Tubes and The FCC?s New Net Neutrality Proposal

[NobleSavage]

The chairman is proposing to adopt the rules under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

What would Sherlock Holmes do with such an intriguing, completely geeky clue? How will this destroy the Internet, you ask?

First, let me give away the ending first, and then I?ll explain how the clue revealed it all to me.

This is what we already know. The FCC is going to propose that cable and phone companies such as Verizon, AT&T, and Time Warner Cable are allowed to discriminate against them, giving some websites better service and others worse service. Cable and phone companies will be able to make preferred deals with the companies that can afford to pay high fees for better service. They will even be allowed to make exclusive deals, such as making MSNBC.com the only news site on Comcast in the priority tier, and relegating competitors to a slow lane. The FCC is authorizing cable and phone companies to start making different deals with thousands or millions of websites, extracting money from sites that need to load quickly and reliably. So users will notice that Netflix or Hulu works better than Amazon Prime, which buffers repeatedly and is choppy. New sites will come along and be unable to compete with established giants. If we had had such discrimination a decade ago, we would still be using MySpace, not Facebook, because Facebook would have been unable to compete.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...you_think.html

If the FCC destroys net neutrality could this kill the tube business model? They are very high bandwidth and the ISPs just might to start charging them for transit.

[xXXtesy10]

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...you_think.html

If the FCC destroys net neutrality could this kill the tube business model? They are very high bandwidth and the ISPs just might to start charging them for transit.

Take some time to read doper.

[Best-In-BC]

What a peace of shit bill, so much for freedom

[NobleSavage]

Originally Posted by Best-In-BC

What a peace of shit bill, so much for freedom

Yep. It's been all over the internet the last week with everyone complaining, but it seems the porn world (which would be greatly affected) is clueless.

Here is a Slashdot discussion on the topic:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04...-destroying-it

The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...eutrality.html

The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-the-internet/

Article at Vice

http://www.vice.com/read/former-comc...l-the-internet


Netfflix already payed off Comcast and you can see the speed increase they got in this graph: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2...et-neutrality/

[Best-In-BC]

No, people are conditioned to not talk about what is important.

[oppoten]

If we had had such discrimination a decade ago, we would still be using MySpace, not Facebook, because Facebook would have been unable to compete.

Facebook was the *kosher* alternative, and I'm sure that its usefulness to government agencies was in place even then. The money would have been found because it HAD to succeed.

If the tubes have the right backers then I'm sure they'll do just fine.

[woj]

"If we had had such discrimination a decade ago, we would still be using MySpace, not Facebook, because Facebook would have been unable to compete."

This whole discussion is full of loaded terms like "discrimination", "slow lane", etc... but isn't the gist of it, that some companies want to pay extra to get their data delivered faster? Isn't that exactly like amazon.com paying extra to get their packages delivered faster?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by woj

"If we had had such discrimination a decade ago, we would still be using MySpace, not Facebook, because Facebook would have been unable to compete."

This whole discussion is full of loaded terms like "discrimination", "slow lane", etc... but isn't the gist of it, that some companies want to pay extra to get their data delivered faster? Isn't that exactly like amazon.com paying extra to get their packages delivered faster?

No, because these very same internet providers have been paid our tax dollars as subsidies in order to improve their backbones. Tax payers have already paid for fiber networks to our homes, but the companies took the money and ran, not delivering on their promises. Tax payers have greatly subsidized the networks these companies use to make profits with.

It's not like they built it all themselves on their own dime.

[TFCash]

I'd say the large corps that run the backbone are doing what they want anyway.

My AT&T DSL connection only gets 150GB of traffic a month, if I go over it's $10 per 50GB, and I noticed that my Cox Cable connection was running at sub-par for the last week. So I tested and got 5Mb/sec on a 50Mb/sec line. When I called, I was told that I'd used 400GB of traffic in the last 30 days and that an abuse ticket had been opened to alert me to the fact that my wireless must have been compromised Little did they know that I was just downloading my content orders. No mention that they had capped me somehow, but miraculously my download speeds returned to normal while I was on the phone with them

So yes they are already getting anyone that uses outside of what they consider the normal amount of traffic. Cell phone companies do the same thing.

I'm not sure there is a lot we can do to change it

[InfoGuy]

While I generally don't like Google analyzing every bit of data they can get, the extra competition from their fiber network will help keep the traditional telcos and cable companies from getting too aggressive.

[Struggle4Bucks]

I guess slate.com is allready in slow lane as it took 15 seconds to load the page

[NobleSavage]

Originally Posted by InfoGuy

While I generally don't like Google analyzing every bit of data they can get, the extra competition from their fiber network will help keep the traditional telcos and cable companies from getting too aggressive.

It's going to be interesting how this plays out. Time Warner and Comcast are merging (as you probably know). They will OWN the last mile. Google Fiber is only in Kansas City and soon to expand into several other cities. They are not much of a competitor on the consumer ISP level. Yet the vast majority of the population will have to go through them to get to the internet OR Google. That is when they can tell Google, "pay us xxxxx$" or we will degrade your service.

[Barry-xlovecam]

In the end game the ISPs will get exactly what they don't want -- to be regulated as a public utility in the United States.

With the advent of the "Internet of Things" your power meter, refrigerator, house alarm, etc.. may need an Internet connection to fully function. Thirty percent of workers will work from home remotely over the Internet in the next 10 years. E-Commerce will account for an ever-growing share of the economy.

At that point, Internet connectivity is no longer an option and will be regulated for the public good as a utility. Regulation as a utility will not lower the costs of service necessarily.

If you observe the Federal highway system, and the federal and state DOT, the fuel taxes for passenger vehicles and common carrier trucking operators -- you get the picture of the likely pattern that the FCC may follow. ISPs may have to get approval for tariff rates (price tiers and rate hikes).

I would expect the Telcos and Cable companies to fuck themselves over with their own greed.

So either way, the Internet will cost more -- pick your poison ...

I would not overestimate the importance of tubes or porn video in this issue, they are minor players in the big picture.

[JuicyBunny]

Americans already getting boned. I pay less in japan for a 100 mbs connection ($38 a month) vs 3 dollars more for Verizon in LA at 1-5 mbs max. The "right people" tubes will be fine.

[xXXtesy10]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

In the end game the ISPs will get exactly what they don't want -- to be regulated as a public utility in the United States.

With the advent of the "Internet of Things" your power meter, refrigerator, house alarm, etc.. may need an Internet connection to fully function. Thirty percent of workers will work from home remotely over the Internet in the next 10 years. E-Commerce will account for an ever-growing share of the economy.

At that point, Internet connectivity is no longer an option and will be regulated for the public good as a utility. Regulation as a utility will not lower the costs of service necessarily.

If you observe the Federal highway system, and the federal and state DOT, the fuel taxes for passenger vehicles and common carrier trucking operators -- you get the picture of the likely pattern that the FCC may follow. ISPs may have to get approval for tariff rates (price tiers and rate hikes).

I would expect the Telcos and Cable companies to fuck themselves over with their own greed.

So either way, the Internet will cost more -- pick your poison ...

I would not overestimate the importance of tubes or porn video in this issue, they are minor players in the big picture.

Telephone companies live and breath regulatory. Most have entire departments dedicated to compliance. You'd be amazed how easy it is to add a new fee to your bill.

[InfoGuy]

Originally Posted by Struggle4Bucks

I guess slate.com is allready in slow lane as it took 15 seconds to load the page

This brings up another issue of SERPs, as ranking algorithms use page loading time as a variable.

[notinmybackyard]

Originally Posted by Best-In-BC

What a peace of shit bill, so much for freedom

Only because I have read and heard this comment from others that I have to ask the questions....

What the hell is your definition of *Freedom*?
And since when did the Internet become synonymous with the concept of *freedom*?

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by crockett

No, because these very same internet providers have been paid our tax dollars as subsidies in order to improve their backbones. Tax payers have already paid for fiber networks to our homes, but the companies took the money and ran, not delivering on their promises. Tax payers have greatly subsidized the networks these companies use to make profits with.

It's not like they built it all themselves on their own dime.

That's why I don't have high speed at one of my houses as no service is willing to run it even though it ends a few hundred yards away from me.