If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   Net Neutrality offers a lot of economic benefits for everyone. Naturally, some people have a problem with this   (newyorker.com) divider line 30
    More: Interesting, no-win situations, doldrums, Columbia Law School, battle royale, Julius Genachowski  
•       •       •

2445 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 May 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-05 11:22:18 AM  
These people are of course, the minorty. Coincidentally, they're also the ones who stand to gain the most economically from net neutrality being gone.
 
2013-05-05 02:15:05 PM  
B-b-but the government is going to take over the Internet!
 
2013-05-05 02:21:35 PM  
Interesting way of framing the argument. You hear a lot about how there would be tiered internet and how ISPs could gouge consumers. I had never thought of how popular websites/content providers could gouge ISPs. That makes sense.
 
2013-05-05 02:23:28 PM  
net neutrality means topless babes
 
2013-05-05 02:34:28 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: net neutrality means topless babies

You sicko..

 
2013-05-05 03:07:49 PM  
Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, not a cube.

You have to lose for it to work.
 
2013-05-05 03:18:02 PM  

hawcian: Interesting way of framing the argument. You hear a lot about how there would be tiered internet and how ISPs could gouge consumers. I had never thought of how popular websites/content providers could gouge ISPs. That makes sense.


Its already been done.

When the BBC launched its catch up tv service on the internet it increased UK internet traffic by around 6% (and is still more popular than any other streaming service bar youtube). The ISPs who found their customers using far more bandwidth than before told the BBC that they would throttle iPlayer (the service) back to almost nothing unless the BBC paid them some money. The BBC said they would pay nothing and any ISP who throttled any BBC based traffic would be named on the six and nine o'clock news. Turned out to be a bluff by the ISPs.
 
2013-05-05 03:26:08 PM  
Norfolking chance

When the BBC launched its catch up tv service on the internet it increased UK internet traffic by around 6% (and is still more popular than any other streaming service bar youtube). The ISPs who found their customers using far more bandwidth than before told the BBC that they would throttle iPlayer (the service) back to almost nothing unless the BBC paid them some money. The BBC said they would pay nothing and any ISP who throttled any BBC based traffic would be named on the six and nine o'clock news. Turned out to be a bluff by the ISPs.


blogs.warwick.ac.uk
 
2013-05-05 03:45:14 PM  

t3knomanser: B-b-but the government is going to take over the Internet!


I would rather have a government of elected men and women do so than a faceless, intangible, immortal, inhuman denizen of the courts.

If net neutrality is broken it will be by ISPs offering 'discount' packages  at the bottom tier for 'managed' data streams. This level will then slowly climb, as old contract service levels are expurgated. Some will 'bump up' to the next 'unmanaged' level of service as far as they can afford it and then accept that since they can't buy an ock-12, they will have to take 'retail' management. Each wave of 'bumps' will involve more money for more bandwidth, but packaged as 'free' bandwidth for your favorite two premium streaming companies for the tiers under them.

"oh, yes, sir your Amazon prime streaming was throttled, since you use hulu and amazon quite a bit as well. For just 5$ more a month you can get an extra 10gb/m and a third streaming source that isn't counted against that... "

This will be accepted - indeed promoted - as the ultimate safety device. No Pr0n in your house, no Viruses, you can even control which ideologies your children can consume by blocking out not just msnbc.com or faux news, but things that even LOOK like them or LINK to them.

"Do you know what your children are downloading? Between tablets, phones and laptops, your children could be anywhere, watching anything. But with Verizon's Family Package, you can ensure that your children aren't exposed to inappropriate or adult materials, or exposing you to legal costs for illegally downloading!"

and of course they're getting a bounty from the DOJ or Warner or Disney for reporting said downloads.
 
2013-05-05 03:46:41 PM  
I think one thing the article misses is how net neutrality is horrible for startups.  If you fark with Google or Facebook, they'll fark you right back al la the BBC example in this thread.  The problem is say back when Youtube was a startup with venture capital prior to it being bought by Google.  There was a long period before Youtube was a household name and had the resources to fight Comcast over a termination fee.

One of the scary things is the unholy alliance between say Google and the ISPs.  Set some kind of fee where Google pays out ~100 million a year for various termination fees.  That's pennies to Google, but it lets them set up a fee structure were competitors would be expected to pay the same fees and a lot of startups might not be able to do that.  Basically creating another barrier of entry for startups.  Luckily the big tech companies haven't been interested in going down that road yet.
 
2013-05-05 03:51:32 PM  
One of the neatest things about the internet is its ability to circumvent damaged regions, like North America if Net Neutrality was formally slain.  Having said that its still a very important concept and it would be in everyone's best interest if that slope remained undescended.
 
2013-05-05 04:09:16 PM  

studebaker hoch: Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, not a cube.

You have to lose for it to work.


When it comes to ISP companies, they're more striving for an anti-competitive oligarchy, not a free market.
 
2013-05-05 04:09:21 PM  

ha-ha-guy: I think one thing the article misses is how net neutrality is horrible for startups.  If you fark with Google or Facebook, they'll fark you right back al la the BBC example in this thread.


How is net neutrality horrible for startups?

Without net neutrality, carriers like Comcast and Verizon can fark with anyone they want. They may have some detente with Google and Facebook, but if you run a small, popular site they may fark with you in order to get money. With net neutrality, nobody gets farked -- all traffic would be treated equally, regardless of source and destination.
 
2013-05-05 04:14:08 PM  

heypete: ha-ha-guy: I think one thing the article misses is how net neutrality is horrible for startups.  If you fark with Google or Facebook, they'll fark you right back al la the BBC example in this thread.

How is net neutrality horrible for startups?

Without net neutrality, carriers like Comcast and Verizon can fark with anyone they want. They may have some detente with Google and Facebook, but if you run a small, popular site they may fark with you in order to get money. With net neutrality, nobody gets farked -- all traffic would be treated equally, regardless of source and destination.


I meant the removal of it.
 
2013-05-05 04:14:37 PM  
These are the united states of avarice, so net neutrality is toast. There won't be shiat we can do. They will be metering and charging us for the air we breathe as soon as they can figure out how.
 
2013-05-05 04:14:45 PM  
studebaker hoch


Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, not a cube.

You have to lose for it to work.
Wow, a lot of stupid things are said by you moon-bats here on FARK, but you're in the lead for most idiotic.

Yes the last thing a company would want, is lots of people who could afford their product.


/// notes the asshat in question was appointed by Zero.
 
2013-05-05 04:22:02 PM  

OnlyM3: Yes the last thing a company would want, is lots of people who could afford their product.


For a company that provides a manufactured product the ideal would be for them to make their product cheaply overseas while every person in America worked for some other company that paid them excellent wages.  That way every American would be employed and able to pay a premium for their product, leading to both a high volume of sales and a healthy profit margin.

So the behavior that results from that is pretty much everyone tripping over their own dick to open a factory in Asia, despite the fact that it leads to American factory workers being laid off and a reduction in the number of people who can afford the product.

Theory may say you want a strong middle class, but lots of people will fark the middle class in the name of stock price and chasing their options in for some quick money.  Capitalism definitely takes on an unpleasant shape in practice.
 
2013-05-05 04:29:51 PM  

ha-ha-guy: OnlyM3: Yes the last thing a company would want, is lots of people who could afford their product.

For a company that provides a manufactured product the ideal would be for them to make their product cheaply overseas while every person in America worked for some other company that paid them excellent wages.  That way every American would be employed and able to pay a premium for their product, leading to both a high volume of sales and a healthy profit margin.

So the behavior that results from that is pretty much everyone tripping over their own dick to open a factory in Asia, despite the fact that it leads to American factory workers being laid off and a reduction in the number of people who can afford the product.

Theory may say you want a strong middle class, but lots of people will fark the middle class in the name of stock price and chasing their options in for some quick money.  Capitalism definitely takes on an unpleasant shape in practice.


That's not real capitalism tho.  We haven't had that for a looooong time.  We have socialized risks and private gains.
 
2013-05-05 04:30:26 PM  

ha-ha-guy: I meant the removal of it.


Aha. Makes a lot more sense now. :)
 
2013-05-05 04:31:56 PM  

lewismarktwo: That's not real capitalism tho.  We haven't had that for a looooong time.  We have socialized risks and private gains.


The opposite of Marxism basically, hooray!
 
2013-05-05 05:04:37 PM  
But treating all traffic as equal isn't the American way. Everyone knows that 1% of all traffic should have 99% of the speed.
 
2013-05-05 05:24:19 PM  
That piece makes no sense. If Google and other services might be able to charge operators money à la ESPN if net neutrality were absent, why are they the ones pushing NN so hard?
 
2013-05-05 05:34:19 PM  

jjorsett: That piece makes no sense. If Google and other services might be able to charge operators money à la ESPN if net neutrality were absent, why are they the ones pushing NN so hard?


Because they're stupid?

In the day, this was thought to be a money-maker for the cable co.s with termination fees, but now some of the internet companies are bigger than some of the ISPs. The article advances the idea that the ISPs may not have, in fact, realized this yet.
 
2013-05-05 05:51:14 PM  

jjorsett: That piece makes no sense. If Google and other services might be able to charge operators money à la ESPN if net neutrality were absent, why are they the ones pushing NN so hard?


Because even putting aside their creedo of "do no evil", they understand that if they open the doors to paid priority, they're cooking their goose that lays golden eggs.
 
2013-05-05 06:24:18 PM  
 
2013-05-05 07:29:18 PM  

narkor: Google is becoming an ISP and has bailed on Net Neutrality.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal -g oogles-net-neutrality-collapse/


Anything not three years old?
 
2013-05-05 07:47:21 PM  
Net Neutrality would ideally kick two groups in the balls for their shenanigans.  The telecoms that want to limit access to high-traffic sites, and content providers (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, WATCH-ESPN and HBO GO!!!!) that require your ISP to reach an agreement with them to be able to watch stuff.
 
2013-05-05 08:24:38 PM  
Since Obama appointed a lobbyist for the Cable and Cellular providers to serve as the chief regulator at the FCC a couple of days ago, I don't think you're going to have to worry much about those pesky network neutrality regulations anymore.
 
2013-05-06 12:02:46 AM  

OnlyM3: studebaker hoch


Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, not a cube.

You have to lose for it to work. Wow, a lot of stupid things are said by you moon-bats here on FARK, but you're in the lead for most idiotic.

Yes the last thing a company would want, is lots of people who could afford their product.


/// notes the asshat in question was appointed by Zero.


Yeah. It can't really be stated enough that the internet is very much a Golden Goose situation. Increase the price of use -make it more expensive for people to use it or try to toll them for going to sites you don't want them to- and then people will stop using it or, far more likely, develop some really, really annoying hacks to get around your fee structure. It's such a gigantic multiplier to practically every business that I find it hard to believe anyone would want to, in effect, charge for the digital economy's "oxygen", but there's always some idiot with an axe who thinks they've got a great idea for getting the gold faster.
 
2013-05-06 12:10:04 AM  

Saberus Terras: jjorsett: That piece makes no sense. If Google and other services might be able to charge operators money à la ESPN if net neutrality were absent, why are they the ones pushing NN so hard?

Because even putting aside their creedo of "do no evil", they understand that if they open the doors to paid priority, they're cooking their goose that lays golden eggs.


^^^^

If you had to pay to use Google, would you?  Even if it was something piddly like a penny, most folks would refuse just on principle. In a society where free phone books have been standard for 50 years, the idea that you should pay for indexing and archive search is never going to fly.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report