Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

My response to the FCC vote.

[deathpunch578]

My response to the FCC vote.

fuck the FCC, not just with the no net neutrality bill, just in general, fuck 'em

[nenjin]

My response to the FCC vote.

What’s the most recent news?

[deathpunch578]

My response to the FCC vote.

What’s the most recent news?

it passed. net neutrality is gone.

[Gizogin]

My response to the FCC vote.

What’s the most recent news?

The FCC has decided that the internet is an information service, meaning that ISPs can charge you differently based on the services you use. They can also control connection speeds for different companies. As an "information service", they'll be regulated by the FTC, which only has the ability to make sure that ISPs tell you exactly how they're dicking you over.

Double-ninja'd. Neat.

[MrRoboto75]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Doomblade187]

Spoiler: Funny pics from techcrunch (click to show/hide)

Link

[Doomblade187]

And now we wait for very little to actually change as a result.

Apparently it kicks in around 60 days or so after today. At which point I expect to see pricing schemes change.

[Reelya]

And now we wait for very little to actually change as a result.

Yeah, it's probably not going to make any difference at all. Very few ISPs anywhere have the sorts of special deals that they're talking about, even though Net Neutrality laws basically don't exist anywhere. It's a conceptual dystopia, but while they "could" do it, most of the scenarios don't actually make much good business sense. Walled gardens like Compuserve and AOL disappeared for a reason.

Selective throttling for a start would not be a good business model for most ISPs. e.g. for any sort of capped plan then if they throttle down e.g. "non-netflix" data then they're going to lose out on profits. And I'd seriously doubt that Netflix's business model would extend to paying for data for their customers: they want you to subscribe monthly, they don't necessarily want you to have unlimited data to hog their service. This doesn't in fact make a whole lot of sense for either the ISP or Netflix to want to do. If Netflix had adverts in their content, it might make some sense, but not for a subscription service: you ideally want people to all subscribe because it's the cool thing to have, but never actually use the service.

[MrRoboto75]

And now we wait for very little to actually change as a result.

Of the people, by the people, for the people

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'd advise against putting things past capitalist greed. There's endless quibbling and "technically"'s that can be employed to propagandize the public, like zero rating or legal definitions. If one ISP can do it they all can, and given the cartel nature of the business that's a severe risk.

[Lord Shonus]

And now we wait for very little to actually change as a result.

Yeah, it's probably not going to make any difference at all. Very few ISPs anywhere have the sorts of special deals that they're talking about, even though Net Neutrality laws basically don't exist anywhere. It's a conceptual dystopia, but while they "could" do it, most of the scenarios don't actually make much good business sense. Walled gardens like Compuserve and AOL disappeared for a reason.

That assumes that you have a choice. Where I live, the internet market is essentially a duopoly, and one half of said duopoly is so terrible in most areas that it might as well not exist. This means that the remaining ISP (which is also a cable company, giving extra incentive to smacking streaming services) could very easily do whatever they want and nobody will switch. I don't expect them to, given how much effort they put into a good community relationship (it helps that it is a regional company rather than a national one), but they very easily could.

[alway]

A reminder that net neutrality was put in place specifically because ISPs started engaging in those practices. And that today they are in an even better position to do so.

[Flying Dice]

Yep. What isn't dangerous in a wild west environment full of small companies can be much more so when basically everything is controlled by a handful of telecomm giants conspiring in ways that ought to be spinning Teddy Roosevelt in his grave. Those rules existed solely because the ISPs had begun to engage in that sort of behavior.

Even Ronald fuckin' Reagan wasn't willing to let the telecomm companies work to turn that market into a monolithic coalition.

In local news, Dan Johnson offed himself after the story re: him sexually assaulting a 17 year old broke.

[Reelya]

I think the main argument is like I added in an edit there.

If you're being charged for some amount of data per month, with overuse fees, they have no incentive to throttle anything because that loses money.

If Netflix paid for it's users to get "free data" from the ISP then consumers would start to exploit that to avoid going over data caps. So Netflix would have to cover the costs of their own data to you, plus extra, to make it worthwhile to the ISP. And Netflix in fact has little incentive for you to consume more shows. They get paid per month: you watching more shows costs them money. Basically, Netflix would have to pay the ISPs every time you watched any episode of a  show with "extra bandwidth" to make it worth the ISPs time to make a deal.

Alternatively, a service with advertising could benefit from getting more usage. However, the data usage in terms of how much the ISP charges you is far more than the value of advertising contained in that same data stream. Advertising revenue just isn't going to cover the extra data that this sort of plan would require.