Will This Affect Producers Of Superheroine Content?

[MightyHypnotic]

We're About to Lose Net Neutrality -; And the Internet as We Know It

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so ... eutrality/

[Ezekiel]

Umm, excuse my stupidity, but I really can't understand a damn thing out of that article. What's this all about?

[MightyHypnotic]

There's a lot of nuances but the overall message is, the big internet carriers, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast basically want internet companies to pay up for the "privilege" of allowing you to access their sites. Anyone who doesn't pay up would wind up with a site that would be inaccessible or barely accessible. Think REALLY slow downloads.

Furthermore, they would reserve the right to allow or deny access to any sites based on their own criteria, which would not be regulated by any govt agency.

So obviously big companies like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and the lot wouldn't be affected but smaller companies like most internet producers for example, could be severely impacted. We already pay for bandwidth and server storage space, now we would also have to pay up to allow our customers fast access speed. We also run the risk of having Verizon deem us as "undesirable" and refuse to provide access to our sites.

But this would also affect any startup business. For example, the next Twitter or Yelp might not have a fighting chance to compete against the "established" companies.

So it's a pretty big deal.

[Visitor]

Carriers want to regulate the volume going over their systems, so sites that are volume heavy like video downloaders can get restricted unless they pay more than a site doing smaller text pages. They want to get more money for the systems they created.

[scwank]

Carriers want to regulate the volume going over their systems, so sites that are volume heavy like video downloaders can get restricted unless they pay more than a site doing smaller text pages. They want to get more money for the systems they created.

They're already getting money from their customers. Whether me and 10 other customers all go to the same video streaming site (making that site volume heavy), or to 10 different sites, the amount of traffic to their network is the same. Money grab.

[MightyHypnotic]

Im reading it as, let's say I am Verizon. I have customers that you, an internet company, want to do business with. If you don't pay me a premium, I will slow your traffic down to my customers, who will then most likely go to a competitor that has paid the premium for faster bandwidth. No one likes a slow loading site.

See where the BIG problem is here? The little guy will get crushed, which is just fine if you're Amazon or Walmart.com or even Facebook. Who can design the next big social media platform if they can't get anyone to load their sites?

There's 3 big companies that carry internet service. Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

From what I've read, the judges have indicated they are siding with the ISP's. It's no surprise there isn't much media coverage about it, either.

[HeroineFall84]

Im reading it as, let's say I am Verizon. I have customers that you, an internet company, want to do business with. If you don't pay me a premium, I will slow your traffic down to my customers, who will then most likely go to a competitor that has paid the premium for faster bandwidth. No one likes a slow loading site.

See where the BIG problem is here? The little guy will get crushed, which is just fine if you're Amazon or Walmart.com or even Facebook. Who can design the next big social media platform if they can't get anyone to load their sites?

There's 3 big companies that carry internet service. Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.

From what I've read, the judges have indicated they are siding with the ISP's. It's no surprise there isn't much media coverage about it, either.

I hate joining in on the band wagon of USA bashers, living here and all, but when is this madness going to end? We are a few laws away from a major revolt I am telling you. I am sure it violates the constitution in some way as well, like you can't speak unless you have a lot of money? Not that that matters any more now a days.

[cdrei]

Apparently the open internet may also be at risk due to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade treaty, which has been in the works for some time. It begins to look like the internet is going to change soon, one way or another, to the benefit of the biggest corporations over the users and smaller internet-based or internet-reliant businesses. Worrisome stuff.

[Mr. X]

If you enact NN you will be handing the big companies the mallet to smash small competitors. All regulations are merely cronyism for large companies to destroy competition. Even IF some company tries to do any cartel action the best way to deal with them is to spend your money some place else. You don't make money pissing off your customers.

And do people like the NSA? NN gives them unchecked license to sniff every packet of data. WHO determines what is fair?

NN is a bad idea looking for a non-problem. Internet has been the freest thing in human existence and for the most part only brings prosperity, enlightenment and freedom. Look at all the entities that want to regulate the internet... china, Iran, N Korea, governments... who's the real bad guy here? Don't use a non-problem as an excuse to hand some institution that has already spent $17tril and $120 tril in obligations power over your life it should NEVER have. The ONLY time someone ever owned everything was under a government.

[cdrei]

If you enact NN you will be handing the big companies the mallet to smash small competitors. All regulations are merely cronyism for large companies to destroy competition. Even IF some company tries to do any cartel action the best way to deal with them is to spend your money some place else. You don't make money pissing off your customers.

And do people like the NSA? NN gives them unchecked license to sniff every packet of data. WHO determines what is fair?

NN is a bad idea looking for a non-problem. Internet has been the freest thing in human existence and for the most part only brings prosperity, enlightenment and freedom. Look at all the entities that want to regulate the internet... china, Iran, N Korea, governments... who's the real bad guy here? Don't use a non-problem as an excuse to hand some institution that has already spent $17tril and $120 tril in obligations power over your life it should NEVER have. The ONLY time someone ever owned everything was under a government.

Interesting. One rarely encounters the anti-Net Neutrality stance. I would be interested in reading some background material presenting that viewpoint. NN usually seems to be presented as a defensive measure intended to preserve something like the (relatively) open nature of the internet as we've known it. I suppose any change in internet regulations could have a negative aspect.

It sounds like everyone is worried about the same things, ultimately, resulting from any change in the current state of the internet. We like it as it is, so why change it? It does sort of look like there are various efforts to change it, though. Quite possibly internet users and small businesses will be at a disadvantage no matter what changes result. Powerful parties seem to want some kind of change. I've begun to assume that it's going to happen, sadly.

Maybe we'll have a best-case scenario and the current state of the internet will be maintained for the foreseeable future. I really kind of hope so, but I am pessimistic, largely because I'm a worrywart.

SHIB content producers and providers, customers and fans, might be vulnerable in numerous ways, where internet regulatory changes are concerned. There's the anti-porn angle, the copyright control angle, the tiered service angle, the governmental control angle, probably others I can't think of.

[theScribbler]

I'm a bit confused. I thought NN was what we have now and is a good thing. It's the losing of NN that enables big corps to smash the little companies. Or do I have it backwards?

[cdrei]

I'm a bit confused. I thought NN was what we have now and is a good thing. It's the losing of NN that enables big corps to smash the little companies. Or do I have it backwards?

That's the way it's generally discussed. I assume above that there may be some reaction against a more activist effort to formalize Net Neutrality in law, somehow or other. Whether there is any effort to pass laws formalizing NN, I don't know. Given an apparent reaction against NN, though, there may either be such an effort, or at least a belief that there is or will be some such effort.

On edit. The Wikipedia entry for Net Neutrality perhaps clarifies things.

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

Network neutrality regulations are opposed by some Internet engineers, such as professor David Farber and TCP inventor Bob Kahn. Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: "The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer". Bob Kahn, another computer scientist, has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.

So, no effort to formalize NN via new laws, but some reaction against FCC constraints.

I suppose if FCC regulations in defense of NN are ended, the actions of the service providers will show us whether or not there was anything to worry about.

[Mr. X]

Service providers could have throttled the net over 15 years ago. They didn't. Is NN really about fairness or about some Hobbesian attitude towards one's fellow man.

[theScribbler]

Isn't it because of FCC rules that they didn't?

We have Net Neutrality now, seems fair to me.

[cdrei]

Service providers could have throttled the net over 15 years ago. They didn't. Is NN really about fairness or about some Hobbesian attitude towards one's fellow man.

It will be interesting to see what they do this time, I guess.

I always have to look up the philosophical references in your posts. Bear of little brain, me. I find:

From Hobbes (“a surname”) +‎ -ian; referring to the 17th century English author Thomas Hobbes, whose best-known work, Leviathan, describes a situation of unrestrained, selfish and uncivilized competition.

I'm not sure proponents of NN would call the telecommunications companies uncivilized, but selfishness seems enshrined in the corporate obligation to pursue shareholder value over anything else. I think possibly many people don't expect large corporate interests to show much restraint, these days. Many others don't expect governments to show much restraint, I guess. I suspect both viewpoints are correct sometimes and incorrect sometimes. It ends up feeling like rooting for Godzilla or Rodan, while they're both stomping on Tokyo around you, after awhile.

Probably your closing question-as-statement was intended as rhetorical, and I've merely had too much coffee. Apologies for that. Cdrei needs to show some restraint.