Net Neutrality

I don't think that's the right way to look at it. My understanding was always that businesses would be the most affected. We're talking about an expensive site loading in 5secs vs. a cheap site loading in 10secs. The guys who are really gonna feel it are, like, small internet book selling companies, who will potentially lose traffic to amazon simply because people only want to buy a book, and pageload speeds are as good a reason as any other to choose a specific site to purchase it at.

For a fan site... who really cares. They've always been small and ad-supported, and sometimes had bandwidth problems. In the future that will be true regardless of net neutrality. More importantly, fan sites innately have a fan base to draw in. Most people who come to VFDC will most likely not care if a couple seconds gets added to the loading time... it's the best damn VF site around, so we don't have any alternative anyway.

Anyway, I'm not even sure my example is right, either, in this case. But I still think there's a lot of confusion, and I don't think your fears are the best justification for net neutrality.

 

Net neutrality has more to do with what sites will be allowed and not allowed as well as how long you will be allowed on. Yes bandwidth and "page loading" is a current problem, but the real fear is that the internet will become the same as your standard television service. For example, Cox doesn't charge for how fast you can change the channels or load HBO. It charges for premium channels. Its a per channel basis.

Theoretically Cox could come in and say, "ok all .com websites will cost this much extra on your internet bill, oh and you want .gov as well, that is another 50$". This is the scary part, not bandwidth. The reality is we have no real say over what speeds we are allowed because the companies are going out of their way to provide us with the pipes and all the labor and costs involved with adding new ones all around the world.

Soon VFDC could be considered a premium website, not by the admins or the site creator but by the ISP YOU are using. Simply by its average user base or by its address. Its far more terrifying knowing that one day I could be limited to what I can visit based on my monthly bill.

edit: wasn't finished heh...

Its also important to realize that an ISP could implement rules on what devices can and cant be used, potentially costing you 100's$ more per month. This again is something I fear more then available speeds.

Network Neutrality is definitely something we all as consumers should support. Unfortunately I fear its a useless fight. Companies such as COX and Comcast could really careless if we feel restricted or forced to comply. They want more money and the more rules and regulations that they can enforce the faster that money will come in.

 

This shit is annoying. Stuff I want to download I have to go through secondary sources, like asking friends on IM.

And then, what about people who have stuff like portfolios online? That's just an example of the little things that can take a big hit.

This Net Neutrality thing is awful. I'm waiting on Verizon FIOS though in the next couple months, hopefully they don't follow the restrictions Comcast does.

My mom has actually been using Comcast for over 20 years, and she had to get on the phone and practically demand price reductions in her cable service among things that long time costumers are entitled to. When I was with Time Warner my internet was cheaper than what she currently pays for comcast, and I didn't have these restrictions.

 

I think you're theoretically right, Auvii. That was part of what we were talking about earlier... the fear of losing net neutrality is that eventually it opens the door to that kind of scenario.

The other side of the coin is that all those companies, COX and comcast, and whoever else are still in price competition with each other. They aren't going to purposely just screw all their customers, because if they do, they'll lose all their customers and go out of business. It's equally likely that instead of saying "pay $50 more every month or you lose .gov sites", they might say "if you're willing to lose .gov sites, you can pay $20 less per month than your current bill". In which case it becomes a plus for consumers, because you're no longer being forced to pay for something you don't need.

I believe the US policy at the moment, from what little I've read of what the government has announced on this issue, is that the risk of the first paragraph is worth taking, in hopes that market forces will cause my second paragraph to actually happen. If things don't work out that way, the government can reevaluate, and always step in later and fix things.

 

haha, hawt:

http://dontstayvirgin.movielol.org/main2.php

 

There aren't that many high speed isps, and if they collaborate and decide to raise the price as Auvii said, that won't really leave us with any other options. Kinda like the oil problem with OPEC. The companies don't really care about each consumer as an individual, but they do care about losing a great number of consumers. The only problem is if they all follow this trend, there will be no alternative for the consumers. I know there are local high speed isps available in some areas, but I have yet to ever see or hear an advertisement from any of them, and as I have said earlier, most people are limited to 1 or 2 isps in their area.

I understand that fansites are ad supported, but if the prices rise even more, I don't want the ads to increase even further, for that will lead to more ads, and on most sites there are already so many ads compared to the contents (especially when some of the ads are pop ups or pop unders). If a site takes me over a minute to load, especially if that speed is how long it takes each page to load, I will not bother wasting time visiting it, and I know many others feel the same way.

While this sounds ok, I wouldn't really want that, because it'll just make it more like tv, and while some people don't use .gov sites frequently, what if it comes up that they need to visit a site like that, or any other site that they aren't paying for. An example for students fafa.gov (since they no longer accept paper fafsas), I know I almost never visit .gov sites, but lately I've used fafsa.gov, gone to the dmv website, and a few other things. So while the above might sound nice, to me it seems like another tool to limit us.

I really just want things to stay they way they are. When people put up websites, they don't put them on Comcast's servers (for the most part) or COX's pipes, so there really is no reason that the company should charge the owner of the website in order for the page to load.

I think this is kinda what I said about businesses, but stated a little differently. (I'm not sure if I said this already but I'm almost late for work and too lazy to go check) The reason the internet is a good place to start a business, is because of the low startup costs, and fairly low risk. For physical businesses, you have to get investors who are willing to loan you the money for your supplies, machines, etc. and then you must find a location, and probably take out a loan on that location as well. This is one reason why many people are discouraged, or unable to start a business, especially if the return isn't so great. On the internet that is different, the startup costs are lower, since you don't necessarily need a physical location (i.e. your house will do), you will still need the materials, etc. but you can put up your site, and see how many people are interested to gauge whether or not it is a good idea (since the costs of a website are much lower than buying a physical location), and if nobody is interested, you have saved yourself the cost of whatever you didn't buy. For example you have a revolutionary idea of selling custom made calendars, with whatever pictures the consumer wants for each month; you decide to open a website to see how many people are interested, by tracking your views, e-mail inquiries, etc., but you find that not many people are interested. You decide it's not a good idea, and shut down the site. In this case, all you have paid for was the site, since you held off on everything else (while waiting to see if consumers liked your idea), so you haven't lost much money at all.

Anyways I think I may be starting to ramble, and I am now late for work, so I will check this later.