Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, looks like the Internet as you know it died today.

Enjoy the future of what your Internet service looks like.

Well joy.

Nah... not sure it'll go that far.

If it did, then Congress could pass explicit regulations to address it.

Which is how it's supposed to work, instead of an over reaching FCC regulation.

whembly wrote:Nah... not sure it'll go that far.

If it did, then Congress could pass explicit regulations to address it.

Which is how it's supposed to work, instead of an over reaching FCC regulation.

Its an appeals court.

So they hold very little power. So all we have to do is contact our senators and push them to support net neutrality.

They will hopefully listen. If we can start a movement to ensure that net neutrality stays.

Start the engines of war Internet. The Enemy is at the gates.

Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.

 LordofHats wrote:
Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.

Yes but we can drive it further. Like we did with SOPA. The government is very accessible all we have to do is just call them up. So that the battle is won again.

 LordofHats wrote:
Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.

This. There is far more money on the 'let's keep it open' side than the 'pay per site' side.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Yes but we can drive it further. Like we did with SOPA. The government is very accessible all we have to do is just call them up. So that the battle is won again.

SOPA was less clear cut because in the end there were companies who fell on both sides of it. Something like what you see in the OP benefits only the internet provider to the detriment of virtually everyone else. No one will benefit from their business being blocked behind a pay barrier imposed by service providers.

Meh. I had to catch up on my reading anyway.

Way to blow things out of proportion. First, it only supply's to the US, the US is not the world. If the charges are too high these companies will just move servers elsewhere. And the US market is already broken with little competition. Second, it is talking about charging content providers, not users. Those providers will have to cover the costs, but given that most of the them already cover there costs at no expense to the user, and those that do charge like netflix charge for other reasons than bandwidth charges, I can't see that changing. Finally, as far as O can tell it is just a different way of charging for the same thing. Data, dispute what people think, is not free. There will now just be an option for telcos in the US to charge by bandwidth and data amount rather than just data amount.

The US is not the world?

Prove this statement.

In short, Netflix prices may go up until the matter is completely settled.

Wait, how does this affect the UK?
The US is not the world people:

Yeah... you guys go have fun with that.

That map is out of date.

Well, I'm kind of surprised it took this long. If you look at the history of Radio, it started all free and open and then overtime became harder and harder for the individual to use to spread ideas as it became more mainstream/commercial.

I imagine the internet will do the same.

The same thing happened with TV.

The internet wasn't going to be "The Wild West" forever.

Trying to see what the problem is.

Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.

 Fafnir wrote:
Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.

how is that different then what I'm doing now?

Well it's not like you're using the entire internet either.

I don't think additional charges for individual web sites would work in the UK.

Capacity is so cheap already, as long as you don't live in the middle of nowhere, that it's hard to see why any more money needs to be paid.

My phone line costs me about 20GBP a month including free evening and weekend calls and unlimited broadband data at about 13mbps (effective rate). I live in a not very well provided area. You can get much faster internet in cities.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The US is not the world?

Prove this statement.

Well, it's the third largest population, but only 4.45% of the world's total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

But we're still #1 in hearts everywhere!

 LordofHats wrote:
Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.

You might be correct, but there is a scenario in which this is beneficial for them. If say, all the search engines protest and refuse to pay for better bandwidth, but say... google decides they will, then its game over because google will get increased market share, forcing the others to also comply (at least until a new ruling comes about). Likewise, if Netflix refused and Hulu decides to pay, they could see increased market share, if Call of Duty doesn't pay, and Battlefield does, then increased market share for Battlefield, etc. The actions the players in this little game will take aren't so clear cut, in fact, a lack of neutrality is advantageous to the bigger players while putting the smaller ones at a huge disadvantage.

Game companies are unlikely to go with this at all. They won't want to put any of their profits into paying for bandwidth (which gets pricier the more successful the game is).

Likewise, this has very little to do with the cost of data. Data is cheap. The hardware infrustructure of the net however is expensive with little profit in it so providers are trying to find a way to make more money (as is their perogative) at the expense of the rest of us. The costs of bandwidth usage will be offset to the consumer, not to mention the introduction of download limits that could kill streaming services.

I doubt the Internet will be the wild west forever either but I don't think this is going to stand. The model is bad for everyone.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Wait, how does this affect the UK?
The US is not the world people:

I couldn't find anything disagreeable with this. I hate how blindly patriotic I am.

This thread coincided with a certain event on my favorite place, and I was half expecting to read about it on here.

Our government is very much for the defense of net-neutrality so I'm pretty sure we are fine.

 azazel the cat wrote:

The net neutrality provision is the only thing that protected the market from being dominated by an oligopoly. Now 100% of the control lies supply-side; which is exactly how a free market doesn't work.

Not quite true...

Look... this issue isn't "as simple" as it looks.

My brother is a network guru at Charter and the things he tells me is enlighting.

Case in Point:

Netflix. They charge a flat fee for their streaming services... right?

It used to be that Netflix wouldn't pay the services providers (aka, Charter) to use their infrastructure to provide streaming.

Remember, Charter owns those lines... not Netflix. I can't remember what was done to rectify that... but, I'll ask him again later on.

The concern here really... is that now, these service providers COULD legally throttle/restrict content. But, from my brother's perpective... it's really NOT in the best interests for providers to go down this path.

I don't see the problem with chargers big users more.