Internet Slowdown / Net Neutrality

[CaptainKipard]

Is this allowed or is it politics?

EDIT

I meant, is the discussion of Net Neutrality allowed.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[vger]

Both, since politics decides what is allowed.

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

The question is should it be allowed. Answer is no.

[RogueMason]

I'm not sure what effect, if any, there would be on myself if the internet is divided into fast and slow lanes (I live in the UK and am with Virgin Media). As far as I'm aware, the telecom companies concerned with all this nonsense operate in the US alone and have no jurisdiction over here, but I could be mistaken. However, it matters not whether or not I'll be affected; destroying net neutrality is plain wrong and I really don't think companies like Comcast or Time Warner need more money than they already have; it's greed, plain and simple.

Also, I think it's probably a good idea that this thread remains open, even if it happens to stray into rule-breaking territory (I'm not sure if any rules have been broken); everyone who uses the internet needs to be aware of what we're facing.

[Capt.Joseph Kerbertson]

http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-supports-the-open-internet

Comcast's released their view on a "open internet". They failed to mention slow lanes, throttling or data caps. They push their 505Mbps service which comes at a premium price (399) where their direct competitors offer twice the speed at 2/3rds the price.

[SelectHalfling0]

Since the brighthouse merge, I haven't seen much of a speed drop (thank goodness!)

[Thomas988]

Net Neutrality is the scariest thing ever. Period.

If the mods come in and shut down this thread because of politics, then so be it. I just want to say that the world should do something to keep the internet open and free. The implications caused by Net Neutrality is so insane, and the fact that some people are willing to go through with it just for some cash is disgusting.

[Kryten]

I'm not sure what effect, if any, there would be on myself if the internet is divided into fast and slow lanes (I live in the UK and am with Virgin Media).

As a fellow VM customer, I think we can say we have a pretty good idea of what it's like to be in an internet 'slow lane'.

[ZedNova]

I don't really have to worry yet, American Broadband/Huntel Already have a monopoly in my area, and the internet is capped at 10mbps for everyone. ( I currently have 5mbps, for around 99 dollars a month)

Sucks to say the least.

[Seret]

I currently have 5mbps, for around 99 dollars a month

Sucks to say the least.

Wow, that is easily the worst deal I've ever heard. I don't live in the US so it might be comparing apples and oranges, but here in the UK I get about 35Mbps for the equivalent of about $30 a month. Having said that until about 18 months ago I was paying the same for about 1/10th of that speed.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm not sure what effect, if any, there would be on myself if the internet is divided into fast and slow lanes (I live in the UK and am with Virgin Media). As far as I'm aware, the telecom companies concerned with all this nonsense operate in the US alone and have no jurisdiction over here, but I could be mistaken.

Apparently the European Parliament voted in favour of net neutrality earlier this year. Good news for Europeans. It seems you're right. This is mostly an American problem.

I'm going to share a link here. It might be risky so mods if you must delete it then do so but please don't close the thread.

This link lets USA citizens leave a message for the FCC. You can scroll down to 14-28 and leave a comment saying "I want Internet service providers classified as common carriers"

[micha]

I think some people have the wrong concept of net neutrality. Or at least, the argument is being diluted into different categories. The most important aspect is not the overall speed of your ISP that's at stake. The problem is certain online services paying money to have a faster speeds while all others have slow service.

The huge existing companies (online shops, payment services, streaming services, search engines, etc) will pay this premium and thus their services (websites, streaming, whatever) will be much more attractive to customers than services offered by smaller competing companies or startups which cannot pay this premium. Cue monopolies. And everybody knows how well monopolies work in a capitalistic environment.

It's effectively a way for the current big internet companies to prevent new competitors from entering their market. Who cares if Upstart_Company_A's online video streaming service is a million times better than existing services (for whatever metrics you wish to use) if nobody can access it at reasonable speed? Would you switch to a service which needs to buffer all the time? Or use an online shop where the site takes ages (relatively) to load if the incumbent's page loads instantly?

At the end of the day, it is a huge threat to the future diversity of the internet and the services which will be offered on it. Just like patents are on innovation (but that's another argument).