5 mbps?
     
  6. CycloneWarning

    CycloneWarning Well-Known Member

    Jan 14, 2008
    3,044
    119
    63
    Why isn't a dual model possible? If you want "regular" internet service, you have access to the net-neutral lanes.

    If you want higher speed access, either you or the content provider (ie, Netflix), are paying a premium for the fast lane. The technology exists to make this dual model possible. Similar to paying express lane access on an interstate highway/tollway.

    As long as the percentage of the total bandwidth reserved for fast lane access is limited in some regard, not sure I see the issue.
     
  7. 00clone

    00clone Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2011
    19,641
    481
    83
    "Before" picture model
    Iowa City area

    Incyte: It's NOT ABOUT BANDWIDTH. It's about the ability for ISP's to send you information at different speeds based on what you are viewing, not how much bandwidth it takes up. That already exists. If you're a bandwidth hog, you're going to get slowed down, or told you're breaking the terms of service, or told to get a more expensive plan. So, this is like your Verizon cell phone slowing down connections on calls from Sprint.
     
  8. Mr Janny

    Mr Janny Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
    Staff Member

    Mar 27, 2006
    28,496
    1,067
    113
    Why should users suffer slower access speeds for websites that aren't as popular as netflix, but still have high bandwith requirements? Cyclones.com is a perfect example of this.
     
  9. Mr Janny

    Mr Janny Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
    Staff Member

    Mar 27, 2006
    28,496
    1,067
    113
    That's an excellent comparison.
     
  10. Rabbuk

    Rabbuk Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2011
    21,124
    289
    83
    I feel like the United States lags behind much of the world in internet speed anyway. This would make it worse.
     
  11. cowgirl836

    cowgirl836 Well-Known Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    27,444
    286
    83
    and this is exactly how it would be abused - slowing down competitor-affiliated sites and those who are not willing or able to pay as much.
     
  12. Cyballz

    Cyballz Well-Known Member

    Aug 20, 2009
    1,022
    151
    63
    What incentive would an ISP have to maintain a "regular" internet service when they make more from a high speed one? It sounds like customers are getting a choice but when you sign up for the regular internet and get 56k modem speeds you really have no choice but to upgrade. Cable companies have continually under invested because of a lack of competition and if fast lanes become available there will be even less competition, as only the behemoths will be able to provide the fast lanes. You think the government is going to protect consumers on the "regular" internet lanes by restricting bandwith? Not a chance.
     
  13. HFCS

    HFCS Well-Known Member

    Aug 14, 2010
    23,604
    314
    83
    Art Director
    LA LA Land
    #13 HFCS, May 15, 2014
    Last edited: May 15, 2014
    American internet startups have been a real life saver for our economy, it's hard to imagine where we'd be globally without them.

    It's pretty frightening to me that we want to set up laws now to create hurdles for future innovative startups, barriers the rest of the developed world likely won't have. The few companies supporting this are already dangerously close to an illegal monopoly. It all seems incredibly short sighted.

    This is destined for the cave anyway, but this was a big issue of Obama's when he first joined the senate. Unfortunately he's not been as vocal in his support for net neutrality as president as he was prior. Like just about everything he's been extremely centrist even though he's painted as a marxist bogeyman regardless of his vanilla centrist positions.
     
  14. Incyte

    Incyte Well-Known Member

    Apr 13, 2007
    4,587
    201
    63
    I fully understand what it's about. Bandwidth is an example. The ISP's can use whatever pricing model they want.

    If they want to limit/slow access to competitor's content at some tiers, what's the problem?
     
  15. cowgirl836

    cowgirl836 Well-Known Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    27,444
    286
    83


    [​IMG]
     
  16. jbhtexas

    jbhtexas Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    12,003
    475
    83
    Arlington, TX
    Wonderful. Particularly since most municipalities allow only one or two high-speed Internet providers. For example, in Arlignton, you can have TWC (soon to be part of Comcast) or AT&T. One can see it already...take for example Netflix. Each one of the content delivery providers will come up with their own site for a particular type of content (i.e. "Netflix" for movies), and slow the other content sites down, making them difficult to use. The cost to get higher speed will be prohibitive. The content delivery providers will make agreements not to slow each other's sites down. Any content provider that doesn't have their own delivery network will be hosed and eventually forced out.
     
  17. 00clone

    00clone Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2011
    19,641
    481
    83
    "Before" picture model
    Iowa City area
    [​IMG]
     
  18. CloneIce

    CloneIce Well-Known Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    22,074
    436
    83
    Internet is a utility nowadays. It should be managed in a similiar fashion. Its already bad enough TWC, Comcast, etc. have a monopoly on cable and charge ridiculous rates.

    http://time.com/#100241/net-neutrality-vote/
     
  19. cowgirl836

    cowgirl836 Well-Known Member

    Sep 3, 2009
    27,444
    286
    83

    but the telecoms don't want to be dumb pipes.
     
  20. 3TrueFans

    3TrueFans Well-Known Member

    Sep 10, 2009
    30,629
    1,084
    113
    Ames
    Well, the Internet had a good run, back to ham radios I guess, although trying to see funny cat pictures sure will be difficult.
     

Share This Page