net neutrality gets raped by FTC..
polycounter lvl 18
No one has really talked about net neutrality in a while, but now, since the FTC has made its decision, I figure we can discuss when the internet is gonna start getting raped by our internet providers.
Article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/06/ftc_net.html
Article: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/06/ftc_net.html
Replies
The primary reason for caution is simply that we do not know what the net effects of potential conduct by broadband providers will be on all consumers..."
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, wait. Hold on. Lemme read that again.
Isn't that the primary reason for net neutrality?
Gee, I wonder if someone is being paid off here.
I think the issue comes down to President Bush's call for the internet to be in every house at a reasonable price, however broadband is being left out of the discussion since it is a luxury not a necessity. Leaving the ISP's alone to charge whatever they want for anything faster than 56k.
It'll be a sad day if/when the internet becomes as financially segregated as society is.
Can someone lay out clearly what this means?
[/ QUOTE ]
net neutrality means that you aren't allowed to prioritize data sent over the lines or otherwise interfere with the data as it goes from the server to the user. The network providers would like to be able to prioritize data and/or limit access to data. Basically what this means is that If you have AOL broadband service, and they don't like Youtube, they can and will move all Youtube content to a secondary queue and all other data will take precedence over it, slowing down your connection to Youtube. Now replace Youtube with Differing Political View Website and it becomes kind of scary. Net Neutrality keeps them from doing that, but hey, big payoffs for politicians who don't understand technology beats the hell out whats good for the people, right?
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone lay out clearly what this means?
[/ QUOTE ]
net neutrality means that you aren't allowed to prioritize data sent over the lines or otherwise interfere with the data as it goes from the server to the user. The network providers would like to be able to prioritize data and/or limit access to data. Basically what this means is that If you have AOL broadband service, and they don't like Youtube, they can and will move all Youtube content to a secondary queue and all other data will take precedence over it, slowing down your connection to Youtube. Now replace Youtube with Differing Political View Website and it becomes kind of scary. Net Neutrality keeps them from doing that, but hey, big payoffs for politicians who don't understand technology beats the hell out whats good for the people, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, thats a pretty good description, but what I'm also worried about is that owners of websites will have to pay IPs to have their content loaded at a decent speed. If you're poor and can't afford to pay AOL to load your page fast, or at all, than you'll get fucked.
In the end, this is probably going to lower the cost of broadband for everyone, but at the above costs.
One of the reasons the FTC felt like this wasn't a big problem was because supposedly people have the ability to choose their internet service provider and that the competition between these providers will create a better service for the public at large. However, for many (if not most) people, there is no choice in what ISP you can have. I, for example, can only get crappy roadrunner service in my apartment. Most people have at most 2 choices and in many cases like mine, only 1. So if things get screwy up, I dont have much of a choice unless I wanna move.
It doesn't work like with cell phones, where the service providers have to cover as much area as possible. When it comes to the internet, rationing out the country so everyone gets their own area to monopolize works very well.
Prices will not drop. What's likely is we'll see more tiered pricing systems where paying as much as you do now will only get you limited access. Then they'll throw in some slightly discounted "anal rape" tier of crap service just so the politicians they're paying off can save face. "We dropped prices! Our prices start at $XX.XX!"
ISP's already advertise "unlimited access" while throttling bandwidth and using monthly limits. What's to stop them from advertising "Unrestricted access to all content!" while messing around with certain sites behind closed doors?
Do what you can.
Keep in mind, Net Neutrality is not over. When things look grim, you have to kick whatever the fuck is at your throat in the balls.
Do what you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
True that. Boycotting ISPs that take up this practice sounds like the ticket to me. Although whether there would be enough people on the net who are informed and willing to do it is questionable.
Major ISP's are some of the least competitive businesses around. They stay away from each other as much as possible so they can each monopolize their own regions. There is a general understanding that invading each other's territories will only start a war which is risky business.
It doesn't work like with cell phones, where the service providers have to cover as much area as possible. When it comes to the internet, rationing out the country so everyone gets their own area to monopolize works very well.
Prices will not drop. What's likely is we'll see more tiered pricing systems where paying as much as you do now will only get you limited access. Then they'll throw in some slightly discounted "anal rape" tier of crap service just so the politicians they're paying off can save face. "We dropped prices! Our prices start at $XX.XX!"
ISP's already advertise "unlimited access" while throttling bandwidth and using monthly limits. What's to stop them from advertising "Unrestricted access to all content!" while messing around with certain sites behind closed doors?
[/ QUOTE ]
That definitely isn't true where I live. SBC DSL (now ATT DSL) used to cost around $35 a month for 400kbps/128kbps, and like $45 for 2mbps/400kbps about 3 years ago. Roadrunner (run by TimeWarner cable) was like $60 and ran at 3mbps/500kbps.
Now, Time Warner, a cable company, is offering a "Go for 3" package that gives you 8mbps/500kbps internet, cable, and VOIP digital phone all in one package for like $99 a month.
ATT DSL is now $14.99 for 768kbps/256kbps!! And like 3mbps/500kbps is only $25!
I love it
There is a general understanding that invading each other's territories will only start a war which is risky business.
When it comes to the internet, rationing out the country so everyone gets their own area to monopolize works very well.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is this, Chicago in the 20s? FFS.
Frank the Avenger
Basically it sounds to me like they want to make the net more like cable or satellite tv. Where you pay extra for HBO, Showtime, or whatever. Shit like get 13 channels for $xx.xx or 100+ channels for $xxx.xx a month. Which pretty much fucking sucks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. They're actually able to charge you if they want, for accessing certain content. So if you want to visit Gamestop, that's $2.00 a month more. YouTube? That's $5.00 more. Shit like that. Without net neutrality, they have free rein to do as they wish, which isn't necessarily best for the customer.