Author Topic: If net neutrality fails, this is what you should expect... (Read 2906 times)

relic2279 · « **on:** October 28, 2009, 01:47:52 AM »

...once you start living on your own, and move out of your parents basement, that is.

This seems like a joke but it's not. This is really what you should expect because this possibility is exactly what the repubs are fighting for:

nates1984 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 28, 2009, 01:53:24 AM »

The Internet is too large and complex for this Orwellian picture, but it does relay the underlying meaning of abolishment of net neutrality.

This simple: The worthless "news" information we get on the radio and television now is exactly how the internet will be like if corporate entities are given expanded rights (they definitely have more rights than an individual already) over control of the internet. 1) Power will forever and always attempt to stamp out anything that's too free. 2) Free means you can own, profit, and manipulate through it at the expense of reducing the overall freedom for everyone. 3) Do one and two at the same time.

relic2279 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 28, 2009, 02:06:38 AM »

Quote from: nates1984 on October 28, 2009, 01:53:24 AM

The Internet is too large and complex for this Orwellian picture,

Uh. No. It's not. You're absolutely wrong.

The ISP's can restrict access to whatever site they want. Learn2internet. (example: AT&T blocked traffic to 4chan couple months ago)

It's EXACTLY what the ISP's said they want to do. Give preferential treatment (bandwidth, access to websites) to higher paying customers. Google it. If anyone doesn't understand that basic tenant, you don't understand net neutrality.

Were you the Jon Stewart fan or was it vicious? He basically repeats exactly what I'm saying.

Natheria · « **Reply #3 on:** October 28, 2009, 02:56:25 AM »

Time Warner already tried pushing a similar business model in New York state after they got away with the 250gig cap, so that picture really isn't far fetched at all (which is pretty scary that they actually thought they could pull it off). Actually those prices are pretty low compared to what they were quoting people would have to pay for 100gigs and up.

When people found out they were going to pay in brackets for each gigabyte they downloaded people were literally up in arms (myself included) and thousands threatened to cut off their service right then and there without hesitation. Chuck Schemer's feathers even got ruffled. Just based on the kind of reaction that was invoked however i doubt we'll see that kind of business model crop up again. People got a good glance at where the ISPs wanted to go with their caps and restrictions and now people are angry enough to force through anything that will squash threats like this for good. Although you never know what kind of idiotic ideas McCain has in store.

relic2279 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 28, 2009, 03:35:04 PM »

UPDATED:

lx4 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:50:15 PM »

I dont have more then a very basic understanding of the concept of net neutrality. But it would seem to me that as long as no broadband supplier have a government granted monopoly, competition of the threat of possible competition would stop something like this from happening.

If there is a sizable amount of people who doesnt like this business model (which there surely would be) this would create a large the demand for an alternative. It shouldn't take long for a competitor to try to capitalize on this demand and offer an unrestricted service.

relic2279 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:02:01 PM »

Good competition just not possible in the US.

Most cities have 2, or just 1 ISP. So the local market is either a duopoly or a monopoly. Right now I use Time Warner cable. My only other option is Verizon DSL. Even if someone wanted to say, start their own ISP, invest tons of money laying the fiber, one of their big business competitors will just buy them.

There is almost no competition in the ISP market. At least here in the US anyways.

Aesthesis · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:43:03 PM »

Scary stuff, but practically impossible. It obviously makes no sense in the world of business; turning a free market as large as the internet into a subscription service would instantly kill off most of the new websites and businesses purely because they're not famous enough to be put into one of these packages. I mean, who's gonna go trawling through the millions of websites on the internet deciding which youtube clones to put into the package and which ones not to? How will the providers know what websites are delivering what services? If they miss a website then some small store's web shop won't get clients any more. Even if they automate the process somehow, we're looking at a huge loss of market and commerce which wouldn't go undisputed.

lx4 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:47:53 PM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 28, 2009, 05:02:01 PM

Good competition just not possible in the US.

Most cities have 2, or just 1 ISP. So the local market is either a duopoly or a monopoly. Right now I use Time Warner cable. My only other option is Verizon DSL. Even if someone wanted to say, start their own ISP, invest tons of money laying the fiber, one of their big business competitors will just buy them.

There is almost no competition in the ISP market. At least here in the US anyways.

The situation is very different where I live, we have over a dozen service providers. Which is great since they not only compete on price but issues such as how well they protect their customers privacy when faced with threats from anti-piracy organization.

So there certainly is room for competition in the business. Especially today when you can deliver broadband (or broadband like) services through fiber, cable, phone lines (ADSL) and the 3G cell phone net. Especially so called wireless broadband seem to be taking over much of the market here.

The lack of competition in the US is probably because its a bit behind when it comes to broadband. Going back 5 or 10 years we didnt have more then two or three providers to choose from. Once a business has proved to profitable competitors are sure to pop up to get a piece of the action. Thats about as close to a law as you get in economics.

Capping downloads, restricting speed for some sites etc might all be tools used to bring down the cost for consumers. It is not necessarily right to deprive them of the option just because its not something we would like to purchase.

relic2279 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:14:07 PM »

Quote from: Aesthesis on October 28, 2009, 05:43:03 PM

Scary stuff, but practically impossible. It obviously makes no sense in the world of business; turning a free market as large as the internet into a subscription service would instantly kill off most of the new websites and businesses purely because they're not famous enough to be put into one of these packages.

I think you misunderstand, you'll still have access to joeblow.com in this hypothetical situation, it's just the larger websites that people visit and suck up bandwidth, like youtube etc will cost extra. Basically, the large websites become premium sites.

Quote from: lx4 on October 28, 2009, 05:47:53 PM

Once a business has proved to profitable competitors are sure to pop up to get a piece of the action. Thats about as close to a law as you get in economics.

It's actually been proven the opposite in the US economy. Competition is strong when a market is young. As the market matures, large corporations buy up their smaller competition, leading to less competition. This is true in almost every business market. We DID use to have 5 or 6 local ISP's here in my hometown available in the 90's. Most were dialup. The got bought out, and switched to cable/DSL.

Now the entry costs to get in the market are almost cost prohibitive. Laying fiber for an entire city isn't cheap.

Quote

Capping downloads, restricting speed for some sites etc might all be tools used to bring down the cost for consumers. It is not necessarily right to deprive them of the option just because its not something we would like to purchase.

I guess our opinions differ. My opinion is that the internet is becoming a near utility in our daily lives, like the telephone, water, transportation and should be regulated as such.

Mirgond · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:23:17 PM »

Ix4, you can't compare the situation in Europe with that in the USA...
Here the competition is forced by the government

sdedalus83 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:39:26 PM »

The ISP competition of the 90's was possible only because everyone was using the same client side infrastructure.

Once we started moving to cable and DSL, the infrastructure providers became the internet service providers since they were the entities spending the money to develop a new system and wanted to lock in the huge new revenue stream. You are starting to see companies buying up big blocks of service from DSL and 3G providers to sell more tailored services at premium prices, but those appeal to very small niche markets. There's also far more competition in urban areas; however, exclusivity deals really hamper any real competition. Houston is a good example of that. About 80% of the metro area is locked in by ATT, with Verizon taking up most of the rest. Since Att doesn't have to compete in the areas where it has exclusive rights, they have no interest in developing any sort of real infrastructure. It's left huge portions of the city with very limited access and the only competition is Comcast, which has its own cable monopoly in the city. Verizon, on the other hand, has developed the shit out of its own network, driving people to live in certain parts of the city just so they can get decent internet service.

The exclusivity deals were justifiable 10 years ago as a way to get service in remote areas, but the deals were far too sweet for the fucking telecoms and they're now abusing the system to squeeze every last drop.

Onoz · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2009, 07:20:59 PM »

Today's lesson- Steal all the internets you can while you can.

Borror0 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2009, 09:51:11 PM »

Quote from: lx4 on October 28, 2009, 04:50:15 PM

I dont have more then a very basic understanding of the concept of net neutrality. But it would seem to me that as long as no broadband supplier have a government granted monopoly, competition of the threat of possible competition would stop something like this from happening.

If there is a sizable amount of people who doesnt like this business model (which there surely would be) this would create a large the demand for an alternative. It shouldn't take long for a competitor to try to capitalize on this demand and offer an unrestricted service.

I think you're underestimating money there is to make for ISPs if they go for that kind of model. They could accept subsidies from websites and corporations while also having less broadband to take care of. All in all, it's a win/win for them. Plus, in many places, the choices of ISPs are already not that great or nonexistent.

I think relic's overstating his point a bit but there is some truth behind it.

kurandoinu · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2009, 10:02:08 PM »

Surely this would harm companies like ebay and amazon? It would push people away from using them because they'd have to pay extra for it.

Nikran · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2009, 10:24:29 PM »

Quote from: kurandoinu on October 28, 2009, 10:02:08 PM

Surely this would harm companies like ebay and amazon? It would push people away from using them because they'd have to pay extra for it.

I would have thought such a business modal would be a double edged sword. From my understanding it would increase profits of ISP's, but other internet based companies would suffer very badly. It would probably damaged the economy alot in the end.

I seriously hope this shit never gets implimented $:-\$

Drew · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2009, 11:03:28 PM »

If this actually went through I would move to and become the citizen of another country.

Borror0 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2009, 11:13:18 PM »

Quote from: Nikran on October 28, 2009, 10:24:29 PM

It would probably damaged the economy alot in the end.

Not only the economy but progress as well.

Aesthesis · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2009, 08:09:30 AM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 28, 2009, 06:14:07 PM

Quote from: Aesthesis on October 28, 2009, 05:43:03 PM
Scary stuff, but practically impossible. It obviously makes no sense in the world of business; turning a free market as large as the internet into a subscription service would instantly kill off most of the new websites and businesses purely because they're not famous enough to be put into one of these packages.

I think you misunderstand, you'll still have access to joeblow.com in this hypothetical situation, it's just the larger websites that people visit and suck up bandwidth, like youtube etc will cost extra. Basically, the large websites become premium sites.

Oh right... That makes much more sense. Especially if the premium websites are still accessible to all but only premium users get good bandwidth. Still what's to stop people just migrating to other websites that don't cost extra? If the big popular sites cost more then they will simply cease to be popular, I guess I can see how some people like certain sites enough that they'd pay extra to visit but there will always be alternatives for people who don't want to pay. It would be tragic though, so much awesome otherwise free content reduced to a drip feed and ultimately lost.

kyanwan · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2009, 08:18:16 AM »

Quote from: relic2279 on October 28, 2009, 05:02:01 PM

Good competition just not possible in the US.

Most cities have 2, or just 1 ISP. So the local market is either a duopoly or a monopoly. Right now I use Time Warner cable. My only other option is Verizon DSL. Even if someone wanted to say, start their own ISP, invest tons of money laying the fiber, one of their big business competitors will just buy them.

There is almost no competition in the ISP market. At least here in the US anyways.

This ... ISPs ... really isn't a problem here.

What I would pin this whole issue on is telecommunication consolidation. Too many people owning too much market share, companies getting too big.

Plus the resurrection of Ma Bell under her new name: AT&T.

This filthy bastard we all know as George "worthless" Bush - yeah - that guy - opened too many doors for bastardry.

But dig a little deeper and we find this issue: hard line ownership

Too many people owning the hard wires that drive the net. Hard copper line is a lot more difficult to lay - and requires huge monetary investment. Not many people can afford it - other than the people who already did it, or bloated behemoth companies like ... Ma Bell II.

Now, there is some hope - which is - high speed wireless. Part of this "net neutrality" ( which I agree with ) - should be a restriction on future high-speed wireless data ownership, jamming/disruption, and coverage areas. No sole company should be allowed to dominate any market - as no hard wires are required. Licensing should be required, but easily attainable.

---

Yeah.

I might be highly conservative with money and certain issues, but with Telecom & Internet - I'm 100% on the liberal/progressive side. Any regulation / restriction / tiering - will destroy the net as we know it. It should be allowed to remain as-is. If you want a product that works like TV - make one that works like TV. Leave my internet alone. These myths that people "aren't making enough money" or "are getting free service" - are just that: myths.

The content provider pays an arm and a leg. The content consumer pays their fair share. Everyone pays. If you're inefficient and your employees & executives are overpaid - cry me a river. The market has spoken, and you're making your fair share.

Besides.

I have very, very little mercy for people who hire outsourced foreign labor. Shitty bastards.