Forums / Discussion / General

171,002 total conversations in 5,482 threads

+ New Thread


FCC, Net Neutrality debacle

Last posted Jan 26, 2014 at 09:46AM EST. Added Jan 18, 2014 at 02:11PM EST
9 posts from 8 users

Recently, there’s been widespread talk of the death of net neutrality to the ISPs, fears of said ISPs being free to restrict domains on their services to customers as they see fit. Hypothetical instances include slowdown/pay for view/denied access to certain sites with Verizon.
Her was the full court case, but it seems quite a few people who can’t into law (like me) don;t really understand what happened.

https://www.casetext.com/case/verizon-v-fcc-3

My brief knowledge extends to the FCC struggling to define what parameters the “internet” had, either as telecomms or information distribution.
Hopefully someone more versed in legalese make sense of this

Jan 18, 2014 at 02:11PM EST
Quote

I don’t know too much on this subject other than what I’ve seen here:

But I’m not going to worry too much more about this until I have to. lol. It seems like consumerism would weed out the ISPs that actually started doing this. I really don’t see any reason to get your jimmies rustled quite yet.

Jan 18, 2014 at 05:09PM EST
Quote

I don’t see this becoming a huge issue. If ISPs start charging for individual websites, then those websites would then charge the ISP a licensing fee, otherwise, the ISP would be sued for copyright/trademark infringement (for making money off of other people’s IPs).

I doubt many websites would hop on board since paywalls are notorious for decimating user traffic--just look at newspapers, which are still hemorrhaging money because people don’t bother with the paywalls. Facebook, Yahoo, Google--they all wouldn’t sign up because they’d know once they do, their user traffic would plummet and the money they’d make from the licensing fee would never make up for the lost advertising.

It would also give competitors a huge advantage. “Why use Youtube and pay those fees when you can use Dailymotion for free?” And in the world of the internet, advantages can sink competition in a heartbeat.

Last edited Jan 18, 2014 at 05:49PM EST
Jan 18, 2014 at 05:48PM EST
Quote

xTSGx wrote:

I don’t see this becoming a huge issue. If ISPs start charging for individual websites, then those websites would then charge the ISP a licensing fee, otherwise, the ISP would be sued for copyright/trademark infringement (for making money off of other people’s IPs).

I doubt many websites would hop on board since paywalls are notorious for decimating user traffic--just look at newspapers, which are still hemorrhaging money because people don’t bother with the paywalls. Facebook, Yahoo, Google--they all wouldn’t sign up because they’d know once they do, their user traffic would plummet and the money they’d make from the licensing fee would never make up for the lost advertising.

It would also give competitors a huge advantage. “Why use Youtube and pay those fees when you can use Dailymotion for free?” And in the world of the internet, advantages can sink competition in a heartbeat.

The problem doesn’t seem to be a fee added to specific services, but a lack of fees for popular services. For example, if Comcast said you can use 200 gigs of internet a month, but all YouTube data is free, then it would give consumers an incentive to use YouTube. Then, when a new program comes out, lets call it TouYube, no one will want to use the program because its usage adds up to the data cap. Even if TouYube is vastly superior to YouTube, it will still struggle to gain a userbase because of fees that aren’t added fees, but are ones that have been taken away for more popular services.
Net neutrality isn’t also inherently about added or subtracted fees. Until Tuesday, net neutrality also protected against allocating more bandwidth to a website, and blocking of websites by service providers. Without net neutrality, Comcast could block Verizon’s website, making it impossible to look at Verizon’s offerings, and keeping customers with Comcast. Alternatively, Verizon, being a Christian based organization that promotes family values (no idea if this is actually true or not) could decide that they didn’t like pro-choice websites, pro-gay rights websites, or any other websites that go against their beliefs, and either block them, or throttle the bandwidth to these websites, making them incredibly slow. When multiple different ISPs start to do this, then there is no other alternative to turn to for some people, especially people living in areas that only have 1 or 2 ISPs.
Finally, we can already see a bit of this happening. The previous net neutrality laws did not apply to cellular providers. Because these laws did not apply to cellular providers, they were free to block applications from being seen in app stores. For example, Verizon has previously blocked tethering apps from showing up in the play store, and AT&T has previously blocked the Amazon App Store from showing up in the play store.

Edit- If anyone is unclear on some of the concepts and possible effects of Net Neutrality, just ask me. I’m fairly familiar with the subject, I wrote a 20 page paper on it once.

Last edited Jan 18, 2014 at 06:31PM EST
Jan 18, 2014 at 06:30PM EST
Quote

I see net neutrality as a very important thing. My ISP shouldn’t have any right to decide for me what I can and cannot use the internet to find and I don’t want to have to choose an ISP on the basis of which one will grant me access to the sites that I want. Any ISP that doesn’t control what I try to browse will definitely get my money more than others.


@Chuck

What do you suppose the effects of losing net neutrality may be on my job? (Small web design businesses)

I’m in charge of making sure websites work and display correctly for all of my clients and their website visitors.

What if I get a call from a client complaining that their website wont appear on their browsers…and I find out that their ISP is blocking out our servers because our server hosts are a rival company? What am I supposed to do?

Am I going to have add extra steps to our site planning process to ensure our sites are not just compatible with the clients browsers but also the terms and conditions of our clients ISP?

Last edited Jan 18, 2014 at 09:42PM EST
Jan 18, 2014 at 09:41PM EST
Quote

@BS(oD)
I think that, in the short term, it is highly unlikely for any ISP to flat out block all of the competition, so you’re probably OK. It’s the fundamental philosophy of the ISPs being legally allowed to do that that has many people worried, but I think something as radical as that would definitely get people upset. It’s more likely for an ISP to go and “censor” the internet by blocking everything that they think shouldn’t be there than it is for them to block the competition. If you were affected, it would be by throttling, not complete blocking.

I hadn’t even thought about hosting being blocked, but that’s a real scary thought.

Jan 18, 2014 at 10:38PM EST
Quote

And now net neutrality law is as broken as copyright and patent laws. slippery slope in action.

While some ISPs may say that it does not affect the current access to the Internet, they say it only now. Then they slowly start breaking their promise and turn the Internet into a TV (which is already an obsolete media in terms of distribution).

I fear that it gives a horrifying opportunity for many large media companies in the US to make deals with ISPs to basically hinder access to alternative media.

Last edited Jan 19, 2014 at 04:59AM EST
Jan 19, 2014 at 04:54AM EST
Quote

I think this is unfair, since Youtube, Netflix, and/or Hulu are competition against them. I bet it’s not gonna happen.

Jan 26, 2014 at 09:46AM EST
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

'lo! You must login or signup first!