Well the FCC did it!!!!!!!!!!:ranting::ranting::ranting::ranting::ranting::ranting: We're FUCKED, can anyone talk me off the ledge? Sorry BZ never have dealt with your dog situation. Good luck.
FCC repealed Net-Neutrality rules. For those that don't know, the regulations meant that Internet Service Providers had to treat all the data that flows through their network the same. Those regulations have been repealed and ISP are theoretically now free to prioritize some data over others. Content providers (netflix, amazon, google, facebook, etc.) want net neutrality because they don't want external network providers to be able to prioritize their data. Telecom Providers (cable, fiber, etc.) don't want net neutrality because they want the flexibility to charge more or less based on the types of services that traverse their network: This is an issue that has become oddly politicized. There's been a lot of lobbying and a lot of marketing energy put forward by some very powerful companies to protect their interests
The fall out has already started to happen with stories of law suits and resolutions that are being introduced to fight this action so there's still time.
There's a lot of histrionics about this. The part I don't like is that some of the telco providers that benefit from this still have government subsidized regional monopolies. So it's not really fair that they still get government protection, while the content providers no longer do. I'd rather those gov't subsidized monopolies go away too But I think this will make it easier for other service providers to to enter the market and compete, because they now have the flexibility to offer differentiated pricing plans. (full disclosure: I work for an ISP so I have some inherent bias over and above my political bias)
Well you know more about it than me but whenever I hear an action gives profit making entities the opportunity to gouge consumers I get worried. For better or worse the net should be a free expression of thoughts and feelings emphasis on free.
So that's one way of looking at it. But those profit making entities are subject to consumer market forces. While its possible that ISP's will gouge consumers, its also possible that ISP's will be able to offer differentiated offerings and give consumers more choice and better options for less. If company A is gouging, and company B isn't, the consumers will make the choice. One example is you can choose a plan that allows HD video, but not 4k video for a lower price (BTW...this is exactly what Netflix does, but the ISPs are not able to do). As a consumer you only pay for you what need, vs. a plan that has to might subsidize services you don't use/need/want. That bad side is that ISPs can hold content providers hostage, or worse yet prioritize their own content services over other content providers. If there's a robust marketplace, that's not a issue, as consumers will choose against providers that don't provide the best service. But if there's only a couple service providers because of the regional monopolies I mentioned earlier, then there will be problems.
It might. Your ISP can offer the pornhub++ plan. Especially if pornhub bribes them--which they will. That's really the crux of why the content providers hate it. The ISP's will be able to make the content providers pay for priority.
The repeal of Net Neutrality has deeper problems than just the cost of ISP services to the consumer. The media is focused on this aspect, but it's not the most serious one from my standpoint. There is already variable pricing depending on your bandwidth needs. Net Neutrality was never about that. It was about the ability for ISPs to use their networks in an anti-competitive manner. The 2015 regulations basically made it illegal for an ISP to provide differing services, to throttle, or refuse to provide ISP service to discriminate against a consumer or company that has to use the ISP network for their own businesses, work, or entertainment. In other words, Verizon, for example, can't decide to charge ISP prices higher than necessary, or refuse to provide ISP services, to a start-up, let's say, that has a technology to stream audio and video to consumers in a more efficient way because Verizon has set up its own media streaming services and apps. Neither could Verizon throttle the streaming services to those customers using the start-up's technology or app. This was the core of the rules.....give everyone a fair chance and equal service, give everyone a chance to compete. What the repeal of the rule also does is it gives leverage to those existing large companies that have the money and power to negotiate better deals than let's say the start-up. Google to get it's own special deal with Verizon or set up it's own networks that favor Google Play, for example, and throttle everyone else. Same for Amazon or Netflix (which even they are upset and worried about this repeal....their whole business model relies on a seamless data transmission capability....and don't think for a second AWS, which Netflix uses, isn't already worried that Amazon may be able to leverage its power over Netflix in a way that would favor Amazon's own media goals). In the long run, if these ISP's do decide to act in this way, it ultimately hurts consumers who really can't decide to build their own networks. In fact, it's nearly impossible to build a country-wide ISP network from scratch these days. For all intents and purposes, unless you are literally Google or Apple or Amazon, there will be no "small" ISP providers because they too may need to ride on existing networks set up by AT&T or Verizon, etc to be viable, and again, these big ISPs may start to say no. So for me, it's a big deal, and Congress needs to do something. That ass in the FCC is just filling up his resume to go back to being some kind of Verizon Sr. VP or something. He touts himself as somewhat of a comedian, but he's a dork that is decidedly NOT funny. He's a twerp.....and I wouldn't be surprised if he's a serial pervert. Then again, this is just my opinion.
It's difficult to duplicate the terrestrial infrastructure of the big providers--especially the "last mile" to consumers. But advances in wireless technology are making it easier for smaller ISP to offer services which involve wireless to consumer and then trunking to fiber backbone without being beholden to ATT/Verizon, etc. We do it, and several others will too. There are and will be small ISPs, and the reduction of regulation will allow more flexible pricing plans. I believe that this will lead to more choice, not less for consumers. But I'm obviously quite biased.
I hear where you are coming from but when you say trunking to the FO backbone, who owns that backbone? FIOS? AT&T? If they don't have to, are you sure they are going to be open to all independent last mile wireless providers? But beyond the last mile problem, the vast majority of businesses and consumers need internet access in urban and suburban areas. This is where most of the potential market and revenue potential lie. It would be really tempting for ISP's to maximize that potential in anyway they can. Like the national highway system back in the 50's it would have been nice for the government to have built the first networks and wireless technology infrastructure and then have private interest manage it, but almost in trust for the public good. You wonder why high speed and wireless technology and associated related technologies and services are so more advanced in Asian countries....this is the reason why.
Feel free.....although I kinda liked the pervert part. Wait.....are you gonna use it as an example of what not to do? :crying:
Yeah, I hear you. It's funny cause I grew up during a time where a 12k baud dial-up modem was the shit, and one of the coolest things was to call ahead to a friend, schedule a time to be online, and then tie up the phone line at home for 30 minutes while sending text based messages back and forth like a command line. Wouldn't have thought for a second at that time we would be here, where we are.
