Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:36 pm

AT&T's got this shit all figured out with it's wonderful new "permissible content" category!

Here we go! The fun's starting already.

Who needs state censorship when you've got corporations to shoulder the load?
Image

User avatar
Smiler
Imperisaurus Rex
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Smiler » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:09 pm


User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 2087
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Brentai » Wed Feb 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Short of throttling Facebook, that seems like the two quickest ways to piss off the business and consumer spheres, respectively. Sounds like someone in Verizon is a pro-neutrality prankster.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:13 pm

Yeah, pissy business vs. business fights will actually be the quickest way to get legal money flowing to fight the recent ruling.

Alternatively the FCC may decide to go the not-quite-nuclear option and classify internet service providers as Common Carriers.
Image

User avatar
Classic
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:53 am

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Classic » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:15 pm

Hasn't that infrastructure been subsidized heavily by the fed?

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:52 pm

Image
Image

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Büge » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:18 pm


User avatar
Classic
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:53 am

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Classic » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:02 am

Twenty billion?
What's to stop Comcast from taking more hostages next week and asking for fifty billion?

EDIT:
That was opaque.
I'm obviously referencing this scene from Street Fighter: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28m-nPA_PgM

But what I mean to say is that this feels like netflix is caving to a magic kung-fu dictator.

User avatar
sei
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby sei » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:21 am

M. Comcast's a bad guy?
Image

User avatar
TedBelmont
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby TedBelmont » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:06 am

For you, the day Comcast charged Netflix for access to its network was the most important day of your life. For Comcast, it was Tuesday.

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 2513
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Büge » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:55 pm

Well, net neutrality was nice while it lasted.

Companies like Disney, Google or Netflix will be allowed to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers under new rules to be proposed by the Federal Communications Commission, the agency said on Wednesday.

User avatar
Esperath
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Esperath » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:56 pm

whoops, looks like I missed the actual net neutrality thread :3
pisa katto

ImageImageImage

pisa katto

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:36 pm

Jesus guys, what the FUCK is wrong with your country? I swear that in just the past three days alone I've read about enough horrible disasters to last any other industrialized nation a whole fucking decade.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 5585
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Thad » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:45 am


User avatar
Mothra
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mothra » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:11 pm

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF just thirty f's

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mongrel » Wed May 07, 2014 7:28 pm



If you go to the actual YouTube page for this, there's a ridiculous amount of useful links in the post body.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 5585
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Thad » Thu May 15, 2014 4:12 pm

Open for public comment.

EDIT TO ADD: My submission:

This is exactly the kind of policy you get when you put a cable company lobbyist in charge of the FCC: a plan nobody but the cable companies could possibly want, and that seeks to make the Internet work like cable TV.

This plan has no benefit whatsoever to consumers. Cable companies demand extortion money from content providers; the providers who are willing and able to pay pass that cost on to their consumers (as Netflix has already done by raising its streaming subscription price), and the providers who aren't are put at a crippling disadvantage. You can bet the ever-increasing bottom dollar on your cable bill that if Comcast had had the opportunity to demand a premium from YouTube to stream video in 2005, we wouldn't be talking about YouTube today -- though maybe that would have been good news for Real Networks, as we'd probably still be limping along on the vastly inferior RealPlayer. Buffering...

This proposal is a government handout to the kind of companies that need it the least: monopolies and near-monopolies that already provide poor service at exorbitant prices, and suffer no market backlash for the simple reason that they provide a necessary service and have no competition.

Google doesn't want this. Microsoft doesn't want this. Netflix doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't want this. Consumers don't want this, and small businesses sure as hell don't want this. The only ones who DO want this are the cable companies who pick our pockets every month -- and their former employees like Chairman Wheeler.


EFF has a form letter too, if that's what you're into.

User avatar
sei
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:29 pm

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby sei » Thu May 15, 2014 4:51 pm

Good to see it so active.

Robert M. Enger wrote:The last-mile network operators are leveraging their monopoly to over-charge (and under-serve) the consumer. AND, they are double-dipping: extorting bribes from content-suppliers in order to obtain non-congested interconnection to the last-mile operator's network. Last-mile operators are guilty of racketeering, in the literal sense.
Image

User avatar
Mothra
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mothra » Sun May 18, 2014 12:41 pm

Sent.

User avatar
Mothra
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3158
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Net Neutrality (or, the lack thereof)

Postby Mothra » Sun May 18, 2014 1:06 pm

I said more or less what Thad did:

This benefits nobody but the cable companies, for whom the head of the FCC is a lobbyist.

Either you'll do right by the people, or this is a complete farce, and we never had a say in it at all.

If this passes, cable companies can extort whatever they want from content providers, and those that are able to pay up will charge the customers more, to make up the difference. So, we end up paying more for whatever media companies like Comcast decide should struggle to reach their audience. Companies that CAN'T pay for normal bandwidth allocation -- anything new or ambitious or experimental -- is forced into a position where they can't hope to compete with companies many times their size, with vastly more money to throw at cable companies. Again, there is zero benefit here for anyone but the cable companies. And, as you know, Comcast has nearly a monopoly on internet service, so there is very often no other game in town if we don't want to play this game.

This would be a towering beacon to the failures of capitalism, if it's allowed to go through. I have faith in my country and the system of opportunity that has made it great, but allowing this ruling to pass would prove beyond doubt that the FCC and by extension our government cares more about making the spectacularly rich richer than doing right by the people.

Please do right by the people.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests