no more open internet :'( sad day in history

[RayfromTX]

He set up an unlicensed radio station and when approached by federal agents he tried to drive off. The wild west of broadcasting. Nice of him to agree to shut down his illegal radio station after many months in jail for assault of a federal officer. Was a jury involved or was this at Guantanamo? How dare they try to regulate him like that? Anarchy is not the way to build a prosperous society. If that is your example to show that radio is too highly regulated and that the internet should be left to the oligarchs, I'm unconvinced.

 

[BRT]

He set up an unlicensed radio station and when approached by federal agents he tried to drive off. The wild west of broadcasting. Nice of him to agree to shut down his illegal radio station after many months in jail for assault of a federal officer. Was a jury involved or was this at Guantanamo? How dare they try to regulate him like that? Anarchy is not the way to build a prosperous society. If that is your example to show that radio is too highly regulated and that the internet should be left to the oligarchs, I'm unconvinced.

I happened to see one of those agents. If they would have approached me I would have tried to get away too. We are back to no usable radio for advertising. No jury was involved. They just threatened him for months on the assault thing until he agreed to shut down the radio. Are you curious enough to wonder why they didn't just prosecute him on the "illegal" radio station but instead slapped his windshield?

 

[Akimbo]

This link might be interesting to anyone who thinks they are stuck with only one ISP:
2017 Best Satellite Internet Providers — See Your Rural Internet Options

If your provider tries does something you don't like, vote with your money and can them. Satellite Internet is a little weird because of latency, but the bandwidth is decent. Not nearly as cheap as hard-wired but is better than a 2400 baud modem.

 

[kelemvor]

You assume the market will be competing for people. The ISP's will be competing for content providers. That is where they will be able to make more money. The people will be stuck with whatever plan they decide to give us. We are actually the product the ISP's will be selling to the content providers.

Well, my point was that IF there was competition then people would switch if one provider had slow video services (because content providers of their choice didn't pay second ISP). This would give ISP an additional point to consider on their financial and PR agendas. Some providers would inevitably turn up that offered "unlimited" services to the internet vs those that sold fast lanes to only the content creators who could pay. That could lead to market self-correction. Depending on where the dollars and cents ended up. It's irrelevant though other than as a theoretical talking point.

This link might be interesting to anyone who thinks they are stuck with only one ISP:
2017 Best Satellite Internet Providers — See Your Rural Internet Options

If your provider tries does something you don't like, vote with your money and can them. Satellite Internet is a little weird because of latency, but the bandwidth is decent. Not nearly as cheap as hard-wired but is better than a 2400 baud modem.

I've looked into it before. Satellite internet is god Awful compared to the 150Mbps symmetrical service I've become accustomed to. It doesn't even meet the technical definition to be called broadband except under 100% perfect conditions. I'd do it if I was looking at dialup 56k modems vs satellite, or a mobile installation (RV etc). Seriously though I'd be much more inclined to sell my house and move than I would be to use satellite. You may think I'm exaggerating, but since I work from my home I assure you that I'm not. There's a couple cities in America that offer 1gbps service.. If I wasn't a diver I'd be looking at property in those towns most likely.

 

[ljpm]

Well, my point was that IF there was competition then people would switch if one provider had slow video services (because content providers of their choice didn't pay second ISP). This would give ISP an additional point to consider on their financial and PR agendas. Some providers would inevitably turn up that offered "unlimited" services to the internet vs those that sold fast lanes to only the content creators who could pay. That could lead to market self-correction. Depending on where the dollars and cents ended up. It's irrelevant though other than as a theoretical talking point.

The packages sold to end users and content creators are two different things. End users primarily download and content providers primarily upload. With the end of net neutrality the money will now be coming from the content creators, i.e. uploaders. Without net neutrality ISP will now be able to put exclusivity contracts in place. Google doesn't want Bing on Verison, they can pay for that exclusivity. Chrome want's exclusive use on AT&T, they can now pay for it. Bye bye Firefox.

I know this comparison is a reach but consider the fast food industry. McDonald's only sells coke and Burger King only sells pepsi. Is it because McDonald's customers don't want Pepsi or because Coke is the real customer and they pay for exclusivity. This type of system is now possible with the ending of net neutrality. And if a new Cola comes along, say like RC Cola, well to bad.

 

[drrich2]

McDonald's only sells coke and Burger King only sells pepsi. Is it because McDonald's customers don't want Pepsi or because Coke is the real customer and they pay for exclusivity.

True, but I imagine it's more practical for a restaurant to deal with one soda provider. I just ate at a local Quiznos; they do Pepsi, I'm a Coke dude (preferably Cherry Coke Zero). But I know having 2 different providers, 2 different soda machine setups, that's got to be more hassle.

Google vs. Bing doesn't have the impact on an ISP that Coke vs. Pepsi has an a restaurant. If ISPs had to buy search service, we might well be looking at what you describe.

On the other hand, we already see favoritism for money; turns out Apple is moving from defaulting Bing to Google for search, and from this article at Fortune.com,

-------------
"Google was already the default in Apple’s Safari web browser, part of a deal that pays Apple about $3 billion a year, according to analysts."
-------------

Our line experience is already impacted by commercial interests, and that's been alive & well despite Net Neutrality regulation. While people can often change search engine usage, as I recently read in another article, defaults are powerful - many people don't change them.

Richard.

 

[ljpm]

True, but I imagine it's more practical for a restaurant to deal with one soda provider. I just ate at a local Quiznos; they do Pepsi, I'm a Coke dude (preferably Cherry Coke Zero). But I know having 2 different providers, 2 different soda machine setups, that's got to be more hassle.

Google vs. Bing doesn't have the impact on an ISP that Coke vs. Pepsi has an a restaurant. If ISPs had to buy search service, we might well be looking at what you describe.

On the other hand, we already see favoritism for money; turns out Apple is moving from defaulting Bing to Google for search, and from this article at Fortune.com,

-------------
"Google was already the default in Apple’s Safari web browser, part of a deal that pays Apple about $3 billion a year, according to analysts."
-------------

Our line experience is already impacted by commercial interests, and that's been alive & well despite Net Neutrality regulation. While people can often change search engine usage, as I recently read in another article, defaults are powerful - many people don't change them.

Richard.

That is why I said it wasn't a great comparison. The part of the comparison that should be noted however is that it is now possible. It is now possible for an ISP to offer preferred rates to a large company that provides them with a great deal of business. Now if a new, innovative company comes along with a better product they may have to pay a higher price to get their product on the market.

I see the point regarding Apple. The exact same arguments apply. Why limit ISP's and not devices. With the Apple example, Google is only default; other search engines are not blocked or forced to pay higher prices. Also, the default can be changed. This is normally dealt with via anti trust. (?) (Again, no lawyer or expert by any means).

 

[Akimbo]

I've looked into it before. Satellite internet is god Awful compared to the 150Mbps symmetrical service I've become accustomed to.

Rub it in why don't you! I just upgraded from 3.5 to 30Mbps. I can get another 20Mb for $10/month but I couldn't tell that much difference between 3.5 and 30 for most of what I do.

 

[kelemvor]

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation

 

[ljpm]

Republican Lawmaker Introduces Net Neutrality Legislation

That looks like a positive step. Seems Title II was an inappropriate way of establishing net neutrality. Hopefully congress can balance the needs of the ISP's and the consumers.