net neutrality?

[CanadianStraps]

As I'm sure many saw, a war was essentially started this week.

You (theoretically) love net neutrality. For, and because of the lulz. Your ISP however, decidedly hates net neutrality and wants you to pay more and more for better and faster lulz.

The contents of the bill are not available at this point, but some pretty serious lawsuits against the FCC are about to get fired up, from juggernauts like Verizon and AT&T all the way down to small regional cable providers.

We're talking about the US at the moment, but this certainly has wider implications. The CRTC up here forged the way for others back in '09 with the implementation of our framework net neutrality. It could have been done a lot better, but it's a start.

I think it is an interesting topic of discussion and would be interested in knowing how others feel, regardless of your geographical position.

[geoffbot]

I work in the industry so should know what this is but I don't really tbh. Is it that Verizon have films on demand for you to buy and don't want you downloading torrents so want to block the pirate bay etc? I don't blame them. They're not a charity. It would annoy me, but there are always ways around it.

[pepperami]

Is a little like 'biting the hand that feeds them'?

Whose going to need all that extra downloading/streaming speed if not for the free movies?



Sent from my GT-I9505

[M. Montaigne]

Service providers should just be given common carrier status, and we could be done with it all.

To be honest, I am rather surprised at FCC's stance since it's rather well known in the media and political community that the Roberts' family has a hold on Tom Wheeler.

In any event, I am all for net neutrality -- the alternative is just too awful to imagine.

[M. Montaigne]

Is a little like 'biting the hand that feeds them'?

Whose going to need all that extra downloading/streaming speed if not for the free movies?

There is a conflict of interest at play. A company like Comcast-NBCU with traditional media could throttle Netflix in favor of their own version of it, with ads and all that stupidity.

That is the real reason. Comcast, AT&T, TWC -- all these guys offer triple play with internet + cable. If content providers (e.g., HBO) start their own online service, then cable TV becomes increasingly meaningless. The only way for them to control this is to control the pipes, and that is what the fight against Net Neutrality is all about.

The only reason why traditional cable's business model is still solvent is because of sports -- current internet infrastructure cannot withstand peak loads at high-quality for sports viewership.

But once that problem is solved, you'll see some serious disaggregation.

[hayday]

The crux of net neutrality is who controls access to the internet. Currently, everybody pays the same amount, which is what your ISP charges you. For a coupla years now, providers (led by AT&T and Verizon) have been trying to pass legislation that would allow them to charge different rates to different people based upon different amounts of bandwidth used. The downside for consumers is that it means those with money can buy the most bandwidth, potentially choking off affordable access to those without money. It could create class-based access to the internet. This is what should happen from a capitalist standpoint, but I am one of those who feel that some things should not be treated as commodities to be bought and sold. I believe the original intent of the internet was provide access to information to all. In other words, the internet is a service to be provided, not a product to be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

-hayday

[vinylgreek]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/th...late-the-inter

[Nokie]

Service providers should just be given common carrier status, and we could be done with it all.

Totally agree!

[CamB]

I'm not entirely around whats happening in the US but here in Oz, the government is moving to make ISPs issue warning to people illegally downloading and eventually fining them. this all comes into play on Sept. 1. Pretty sure Australia is right up there when it comes to illegal downloading. People are not going to be happy.

[bolaberlim]

As I'm sure many saw, a war was essentially started this week.

You (theoretically) love net neutrality. For, and because of the lulz. Your ISP however, decidedly hates net neutrality and wants you to pay more and more for better and faster lulz.

The contents of the bill are not available at this point, but some pretty serious lawsuits against the FCC are about to get fired up, from juggernauts like Verizon and AT&T all the way down to small regional cable providers.

We're talking about the US at the moment, but this certainly has wider implications. The CRTC up here forged the way for others back in '09 with the implementation of our framework net neutrality. It could have been done a lot better, but it's a start.

I think it is an interesting topic of discussion and would be interested in knowing how others feel, regardless of your geographical position.

From what I read it's unlikely there will be any lawsuits, seems like there is no justification for them, the companies value actually went up after the FCC's decision. That said, I don't see what the big deal is, the service will be improved and it will eventually drive innovation. It's a disruptive decision, but without disruption -wherever it comes from- things don't go forward.