Page 1 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

14 Jan 2014, 6:02 pm

Now the private industry can give a slow connection to your site if they don't like it. :(

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/14/net-neutrality-internet-fcc-verizon-court



Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

14 Jan 2014, 6:19 pm

Why not simply browse through a proxy, or browse using numerical IP adresses?


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

14 Jan 2014, 8:09 pm

Image



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

14 Jan 2014, 9:17 pm

I'm at a small ISP. I would love to be able to charge content providers of videos for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

14 Jan 2014, 11:10 pm

what does this mean practicaly.how will this impact us day to day


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

15 Jan 2014, 4:51 am

vermontsavant wrote:
what does this mean practicaly.how will this impact us day to day

There is a lengthy Wiki on the subject, with multiple Pros and Cons to net neutrality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Anyway, the practical impact is dependent on the Internet Service Providers and how they will manage their business in the future.

One of the reasons why this decision is so controversial is because it is being spearheaded by Verizon, who has quite a controversial history of blocking:

- Pro-choice content
- Europe (???)
- Wikileaks
- 4chan 8O 8O 8O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon#Controversies

So, someone somewhere is going to be somewhat unhappy about this...

Image



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

15 Jan 2014, 8:19 am

Tollorin wrote:
Image


What point are you making with this display?



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

15 Jan 2014, 9:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
What point are you making with this display?

What the future will propably look like.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

15 Jan 2014, 11:00 am

This one angers me.

The internet is not merely a commercial service. It is not merely a convenience. The internet is an essential piece of infrastructure, and I am loathe to see its regulation left to the commercial interests that provide it.

I think it is particularly specious to find merit in a free speech argument on the part of Verizon. Verizon is an interlocutor. It seems to me that it has zero free speech interest in the relationship between a web user and a site. How is my internet service provide speaking when I read a post here or comment on it? Indeed, it seems to me that the proper way to interpret the free speech interests is to prohibit service providers from differentiating between the sites we visit and the content we receive or transmit.

I am most particularly worried about the implications for free press. Given the intersection of ISP's and media outlets, at what point will ISP's be in a position to restrict or even prohibit access to competing media?

I wait, with anticipation, to see the legislative and administrative response to this.


_________________
--James


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Jan 2014, 2:32 pm

As I said earlier, I'm at a small ISP.

We have a handful of customers who use enormous amounts of bandwidth and that bandwidth is mostly to stream videos. Some use enough bandwidth that we could actually come out ahead by encouraging them to go elsewhere and terminating their service.

One customer, the younger brother of someone I have known since the first grade, doesn't have a tv set at all. Instead, they stream movies from Netflix nearly all day long. It ends up costing us more to provide them with that bandwidth than their total monthly payment.

Too many bozos think that they should have all the bandwidth they can possibly use for a few dollars a month.

I have seriously considered changing the pricing structure so that customers who use extreme amounts of bandwidth are charged for the amount of bandwidth actually used.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Jan 2014, 3:10 pm

One thing that we will likely do is to adjust the priority of handling our internet traffic based on the IP address of the remote sites.

The more traffic to and from a remote IP address, the lower its priority level.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Jan 2014, 3:20 pm

One thing I have considered doing is providing a web proxy for local users who wish to use it that would replace advertisements on web pages with advertisements for local businesses.

The one downside might be for adult sites. I doubt that a local school or church, for example, would be interested in paying for advertisements that might appear on X-rated web sites.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

15 Jan 2014, 4:30 pm

I don't really see a problem with charging people per gigabyte they download. Unless it's not been specified in the contract, in which case the ISP is obliged to provide as much as the person can use. But if they specify in the contract that it's, say, a 10mbps connection with a cost of $1 per gigabyte downloaded, then that would be okay. Just so long as they keep to that, and give everyone an equal service - if everyone is paying for a baseline of 10mbps, they should be both getting that whether they're on WrongPlanet or Netflix. If Netflix has to be slowed to ensure everyone is getting the same, then so be it...



Sherlock03
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Oct 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Virginia

15 Jan 2014, 6:17 pm

eric76 wrote:

The one downside might be for adult sites. I doubt that a local school or church, for example, would be interested in paying for advertisements that might appear on X-rated web sites.


That would be fricken hysterical.


_________________
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius


wozeree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,344

16 Jan 2014, 12:33 am

As a general rule I'm always cynical about big business in America - but for one thing, the internet has gotten really boring lately anyway. It seems like any time i want to do research about anything, I find results mostly from major players - content farmers or big companies. Some of them masquerade as professionals but are really a joke (like Web MD). I really miss the old internet where individuals voices were strong.

But as for this ruling, if what they are predicting happens people will get more and more bored with the internet and will stop using it. I read that Comcast tried something like it once and they had so much backlash they had to stop.

As for charging people for what they download or stream, that seems fair to me.

Too bad all the little folks like us can't get together, everybody pitching in a little and build our own neutral net.



superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

16 Jan 2014, 4:27 am

Tollorin wrote:
Image


I'm assuming this is a mockup. I like the "Massive 2000Mb". That was a nice touch.

The big worry for me about this type of approach is that it potentially pulls up the ladder behind the established players. If Netflix strikes up a deal with Verizon to prioritise it's traffic and deprioritise everyone else's, what chance does my-hypothetical-new-video-service.com have of breaking into the market.

Startups drive innovation and move the economy forward. This could harm startups.

It's a bit like if I were to start up a parcel delivery service and FedEx bribed traffic cops to put up roadblocks in front of my vehicles. It massively favours established players.



Last edited by superluminary on 16 Jan 2014, 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.