The FCC has just ruled that Internet providers can enter into individual negotiations with content providers. Meaning they can throttle the bandwidth of any site that doesn't pay them.
AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
The FCC has just ruled that Internet providers can enter into individual negotiations with content providers. Meaning they can throttle the bandwidth of any site that doesn't pay them.
I'm hoping people will start rating providers based on download speeds from the sort of services people actually care about speed with.
Now I could see writing into plans that you'll throttle users if they try and take up all the bandwidth, but the content providers are why people pay for high speed internet in the first place.
ReviewTechUSA made a video about this that explains the situation. I would recommend you give it a watch. It sounds serious.
It is, especially with the impending Comcast and Time Warner merging. Which is more then likely to pass. Meaning this is a bad year for consumers. This has implications outside the US as well as a lot of the big websites are stationed here. So people in other parts of the world using services like Netflix will see their costs go up. Which it is already slated to do. Also expect Hulu Plus to go up and Crunchyroll too for it's premium subscription. At least for now they can't reduce the speed we get now but given it's the US government there will probably be loopholes. Or they'll do it anyways and just pay a small fine if caught.
Last edited by GameGeeks; 04-25-2014 at 12:55 AM.
That's commonplace in the UK. Every ISP - unless you fork out an exorbitant amount of cash (such as myself) or have a business line - throttle you after you go over a limit. Usually it's somewhere between 1 GB and 5GB per day. Works out to about 100-200GB a month. My parents used to get warnings and complaints from their ISP regarding their 'fair usage' of the internet because I used to play Trackmania all the time ... even though back then there were only about ten people in the village that even had Internet to begin with.
Though that might not be what this is about.
This, on the other hand, is frelling ridiculous. Makes me glad that I don't live in the US but then we have our Nanny State web filter so I don't know if that's a technical win or not. On one hand, I've heard a while ago that Internet providing in the US is very monopolized - to the point that for most of you guys, where you live has exactly one ISP and you have no say in the quality or range of their services or the price? Over here it's a law that there must always be at least two competitors on the market in an area. This isn't to avoid monopoly - because the companies wouldn't care - but to force them to have to provide services that are better than the others, and then the other obviously wants to do the same to get the customers, so it ends up improving services and limiting prices as well as giving everyone a choice in who to go to.
Where I live for example, Virgin Media own the fiber lines. A while ago they had to allow BT to use those lines to offer their BT Infinity fiber services. Same deal.
So ... there's that. I'm personally thinking they're trying to do this as a way to force ISPs to improve their services. Likely what'll happen is they'll frell it up, won't they? And here I thought the Internet was bad in England (protip: one of the worst in Europe, true fact. even Kenya has better Internet than us >_>). Now it's going to be 'if you don't use x ISP you don't get to stream Netflix because we'll throttle it'? That's BS. Total BS. I'm gonna hope it goes the other way and forces ISPs to rethink their service structure but knowing the US and their love for monopoly this'll just mean that popular websites will have to fork out stupid cash so they don't lose users due to being throttled.
I suspect a sudden rise in the popularity of VPNs.
: The Game. You just lost it. :
My signature was so old it broke. RIP signature.
@Ranshiin It's not. And this wont get them to improve their services since, like you said, most areas have one ISP. No one to compete with. For now they can't throttle. But I don't see that lasting if we don't fight this. For example my only choice where I live is Time Warner. Nothing else here. They don't have to share things here. If another company wanted to set up shot they'd have to lay down their own lines and that's not gonna happen. Then there's the pending merger I mentioned which will give Comcast over a thirty percent market share. Which itself will raise prices for everyone. Even those on other providers. As for the rise of VPNs I doubt that'll happen.
I guess it's a matter of how to look at it. Services tend to be deployed in waves. For example the new thing for residential internet services is gig per second services. There are a few companies doing it, but they're all doing it in different cities.
Out where I am in suburbia I have to settle for 100 Megs/second internet (and really only tend to get about 60), and there's only one comapny offering that. But if I was willing to deal with 25 Megs/sec than I'd have a number of options. If I was OK with 10 Megs/sec than I'd have a whole bunch of options. That's how things go, call it what you will.
That's stupid. Really. That's why I just out and called it a monopoly.
Case in point: All the phone lines here (both for regular telephone and ones that are dedicated for copper line-based broadband) are all owned by BT. All the fiber lines are owned by Virgin Media. In America, that would basically mean that "Your phone provider must be BT. Your Internet provider must also be BT, unless you want fiber, then it must be Virgin. You want something else? Too bad, here bomb."
But, like I said, by law those two companies must allow others to lease and use the lines. BT has to lease their telephone (and broadband) to every provider that wants or needs it - including Virgin. Likewise Virgin had to lease the fiber for BT to use. It's a mandatory law. It forces competition.
Similarly, there always has to be two fast food restaurants near each other*. There's a McDonalds? Then somewhere nearby there must be a KFC, or a Subway. Again, mandatory law.
* The exception are motorways. But usually there tends to be a McDs and a Burger King at every rest stop these days anyway.
So this whole US law thing stinks of BS. really does. Sometimes I wish I lived in America but it's stuff like this where there's no effort to force change or improvement or advancement that makes me glad I don't. Sure, our Internet is terrible. We have our Nanny State law banning porn (unless you specifically state when buying your Internet that you want porn) and The Pirate Bay. But at least we have at least two choices when it comes to stuff that forces ISPs to try to offer worthwhile services.
Is ridiculous. America needs to get its head out its donkey and realise that perhaps if they did this they might actually make more money! But no, it's all about the monopoly. I'm surprised Starbucks and McD's haven't put each other out of business yet. :I
: The Game. You just lost it. :
My signature was so old it broke. RIP signature.
@Ranshiin Yup, pure BS. But that's what we got when the Supreme Court ruled corporations are people and that money equals speech. Which got a lot worse with another recent ruling. Entire federal and most of the local governments are completely corrupt. There's some hope though. But it'll take a long long while. And that's getting the states to enact an amendment in a way that'd bypass congress.
I'll just have to hope that England keeps its head out its donkey and doesn't follow the US into this like the lost dog it tends to behave like ._. we've got more important things to deal with, we don't need more corporate-related crap happening.
We still haven't even recovered from the 2009 recession. This town has quite literally died. Town center is becoming a mass of pubs and kebab shops. No joke.
: The Game. You just lost it. :
My signature was so old it broke. RIP signature.
No, sounds like they can't throttle any site that doesn't pay them. They have to give a base rate to all sites, but they can give extra bandwidth to sites that do pay them. If you assume they're just going to create a very low base rate, then the question is: what do you think is stopping them from doing that under net neutrality?
See, and what's more concerning about this is, how companies can control content on forums.
This is going to sound like a strange example, but bare with me I am trying here. The last time I talked about Net Nuetrality I sounded like a crazy conspiracy theorist. I was once a long time ago a member of DN and a then later on a member from Byond. Konami has been kind enough I think, that DN hasn't gone down. However, on Byond there was a Cardfight Vanguard game quite like DN the developers and creators of CV shut the site down because it was "Copyright"
Net nuetrality doesn't just strike at aspect of the net, but all kinds of aspects of the net. Copyright and censoring is one of those big things I am watching out for. If I have to, I'll do another internet black out campaign alongside some friends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks