Net Neutrality

[Kopfkino]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Because I assume they pay for that bandwidth proportionally in the same way that other sites do?

 

The reason net neutrality wasn't a real issue until recently was because the ISPs didn't have the necessary excuse to try to scalp their customers in this way. With high bandwidth streaming services becoming very popular now, they've seen the opportunity and want to seize it.

 

Actually never mind, I'll continue being completely oblivious about the issue tbh.

Edited 22 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[act smiley]

Net Neutrality isn't a new concept, the changes in the FCCs categorisation a few years back that strengthened it weren't the start of this, it's always been in place and the attempts by telecoms companies to change it have gone on since about 2000, with A Series of Tubes. It's a very good thing, that's pretty key to the internet in its current form.

Can things exist with a slightly weaker set of restrictions? Sure, there's traffic shaping here that wouldn't pass FCC's restrictions, where certain types of traffic get prioritised over others, but to do away with it entirely so that your traffic could get totally messed about with depending on destination... it's crazy and would cause a lot of problems for everyone. It's just a way of allowing a few telecoms companies to run an extortion racket, really.

 

[Stadt]

I’m by no means clued up on this subject but from what I’ve read is that in the US ISP’s don’t allow each other to use eachother’s cables and in a lot of towns some ISPs have a monopoly which obviously means they could be as cunty as they like. As far as I’m aware UK ISPs run off BT’s network and it’s unlikely to change. Broadband in the UK isn’t the best but I can’t see it being an issue here.

 

 

Edited 23 November 2017 by Wookie

[Rogstanley]

Besides a complete lack of knowhow and capital, what would stop me from starting an ISP and allowing equal access to everything for one low monthly cost?

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Besides a complete lack of knowhow and capital, what would stop me from starting an ISP and allowing equal access to everything for one low monthly cost?

The need to establish an infrastructure of cables and exchanges across a really big area (even for a startup) because the big companies would certainly not let you use theirs. That would take a lot of time and money, I would think.

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The need to establish an infrastructure of cables and exchanges across a really big area (even for a startup) because the big companies would certainly not let you use theirs. That would take a lot of time and money, I would think.

In the UK? Every one apart from virgin uses the same BT cables don't they?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

In the UK? Every one apart from virgin uses the same BT cables don't they?

Oh, right. Yeah, in the UK this kind of question would (hopefully) never arise as it's pretty well-established that the infrastructure that BT laid down are "everyones" to use - provided it's well upkept and we don't get to the stage where each company just has their own infrastructure instead.

[Guest FriendlyRam]

16 hours ago, Strokes said:

I know your still a young man King and can probably still get a hard on using your imagination but for us middle aged folks it’s a bit more complex. He said porn would cost £5 

I wake up with one,, you can have it if you want it, its horrible. I dont get any you can probably gather

 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, FriendlyRam said:

I wake up with one,, you can have it if you want it, its horrible. I dont get any you can probably gather

 

There is an offer I never expected, keep your hard on mate but thanks

 

[davieG]

Technology giants Google and Facebook have joined forces with start-ups to criticise US plans to alter net neutrality rules.

The principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally was enshrined in US law in 2015.

But telecom companies complained an overly regulated net stifled innovation, particularly their ability to roll out broadband services.

Regulators will vote in December on whether to overturn the rules.

The changes have been proposed by the Federal Communications Commission, whose chairman Ajit Pai was a fierce critic of the Obama-era changes.

Facebook said: "We are disappointed that the proposal announced this week by the FCC fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the internet remains open for everyone.

"We will work with all stakeholders committed to this principle."

In its statement, Google said the current rules "are working well".

Meanwhile, content giant Netflix tweeted: "This current draft order hasn't been officially voted, so we're lodging our opposition publicly and loudly now."

And, in an open letter to the FCC, a group, made up of 1,000 small businesses from around the US, wrote: "The success of America's start-up ecosystem depends on more than improved broadband speeds.

"We also depend on an open internet - including enforceable net neutrality rules that ensure big cable companies can't discriminate against people like us.

"We're deeply concerned with your intention to undo the existing legal framework.

"Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market.

"They could impede traffic from our services in order to favour their own services or established competitors."

The FCC asked the public to contribute to the debate around the rule changes and received a record 22 million responses.

But, in a press conference after it announced plans to change the rules, it said there had been many spam entries and therefore it had not taken the quantity of comments into account.

Telecoms companies, for their part, have said they would not use the rule change to start charging some content providers more for access to consumers.

In a blog post, ComCast's chief diversity officer wrote: "Comcast has already made net neutrality promises to our customers, and we will continue to follow those standards, regardless of the regulations in place."

[Guest FriendlyRam]

The net was fine as it was before 2015 so the rule/law was a joke anyway imo. This is just a way of controlling information thats it. Facebook and Google will still take the subscription cash though wont they? Its pretty disgusting really, its not about cash either imo, its much more sinister than that,, and blaming Trump is a cop out,that bloke cant tie his own shoe laces (thats what we're led to believe with anyway) never mind dream this stuff up. We need to give them the two fingers tbh.

[leicsmac]

And the vote goes through 3-2 in the FCC. Expected, but still disappointing.

 

Expect a veritable avalanche of legal challenges to be incoming.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

The dismantling of anything Obama may have put in place continues

[Guest]

On 24/11/2017 at 08:58, davieG said:

Technology giants Google and Facebook have joined forces with start-ups to criticise US plans to alter net neutrality rules.

The principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally was enshrined in US law in 2015.

But telecom companies complained an overly regulated net stifled innovation, particularly their ability to roll out broadband services.

Regulators will vote in December on whether to overturn the rules.

The changes have been proposed by the Federal Communications Commission, whose chairman Ajit Pai was a fierce critic of the Obama-era changes.

Facebook said: "We are disappointed that the proposal announced this week by the FCC fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the internet remains open for everyone.

"We will work with all stakeholders committed to this principle."

In its statement, Google said the current rules "are working well".

Meanwhile, content giant Netflix tweeted: "This current draft order hasn't been officially voted, so we're lodging our opposition publicly and loudly now."

And, in an open letter to the FCC, a group, made up of 1,000 small businesses from around the US, wrote: "The success of America's start-up ecosystem depends on more than improved broadband speeds.

"We also depend on an open internet - including enforceable net neutrality rules that ensure big cable companies can't discriminate against people like us.

"We're deeply concerned with your intention to undo the existing legal framework.

"Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market.

"They could impede traffic from our services in order to favour their own services or established competitors."

The FCC asked the public to contribute to the debate around the rule changes and received a record 22 million responses.

But, in a press conference after it announced plans to change the rules, it said there had been many spam entries and therefore it had not taken the quantity of comments into account.

Telecoms companies, for their part, have said they would not use the rule change to start charging some content providers more for access to consumers.

In a blog post, ComCast's chief diversity officer wrote: "Comcast has already made net neutrality promises to our customers, and we will continue to follow those standards, regardless of the regulations in place."

No idea how having an equal internet stifles innovation. Right wing bullshit this is.

[Guest FriendlyRam]

A law put in place has been removed? Someone pointed out how we survived before this was put in place,, so removing it shouldnt be a problem? We were fine before this, but now they need to bring in all kinds of censorship etc after its removal... they take us for mugs tbh.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Got to say I couldn't give a flying f--k about any of it!