Net nuetrality again

Moderator: nate

Net nuetrality again

Postby fsmetal » Thu Jan 16, 2014 3:26 am



Did we finally lose?
fsmetal
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby Weidleface » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:27 pm

First off, I haven't looked into the reasoning behind the ruling itself so I don't 100% understand things from a legal standpoint. What I do know is that the major players in this whole net neutrality thing are the companies like Netflix, Hulu, Sony, and Microsoft whose user base is going to be shelling out for the "faster pipes," so to speak. I just read an interesting article on USA Today, and at the end of the article they bring up an interesting point. If ISPs want to charge streaming services more for access to their network and the services refuse to pay, who does that fall back on in the eyes of the average customer? A 50-60 year old who could care less about net neutrality suddenly notices that they can barely stream Netflix like they used to. The don't go to Netflix, they call Time Warner and ask why their services blow.

This could be a dangerous gamble for ISPs. If bigger, more prevalent sites and services buy into their eventual "tiered internet" plans, then no problem. We'll see subscription rates increase for streaming services, that's for sure. But if they don't buy in and these plans roll out anyway ISPs risk losing TONS of subscribers who have no idea why they can't access their favorite content any longer.

Personally, I think it's all bullshit. You can't compare it to subscription cable and act like that's ok. Premium cable is quite frankly a dying service that I believe will be virtually nonexistent in 5 years, especially if companies like DirecTV are unable to keep their exclusive licenses (the NFL in DirecTV's case).
Image
User avatar
Weidleface
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby TSL » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:32 pm

Legally what it means in simple terms is that the FCC (read: the gubment) will no longer dictate to Service Providers that they cannot dictate who gets access to better service.

For us, what I believe this will mean in the short term is billing plans for Internet that raise the price as you require more speed and bandwidth. Before this ruling, the billing plans were already in place. The difference now is that they can start to require more money if you start busting your bandwidth allotment per month (I know cuz I bust mine every month and never get forced to pay more).

What I don't know is if the ISPs will be able to bill me for overage. Right now, they can't later they might. But law might prohibit it based on being grandfathered in under an older license agreement. As an example, think about those of us who still have unlimited data plans on our phones. NOBODY really sells that as a plan anymore. My cell phone provider can't remove the service because my license agreement with them is still good. What they do instead is not allow me to have other services - like using my phone as a wi-fi hub - unless I switch plans.

It doesn't need to be gloom and doom at this poinbt though. Yes, I think the ruling sucks in a way. And yes the head of the FCC who advocated this is a former Cable Company executive. BUT, the market (consumers) will always determine how this evolves. You can't gouge the people you want money from too much because they will either go without your service or find an alternative. All the players in this game have a symbiotic relationship and ISP will definitely not win if they go all out.
Image
User avatar
TSL
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:45 am

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby Weidleface » Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:35 am

bchambers wrote:Legally what it means in simple terms is that the FCC (read: the gubment) will no longer dictate to Service Providers that they cannot dictate who gets access to better service.

For us, what I believe this will mean in the short term is billing plans for Internet that raise the price as you require more speed and bandwidth. Before this ruling, the billing plans were already in place. The difference now is that they can start to require more money if you start busting your bandwidth allotment per month (I know cuz I bust mine every month and never get forced to pay more).

What I don't know is if the ISPs will be able to bill me for overage. Right now, they can't later they might. But law might prohibit it based on being grandfathered in under an older license agreement. As an example, think about those of us who still have unlimited data plans on our phones. NOBODY really sells that as a plan anymore. My cell phone provider can't remove the service because my license agreement with them is still good. What they do instead is not allow me to have other services - like using my phone as a wi-fi hub - unless I switch plans.

It doesn't need to be gloom and doom at this poinbt though. Yes, I think the ruling sucks in a way. And yes the head of the FCC who advocated this is a former Cable Company executive. BUT, the market (consumers) will always determine how this evolves. You can't gouge the people you want money from too much because they will either go without your service or find an alternative. All the players in this game have a symbiotic relationship and ISP will definitely not win if they go all out.


The fact that there is a bandwidth allotment or data cap is an issue in the first place (for home internet, 3/4G is a different story). Especially as we move further and further into the age of digital distribution and streaming media.

And in regards to the bolded part, I don't necessarily think that's true. The way things are trending, people will need the internet. Tons of companies only accept online applications. Schools across the country have online only classes, or some students are limited to online classes because of work schedules. To give certain sites preferential treatment or not allow users access to some content without a specific package could REALLY screw things up for a lot of people. I know this is a worse case scenario I'm looking at, but it very well could happen.

EDIT: Just realized I never bolded anything. oops. :lol:
Last edited by Weidleface on Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Weidleface
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby fsmetal » Sat Jan 18, 2014 3:41 am

The worst case scenario here really scares me a lot. What happens if Youtube gets preferential treatment over Blip or something? Blip is where people like the Nostalgia Critic or Spoony actually make money.

I almost never watch TV shows anymore. I stream videos online., That is my form of entertainment.
fsmetal
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby rwburnham » Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:40 am

It is odd that home internet services have data limits. I know my home internet connection is limited to 250 gigs per month. Some months I don't break that limit, other months I blow past that in a major way (usually those are the months where I am building a new PC or there is a big Steam sale). It's a soft limit, so they don't charge for it, but they just let me know I went over. It's such an odd concept in this day and age of everything being online. I get most of my games via downloads, and most of my media comes from streaming services. I understand it on cellular networks, but not on home internet. Trust me, they have plenty of bandwidth to go around.

The ruling seems like something put into effect in order to cling to dying concepts. Cable TV is dying off, so cable companies are looking for ways to make more money. Charging for overages would help them do that. People would get charged for overages, so they would either pay the fees, or pay for better service with higher download limits. Either way, the ISPs make more money to make up for the loss of cable TV and home phone revenue.

On a side note, I won't miss cable TV, but I do still like having a home phone. It allows me to use cheaper cell phone plans and save money overall on my phone setup. Sure, one day I might ditch the home phone, but I like having a cheap cell phone bill for the time being.
User avatar
rwburnham
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby Kazriko » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:59 pm

I dunno, Net Neutrality really is treating the symptom instead of treating the disease. Net Neutrality as an abstract threat is really valuable as it keeps the monopolistic US internet companies honest. Net Neutrality as a concrete law however would probably do more harm than good. The companies would find a way to work around it and people would be stuck with lower quality internet as a result without really fixing the issues, and it would exacerbate the problem because any new entrants would have even more red tape to deal with trying to get into the market. It would just give the big companies even more leverage to mistreat their customers.

The real problem is that state and local governments have been granting companies monopolies for bringing cables to people's houses. This creates, depending on where you are, a monopoly or oligarchy situation in the market where the consumer has extremely limited choices, and even if they wanted to leave their internet provider because of neutrality violations and mistreatment of content, they couldn't.

Personally, I think that the home owner needs to own the right to run cabling to their house, and needs to own the cabling to their house from whatever local switchbox there is. That way they can choose who connects up the other end of that switchbox. We also need a system by which many providers can easily run buried cables through fixed tunnels, rather than the current complaint that too many redundant cable networks on poles look bad.
Image
User avatar
Kazriko
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:34 pm
Location: Colorado Plateau

Re: Net nuetrality again

Postby Kazriko » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:36 pm

(For more about the hazards of the approach of common carrier and such, look at the prior attempt to do that: http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/31/t ... f-the-tele )
Image
User avatar
Kazriko
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:34 pm
Location: Colorado Plateau


Return to General Discussions

cron

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest