12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Any of You Worried About Net Nuetrality ENDING?

by iAmNameLess
9 replies
Not sure how many of you are aware, since American media seems to not really want to cover this...

How do you think this will affect you?

Personally, I would think the FCC has something they can pull off to get an open internet but it is a little worrisome. I'm all for less government regulations for sure, but this takes us back to the 90s with less innovation, harder time for startups, and really, reduces the need for businesses to use our services if what is predicted, actually happens.

Thoughts?
#ending #net #nuetrality #worried
  • Profile picture of the author Jason Kanigan
    This is the 2nd post I've seen about the topic, but I don't know anything about it. Is there a story you can link to, nameless? Thanks
    Signature
    >> How To Grow Your Online Business [FREE Training Video, No Opt-In, from 12+ Year Vet]

    >> For Agency Founders: The Fast Shortcut To Selling SEO, Leadgen, Webdesign & Other Services
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873529].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Doud
    As always I trust in the market to fix the problem.

    Free data for certain sites? That only works if the customer wants to use those sites. Block sites or slow them down? The customers that want those sites will go elsewhere. Filter and slow down online gaming traffic? The gamers will go elsewhere.

    Net Netraulity exist now because of the market not because of the government even though there are regulations in place. ISPs need to (or believe they need to) service all customers to survive so they keep Net Neutrality. If one or more of the ISPs decide to change that it will be due to customers and how they feel they can best service customers.

    There will IMO always be Net Neutral ISPs because the consumers will demand it. But I suspect we will reach a point where certain ISPs abandon that ideal. It will start first with the cell providers as they will see it as a way to make money.

    But I think it will be a passing phase as will teired data. Remember we used to pay for minutes and texts and now many plans give unlimited to each instead making money on data because that is where the demand is.

    In the past demand was in minutes and that was how they made their money. Then it moved to texts and that is how they made their money.
    Signature
    Aaron Doud - Sales & Success
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873563].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author reboot38
    The story on Foxnews: Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn | Fox News

    And another from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/tech/w...ity-explained/
    Signature
    Snoop on your competitors, research keywords, run seo audits, monitor keywords, includes powerful PPC tools.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873580].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Huskerdarren
    It's a very interesting topic. Youtube and Netflix (and others) have a ton of content to deliver to consumers. They are putting a burden on the networks of all of the ISPs to be the delivery pipeline. The cost of maintaining and adding to the the infrastructure is put on the ISPs. They have to make a profit, and since the Youtubes and Netflix's are sucking up so much bandwidth, they bear a higher cost of doing business. So either they pay or the consumer can pay through some sort of tiered pricing structure. Either way, the content providers can't dictate to the ISPs what's going through and how much of it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873693].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      Originally Posted by Huskerdarren View Post

      It's a very interesting topic. Youtube and Netflix (and others) have a ton of content to deliver to consumers. They are putting a burden on the networks of all of the ISPs to be the delivery pipeline. The cost of maintaining and adding to the the infrastructure is put on the ISPs. They have to make a profit, and since the Youtubes and Netflix's are sucking up so much bandwidth, they bear a higher cost of doing business. So either they pay or the consumer can pay through some sort of tiered pricing structure. Either way, the content providers can't dictate to the ISPs what's going through and how much of it.
      Content providers certainly can dictate to the ISPs what is going through... this is what it allows... Just like cable TV providers have contracts with different networks and it causes blackouts, the same can now happen online.

      It's not about the big dogs though, it's about the smaller businesses. If big companies can afford faster connections, and if you go over say, 200MB/mo in general usage, that means they can throttle you for small websites, businesses, etc.
      Originally Posted by Aaron Doud View Post

      As always I trust in the market to fix the problem.

      Free data for certain sites? That only works if the customer wants to use those sites. Block sites or slow them down? The customers that want those sites will go elsewhere. Filter and slow down online gaming traffic? The gamers will go elsewhere.

      Net Netraulity exist now because of the market not because of the government even though there are regulations in place. ISPs need to (or believe they need to) service all customers to survive so they keep Net Neutrality. If one or more of the ISPs decide to change that it will be due to customers and how they feel they can best service customers.

      There will IMO always be Net Neutral ISPs because the consumers will demand it. But I suspect we will reach a point where certain ISPs abandon that ideal. It will start first with the cell providers as they will see it as a way to make money.

      But I think it will be a passing phase as will teired data. Remember we used to pay for minutes and texts and now many plans give unlimited to each instead making money on data because that is where the demand is.

      In the past demand was in minutes and that was how they made their money. Then it moved to texts and that is how they made their money.
      I think you're wrong. The providers really don't need to do anything because in MOST markets there is a monopoly. Time Warner doesn't compete with charter, charter doesn't compete with comcast... they dominate their markets with no need to try to take over another.

      If my ISP decided to do tiered data, I couldn't do anything about it because there is no competitor.

      This hurts small businesses the most, because customers of course WON'T care at first... If someone is trying to google a roofer, attorney, whatever... and they are beyond their bandwidth, then they get throttled.

      The Net Neutrality is definitely by regulation, it isn't due to the market. Just like Comcast had to sign a net neutrality agreement until 2018 when they had a merger. This is a huge deal.

      There is not enough competition in this space, that allows for the free market to command net neutrality.

      You make a good point about cell phone... 15 years ago you did have to pay for minutes.... then you had to pay for texts.... and 5 years ago you had to pay for data.... What the END of Net Neutrality does, is kicks us back years for innovation.

      Smart phones would not exist if there was no net neutrality...iphones, ipads, tablets, half the startups that make the future exciting, would not be here. I guarantee, if this really does hold up, 50% of people in the offline space offering online marketing, will be done.

      This could also throttle "out of area" businesses. Which would increase the importance of big local marketing, but it hurts the mid size companies that offer the services nationwide.

      This most definitely stiffles innovation, and there are a lot of ways this can turn.

      Most importantly, this can end free speech online. It isn't just a usage issue, download speed issue, but a free speech issue. One provider could block out their competitors... bing could pay a lot of money to a provider that prevents the usage of Google... Facebook could take out any future social network usage with the amount of money they can spend, and they could do it to start ups that turn down an acquisition offer.

      IMO, this takes us back to the 90s.

      My hope.... surprisingly since I actually am for limited government, is that the FCC can reclassify broadband communications as a utility.

      Net Neutrality, not the market, has forced ISP's to have higher speed. Remember when 128-256k was considered lightning speed? It is net neutrality that has allowed companies like netflix, hulu, youtube, to exist.

      Netflix, has forced ISP's to offer better service, a lot of markets are getting fiber speed 1GB/sec download... makes netflix really easy to use.

      I hope they at least appeal to the supreme court. I'm surprised that Verizon, of all companies, were the ones behind the suit.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873777].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Shadowflux
        I think the big problem with this issue is whether or not ISPs are common carriers. There are certain laws which govern the way a telecom company can operate because they've been labeled as common carriers. What this means is they use public land for their services, mainly stringing phone lines through our backyards, so they can't then hold it with an iron fist.

        I think the biggest problem some of these providers are worried about has nothing to do with congested lines. If they updated their infrastructure they would be able to handle the demands of every user and then some.

        It's just that it's cheaper and easier to try and protect an outdated profit model through litigation than spending all of that money to update their systems. They want the internet to be like cable tv. You get a basic package then, if you want HBO or the sports package, you'll have to pay more. They're capping the bandwidth because some people use things like Netflix or BitTorrent constantly which means only these customers would be affected by a bandwidth cap. These are the user they want to squeeze for more money.

        I think this new ruling also has to do with Verizon, specifically, wanting to charge Netflix a premium fee for letting Verizon's internet customers access HD content at a decent speed. It's just about money, not "clogged tubes".

        I'm not too concerned. You can't deny that this model is truly outdated and people are used to ubiquitous high speed internet. You can't let people enjoy something for a decade and then decide to take it away in a ham fisted grab for more money. Just look at how hard it has been for them to shut down BitTorrent, Wikileaks, even 4chan.

        WE own the internet, the ISPs are just gatekeepers. WE created the internet, the ISPs just charge us to visit. Really, we could theoretically just do away with the ISPs and we would still have the internet we all know and love.

        These decisions are being made by corporate idiots at the ISPs, people who only know money and don't understand technology.

        The public will win this one.
        Signature
        Native Advertising Specialist
        Dangerously Effective
        Always Discreet
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873818].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheBigBee
    Does the President of the United States have a position on this?
    Signature
    FILL IN THE BLANKS!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873882].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
      Originally Posted by TheBigBee View Post

      Does the President of the United States have a position on this?
      He is a VERY strong supporter for net neutrality, that was one of his running points in 08.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8874021].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LastingLifeSuccess
        I am concerned as is Nameless due to the undeniable records of corporations and their demands for higher profits. I have gone to freepress.net and signed in against the FCC doing anything but classifying the ISP's as UTILITIES and utilities only in order to preserve Net Neutrality as we know it today.

        Look what monsters the banks turned into when they found they could get cheap money from the Fed without risk and not having to pay depositors a decent interest rate. Once they were deregulated they became risk bound investment junkies instead of the capital (cash) lending utilities they once were. I believe that is what the ISP's are wanting to do: morph from gate keepers to Toll Takers.

        LLS
        Signature
        "How To Make $4,000-$8,000 Finder's Fees Snooping Around Public Records"
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8875322].message }}

Trending Topics