Net Neutrality.

CaNsA · Super Spammer Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Karma :

It's a term that's been getting bounced around for the past year or so.
If you want a 3min "what is it" explanation click this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz4Ej3IVefo

If you think it doesn't or won't have any impact on you, you are wrong.

If ISP companies are allowed to create "fast-lanes", will there be anyway to circumnavigate the restrictions?

Vincent · Banned Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :

Aye.....I heard something about this on the radio this week.

"There's too much power..........." Sad

People will just pay...........more. They're funny like that Rolling Eyes

____________________
Space Is Deep

Benno · World Chat Champion Joined: 06 May 2012 Karma :

This is our future unfortunately.

Buy plenty of lube, because you're going to get so much corporate dick up your ass in tomorrowworld.

It really does take the piss. They pretty much can say "why don't we just tell people we're going to charge them more money? they can't do shit about it! hahahahaha!"
____________________
I'm autistic. That means I'm smarter than you.

smegballs · World Chat Champion Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Karma :

-Matt- · World Chat Champion Joined: 28 Apr 2013 Karma :

It doesn't really seem something new on the face of things - bandwidth throttling has been going on for a long time. It just seems now they're proposing it along the lines of a sort of 'protection racket' system of service.

Total BS. But totally profitable. So pretty much guaranteed to happen sooner or later I expect Rolling Eyes

Pay up for the 'fast lane'. Get a better service. Honest.
https://www.darkhorizons.com/assets/0012/5153/capone_article.jpg?1284477476

Imonster · World Chat Champion Joined: 18 Oct 2006 Karma :

CaNsA · Super Spammer Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Karma :

qarka · Spanner Monkey Joined: 10 Mar 2009 Karma :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU#t=125
____________________
Previous - Sinnis Apache - Honda Bros 400 - Yamaha SR500 - Honda Transalp - Kawasaki ZX-7R - Honda CB-1 - Honda 929 Fireblade - Honda NTV650 [b]Current[\b] Honda CB500

Spudly · World Chat Champion Joined: 04 Apr 2012 Karma :

If I remember rightly, in Neal Stevenson's novel Snow Crash, the main character has to use a poor person's internet and is stunned by the amount of advertising they are hit with, then remembers he pays his fee to avoid all that.

Snow Crash was published in 1992.

It isn't a new idea, but it's getting more and more relevant.
____________________
The Old Apprentice

barrkel · World Chat Champion Joined: 30 Jul 2012 Karma :

Home ISPs oversell their available bandwidth. If you've ever bought business internet, you know how expensive it can be to get less contended bandwidth with higher guarantees. The fact is that most home users don't use much of their theoretical bandwidth most of the time - but they have need for fat bandwidth occasionally. Overselling is a reasonable deal all round; much cheaper than guaranteed fat pipes, and much faster than guaranteed narrow pipes.

Hi-def video on demand served over internet - Netflix and friends - break this business model. People who use Netflix regularly have no difficulty downloading masses of data, far more than people who don't have a Netflix account. Substitute Netflix with a hi-def video streaming service of your preference, Lovefilm, whatever. I'm going to use Netflix throughout.

The payment for the extra bandwidth needs to come from someone, and that someone is end users, the customers, you and me. Either ISPs charge people who download more, or ISPs charge companies like Netflix, and Netflix charges end users more. Either way, end users will pay.

The question is, who exactly is going to pay - what will be the distribution of payment? Bandwidth caps have never been popular - creating internet account tiers based on caps causes anxiety, people are worried about overage charges, and they similarly get indignant if they happen to go over one month and get throttled instead. So it seems hard for ISPs to charge end users who use more bandwidth, more money.

So ISPs are left with a choice. They can either raise prices across the board, or they can try and charge companies like Netflix more money for access to their customers, and rely on Netflix solving the charging problem.

Raising prices across the board means that people who use Netflix will be subsidised by people who don't. Your parents, grandparents and other less technically literate users will be paying for your Netflix usage. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

The alternative is to charge Netflix more. It seems fairer to me.

This is why I'm not particularly in favour of "net neutrality" as a trivially obvious principle.

I also don't want ISPs to have too much power to regulate what goes on on their networks. I want them to be as content neutral as possible. But I do think the charging mechanism needs to be more accountable than simple peering arrangements. Otherwise the system isn't going to be fair.
____________________
Bikes: S1000R, SH350; Exes: Vity 125, PS125, YBR125, ER6f, VFR800, Brutale 920, CB600F, SH300x4
Best road ever ridden: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MhNxUEYtQ

-Matt- · World Chat Champion Joined: 28 Apr 2013 Karma :

_Chris_ · Nitrous Nuisance Joined: 25 Apr 2011 Karma :

I don't have a huge problem with it, IF the price for low use/non-streaming goes way way down to a couple of quid a month.

Of course, they wont do this, they'll just charge higher-users more.

I understand it, ISPs started provided a service at a particular price, since then the way we eat gigabytes has changed. I'm paying half the price I was 15 years ago for a service that's about 10x faster (and I have a 'slow' connection)
____________________
Just getting started