LOL at all the Trump bashing. Regardless of who would of been president this still would have happened. I'm one of those guys that don't vote. I am sort of apolitical from time to time. I like to sit back and watch the fire.
Net Neutrality officially ends today.....
- Thread starter Lightbringer
- Start date
Lightbringer
Active member
That is objectively wrong. Obama established the Net Neutrality laws that just got repealed and the Democrats voted in order to protect them.
But thanks for being part of the problem.
If I am an ISP, I can track what servers are chewing up most of my bandwidth, who owns them, and with many available technologies, determine what type of information they are sending over the net. I can broadly identify the kinds of sites users are visiting and other such things.
Right now, when I load up a main hub page like Yahoo, the damned thing sucks up massive amounts of bandwidth with videos, advertisements, and other such nonsense. These advertisements come from other servers. They are handles that tell the browser to make additional contacts to other servers that host and provide the ads. The 'web page' is simply a template with a bunch of additional links telling the computer where to get the shit to stuff in the blank spaces.
If I am an ISP, and I notice that advertisement services are actually chewing up shit-tons of my available bandwidth, one of the quickest ways to free up more bandwidth for more customers or more competitive speeds is to throttle the advertisement servers. They get paid good money for a service that uses a massive amount of my bandwidth. Rather than raise rates on my customers or pay to expand my infrastructure - I am going to throttle the ever-living shit out of something most customers complain about, and demand they start paying me to support the additional stress they place on my network. Hell, people would probably pay a few dollars more for a connection that automatically cut out all of those ad servers. If we are going for sheer capitalist thinking, I could market the solution to my problem as an ISP as a valued feature to the customer who wants away from the terror of ads and surveillance in the first place.
I sat and argued on facebook for a moment with someone, earlier, about the nature of the internet as a public utility. I gave a response rather dripping in sarcasm when they suggested the Internet should be treated as a public utility. Sure, just like land-line telephones, which everyone can hardly get through the day without using, the infrastructure of the internet should be like that of the phone lines, regulated to a proper standard and prices set fairly for the customer. All, of course, posted from my cell phone. (No one uses landline phones, anymore, and the plans for them cost just as much or more than a cell phone contract while having next to none of the functionality).
And, here's also a thought... Netflix automatically begins streaming shit to my computer, has a bloated interface constantly loading previews of shit I don't want to see and will never care about... if they were threatened with a bit of a fee to keep running unthrottled on ISPs, you can bet they would optimize that damned interface to show me what I want to see and to not constantly try and shove shit into my face.
Same with JewTube. They rake in billions in advertising revenue and have auto-play features set up to all of their stuff. Again - constantly shoving shit in my face that I never care to see. But because it might generate a few extra advertisement "watches" here and there, or toddlers on tablets everywhere are going to let them run perpetually, playing ads all day the company can up-sell in advertising negotiations - YouTube will NEVER change this policy UNLESS ISPs can threaten to throttle Youtube speeds or consider their service "premium" for customers and nix the advertising servers so customers never have to deal with ads on premium.
The idea that ISPs are going to jump at the opportunity to start charging stupid rates for internet is just an inflated concern. It was amped up by politicians who, basically, used fake news to create a problem that never existed and use it as a rallying cry to sell a poisoned solution to the problem, which never existed in the first place.
What will change is that ISPs will begin cracking down on the bullshit chewing up bandwidth that their customers aren't willing to pay for. You would be surprised how much bandwidth is being consumed by programs and services that have nothing to do with what you are looking at on the screen, what you are trying to stream, what you're trying to search for, etc. As it is, now, those can't be discriminated against by the ISP, and the only way to pay for the expanded requirements is through global price increases on all customers, despite the fact that they may be things customers do not want (or even know is going on).
You just said it, yourself. Ad-blocker has become so prominent that it is effectively necessary to browse the internet, these days. It's rather comical to try and load up even a simple news home page with a browser that doesn't have ad-blocker, and watch the thing reduce a gaming computer to a stuttering slideshow.
Because so much of the internet has become rooted in advertisements and massive chunks of bandwidth being consumed for no reason other than it can't be discriminated against, the cost to entry into the internet and web hosting has gone up, considerably. While ISPs can't throttle based on bandwidth, web hosts can (and will). Companies that run virtual servers for much smaller businesses and sites have to pay for the infrastructure and licenses while competing with other hosting services/servers for access/bandwidth through key nodes.
While Net Neutrality was argued to be about the prices the consumer pays, that is never what it was about. It was about, ultimately, forcing all of the internet into major corporate monopolies, much like how public phone systems have become, that are effectively arms of the government in the end.
Negative. There were no laws passed, no votes in any elected office were cast.
What happened was that, following a ruling by a U.S. Circuit Court in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) , the FCC declared that the Internet was a telecommunications service and that it was, therefor, subject to Title II of the Communications Act.
Prior to that, the FCC had, in 2005, granted itself the authority to implement certain abstract policies with regard to the Internet.
Otherwise, there are very few to no actual laws regarding the Internet in the U.S. at the national level. It's all simply been various agencies arguing that past laws apply to the Internet, or simply granting themselves the authority to do things with no public oversight.
What problem?
in 7 days people in the EU might lose the concept of Fair use...
the EU are voting on similar fair use laws that Spain have (they are so bad that even Google pulled out of Spain because it was impossible for them to keep up with onslaught of fines they wore getting when people wore linking to spanish news articles on youtube...)
(this is of cause simplfied, but still it's going to be even worse for the people in the EU, net neutrality is just an increase in price, where we in the EU might lose the the ability to even critique, link to or talk about news on facebook or twitter)
Archive offline.
Believe it or not, this would actually be a great thing for the EU. Bring back the old internet - before Facebook and Twitter. Back when Google was just a search engine. Back when we actually used to socialize on the internet, share ideas, and engage in life and death forum battles in troll vs troll. I want my tears back!
Where's the trap door that takes me there, where the real is shattered by a mad march hair?
I really need to take violin lessons.
