Net Neutrality

[Acarpous]

So what does the recent overturning of net neutrality actually mean? I get that the Internet that we have known and loved for the past 20 years will be history, but do we have any idea what the new Internet will look like?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

 

[Acarpous]

Ah I get it, the internet is getting being thoroughly commodified.

 

[yerrag]

We'll wait and see. There will be repercussions. Considering how Netflix, Amazon, Facebook and Google - sites where a lot of traffic is directed - have been silent in this, means they can just band together and provide their own non-net-neutral service. Then we will see Verizon and AT&T and its ilk start to demand net neutrality. Spin the wheel!

I also think this may end up being ISPs acting to get to revenue streams instead of one, in the same way cell phone carriers in the US collect from both the sender and receiver of text messages, as well as of voice calls. If you haven't been in Asia, it may surprise you to know that only the caller or the send of the sms messages gets charged.

So, the ISP's in the US would certainly be happy to extend the cell phone billing concept to the how the internet is used.

US connectivity and speeds lag behind many countries because of the outsize influence of the telcos. For that matter, this country is a mish mash of oligopolies it would not be fair to laugh at Russia. It would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

There was never "throttling" happening before net neutrality was passed in 2014. It was just a nice way for the big tech monopolies like google and facebook to ensure that the ISPs wouldn't tell them they need to pay extra for their incredibly high bandwith usage. Look how many times google execs visited the white house in the obama years, total corruption. Lol its not about protecting the little guy, lol google already squashes little websites by selling the top search results pages to the highest bidder, and facebook and twitter already censor and ban people. They don't care about a free internet. They want a closed internet to protect their monopolies before someone else makes a better facebook and twitter and their bs stock valuation goes to zero where it belongs. But now they have a bunch of millenial sheep baaaing over the evil ISPs who have never done anything wrong. Not saying they will never abuse their powers, but this will allow free and open bandwith allocation which will make the whole internet faster. Some people watch netflix for hours everynight, what if they could buy a service from an ISP that gives priority to netflix bandwith? That's the kind of thing this allows. One of the rarest things is a gov't agency giving up its own power, that's what Ajit Pai is doing so that deserves applause in its own right.

 

[Such_Saturation]

There was never "throttling" happening before net neutrality

the evil ISPs who have never done anything wrong

allow free and open bandwith allocation which will make the whole internet faster

what Ajit Pai is doing so that deserves applause in its own right

 

[Mossy]

There was never "throttling" happening before net neutrality was passed in 2014. It was just a nice way for the big tech monopolies like google and facebook to ensure that the ISPs wouldn't tell them they need to pay extra for their incredibly high bandwith usage. Look how many times google execs visited the white house in the obama years, total corruption. Lol its not about protecting the little guy, lol google already squashes little websites by selling the top search results pages to the highest bidder, and facebook and twitter already censor and ban people. They don't care about a free internet. They want a closed internet to protect their monopolies before someone else makes a better facebook and twitter and their bs stock valuation goes to zero where it belongs. But now they have a bunch of millenial sheep baaaing over the evil ISPs who have never done anything wrong. Not saying they will never abuse their powers, but this will allow free and open bandwith allocation which will make the whole internet faster. Some people watch netflix for hours everynight, what if they could buy a service from an ISP that gives priority to netflix bandwith? That's the kind of thing this allows. One of the rarest things is a gov't agency giving up its own power, that's what Ajit Pai is doing so that deserves applause in its own right.

I think these are good points. Though there would seem to be some negatives of not having "net neutrality", the imbalance of power is too great, with the tech/internet giants having too much control--Google and Facebook especially. Google, for instance, is so brash, in the past they've simply gone against their own privacy policies and have used information contrary to how they've agreed. In an attempt to keep this neutral , here are some left sources that reported on this:
Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users
Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission

Also, they've blatantly stated don't "expect privacy when sending to Gmail":
Google: don't expect privacy when sending to Gmail

I stumbled upon these while looking for one of the first large and glaring instance of this--which I believe was around 2008--where Google attempted to quietly update their browser privacy agreement, allowing for much more intrusive behavior by them. I can't find an article on it, but it went something like this: someone noticed the revamped agreement and brought it to light; Google was called out on it, and their response was something to the effect of, "oh, wow, that was a mistake, this is an agreement from another of our software that was put there by mistake". Something like that. Anyway, as the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." From my limited perspective, I see this overturning as a balancing of power.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

I think these are good points. Though there would seem to be some negatives of not having "net neutrality", the imbalance of power is too great, with the tech/internet giants having too much control--Google and Facebook especially. Google, for instance, is so brash, in the past they've simply gone against their own privacy policies and have used information contrary to how they've agreed. In an attempt to keep this neutral , here are some left sources that reported on this:
Google must face UK courts over claims of privacy breach of iPhone users
Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission

Also, they've blatantly stated don't "expect privacy when sending to Gmail":
Google: don't expect privacy when sending to Gmail

I stumbled upon these while looking for one of the first large and glaring instance of this--which I believe was around 2008--where Google attempted to quietly update their browser privacy agreement, allowing for much more intrusive behavior by them. I can't find an article on it, but it went something like this: someone noticed the revamped agreement and brought it to light; Google was called out on it, and their response was something to the effect of, "oh, wow, that was a mistake, this is an agreement from another of our software that was put there by mistake". Something like that. Anyway, as the saying goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." From my limited perspective, I see this overturning as a balancing of power.

I agree, I also think that with the cost of satellite launches going down so much that the ISP market is only going to get more competitive and therefore less dangerous.

 

[lvysaur]

Isn't this just a consequence of people watching more youtube videos?

Videos are a lot of data, and at some point the gross amount of video watching got so high that it couldn't be subsidized by the "non-watchers"

So this would hurt youtube, as well as any other site with a lot of video media (twitter, facebook, etc). Google would get get hurt simply because people use google for everything, including searching videos.