Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by CitroenSM, Nov 20, 2017.
So soon the net neutrality will be history.
The irony of that video is that it shows how the internet isn't dead, but it most definitely is killing journalism.
I hope that the internet reverts to about 2005 levels. Fewer morons with access
internet needs to be treated like a utility
corporations controlling the internet is the worst thing that could happen to it
Bring back BBSes.
And BBC Masters
LETS GET IT STARTED IN HERE
You have been reported to the FBI.
Female Body Inspectors, lulz.
he'll just throw batteries at you
Alkaline or lead acid?
I decided I'm against net neutrality.
I never thought I would say it but it needs to get reined it. Many people use it now and quality blows as a result.
Im willing to pay for things like wikipedia if it means it will become more accurate and stuff. The net as we know it today can fuk off as far as I know.
theres always alt-net anyway
Maybe the next step of globalization will be a government for the internet. Just like actual countries - in the end, the "normal" majority might feel the need for a regulating body to keep the internet safe and reduce crazy people. It will have its own bodies of legislation, education etc. Your home internet bill will include taxes. There will be global elections. Could be interesting.
why would they charge you and make things better if they can just charge you for access?
like the telecoms industry of the US did with the internet infrastructure
some say Comcast etc would charge by website, similar how they package a tv channel. bs I know but it would force quality
Meh, you have a lot of faith in these companies. Look at what they did with phone plans, jacked up prices and charged extra for basic shit until competition forced them to concede. Same thing with internet and cable, areas with no competition get terrible service and increased prices.
now before you tell me about the free market economy and competition, consider the inevitable diseases they are susceptible to, Regulatory capture and Rent seeking. If you were going to explain either of those issues to someone youd find no better example than the fucking telecom industry in america. Plus they actively fight all efforts to lower the barrier of entry to the market, and fight to keep municipalities from creating their own internet providers.
So I am against giving them any power. Good content already rises to the top with the current internet, and people are free to charge and pay for it as they please. Things like patreon allow people like sam harris and everyone else to get paid for their efforts by individuals while not being beholden to corporate interests or a tv network who is afraid of losing advertisers.
Tree Fitty must own several ISPs. Literally zero individuals stand to gain from the loss of net neutrality. We will all end up paying more for less of the content we already receive.
How is Vman gonna get his gay porn now.
On second thought. I am a CIS white male. With today's SJWs and PC attitude. How am I gonna get my Hetero porn now?
Woohoo it passed! We're in for a treat, trust me guys
No more alt-right propaganda
No more SJW tweets
Pay up suckers or shut it
On a serious note:
The decision is going to be fought for a while.
The way I see it, yea it could be a good thing for quality
HOWEVER, Verizon=the backbone of the internet.
Companies like ATT Comcast and Verizon will not be ceding any of their
positions in the market to any new ISPs, therefore yea the argument that
competition will increase is moot. I need to check on the bills surrounding this
to really give a good analysis, but on the face of it it sucks.
How much would they charge to access SC.net?
Also, the internet has been around a lot longer than net neutrality. All the scary stories if what happens without it, didn't really happen before it existed.
It would only be for in demand apps like Facebook. but come to think of it this may lead to monetization of smaller sites. in that case the market price for sc.net should be like $.01 per month.
This is a bit disingenuous. For the bulk of the Internet's history, it was developed by military and civilian government labs, universities, and major research institutions where the concepts underpinning net neutrality (such as common carrier laws) don't apply, as the use was noncommercial to begin with. Secondly, for many years the internet utilized standard telephone infrastructure using standard telephone service - early modems would literally have you place a telephone handset into a speaker-microphone pair - and telephone service has long been classified under common carrier law. In fact, the creation of AT&T as a global behemoth had a lot to do with common carrier law, in that they were essentially granted a state-sanctioned monopoly on long-distance telephone service in the United States (eliminating a factious environment where individuals on different networks couldn't call each other) in exchange for common-carrier regulations and other limitations on the scope of their business (Northern Telecom, later Nortel and Canada's once-largest company, was originally an AT&T subsidiary purposed specifically to avoid a ban on them manufacturing telecommunications hardware).
In this way, net neutrality and common carrier rules were implicit in the regulations governing the internet, and the institutions dominating its infrastructure and development, for much of its infancy and adolescence. Indeed, the very idea of packet-switched networks to begin with was a military / APRA concept to develop survivable communications systems that could survive the loss of a majority of network nodes (ie: in order to maintain command and control of the military after an attempted decapitation strike); the idea of discriminating between traffic over any specific node is almost antithetical to the design concept. The mass commercialization of the internet and the near total re-capitalization of internet infrastructure to dedicated digital equipment were both almost prerequisite for telecommunications firms to begin pushing the boundaries of what they could get away with.
I think that's unlikely, since it would dramatically reduce the appeal to the consumer of the internet generally and would drive their revenues down. However, some price discrimination is definitely possible. For instance, in Portugal (the EU has explicit, but somewhat weak net neutrality rules and its mostly up to individual countries to police themselves) a base internet package will include a certain amount of general-purpose data. However, 'top up' data is cheaper for use-specific cases than general-purpose data. So, for instance, if wish to add more data to your plan, that might be €20 / 10GB for general-purpose data but €5 for 10GB of specific 'social' domains. (If you wish to see for yourself, this is the current MEO price structure). This can have a few effects, such as stifling competition (since newcomers are on a separate pricing structure than incumbents), and transferring revenue from internet companies to service providers (since such preferential treatment is valuable, it can have a price levied on it). While the second item may be positive (sourcing revenue for recapitalization of infrastructure from the largest users makes sense), the first is obviously problematic.
However, these are ultimately minor issues in the grand scheme of things, and from personal experience I know the quality of internet in Portugal is very high. If ISPs charge Netflix some service fee because it's a huge hog for internet infrastructure, and that fee Netflix ultimately forwards onto its customers, that's not the end of the 'free internet'. It's just customers paying the real value of the service they're receiving.
The big issue is in conflicts of interest where internet service providers are also major internet firms in their own right. For instance, an ISP developing a video streaming service and then discriminating against Netflix in order to gain market share is a clear conflict of interest. Or an ISP developing a internet payment service and then discriminating against Apple Pay or Google Wallet to gain market share is a clear conflict of interest. These wouldn't be deal breaking conflicts if there wasn't significant regionalization between ISPs (a relic of when telephone and cable services ran as public utilities - another holdover from the 'before net neutrality' history that doesn't quite fit the narrative), nor if there wasn't significant collaboration between these ISPs in developing these services. It's perfectly possible for there to be a market-driven internet, but in such a case then there needs to be a concerted effort to eliminate regional monopolies that holdover from the public utility era, a limitation on the business practices ISPs can undertake (following the AT&T model, for instance), a limitation on the level of collaboration between ISPs allowed on developing internet-delivered services, or some other mechanism to eliminate anti-competative behavior. Eliminating regional monopolies may end up being an insurmountable obstacle, given the cost of infrastructure duplication and the high likelihood that telecommunications is a natural monopoly. In turn, I think net neutrality is a much, much simpler regulatory environment.
Or, more specifically, why is the assumption that revenues would go to Wikipedia instead of from Wikipedia? If you are the type of person who donates to Wikipedia already - a not-for-profit charity (in many countries) - would you be willing to pay twice, once to the ISP for access and then again to Wikipedia directly for the service they provide? And if you volunteer maintaining the pages, would you be willing to pay out of pocket for the opportunity to do so, in addition to the donation of your time and expertise?
I remember way back in undergrad, I was taking a course on Science and Engineering Policy, and we had some researcher from the OECD come in to talk about infrastructure. It was one of the most memorable lectures I think I've ever been in. He made a claim that, hypothetically, if the City of Tokyo (the metro area) handed out a contract to replace all the telephone equipment in the city over the course of ten years or so, whatever firm won that contract would instantly become the largest corporation on the planet. Duplicating infrastructure that is so expensive makes no sense at all, and there's a fair chance that telecommunications is an industry naturally suited to a monopoly, where it is in the public interest to allow a monopoly to form if it is regulated (or nationalized) into limiting its scope of practice and price controls are in place. Many industries and services follow this model, from pipelines and railways to utilities to defense. Many European countries have one massive defense contractor that dominates the industry, for instance, but that's balanced by the fact that there is only legitimate purchaser of their goods (the state), forcing a rational market. When you see cities 'become their own ISP', they aren't building infrastructure and replicating the fibre networks. They're purchasing bandwidth and peering rights from an existing firm like Verizon or Comcast, but leveraging their large collective buying power to rationalize the monopoly.
I think you're being paranoid regarding the consequences of this change.
Charging based on access to domains sounds difficult to achieve technologically. Many websites use scripts from Facebook (be it for user registration or marketing purposes) and your browser accesses that domain even when you don't think it does. If they make that work somehow, that means I could probably create a website that gives you Facebook with a different domain in the address bar.
I don't know the details of the law/rules there, but it sounds more like an anti-pirating thing than a pro-corporations thing.