Goodbye, net neutrality; hello, net discrimination (illegal, companies, dollar, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What changes here is the momentum. Until now, the momentum was toward changing things in the direct of net neutrality. The FCC's action here effectively arrests that momentum, and directs things toward a codification of something very similar to the status quo, with protections against it getting pushed any further toward the ISP's favor.
What changes here is the momentum. Until now, the momentum was toward changing things in the direct of net neutrality. The FCC's action here effectively arrests that momentum, and directs things toward a codification of something very similar to the status quo, with protections against it getting pushed any further toward the ISP's favor.
If they're allowed to, the internet would adopt the cable model.
Net neutrality is not what is in effect right now.
If I pull up CNN my limits are based on the what I'm paying the ISP for and whatever CNN's servers can provide.
If I pull up my own site my limits are based on what I'm paying my ISP for and whatever my server can provide.
That is net neutrality in it's essence and how it's been operated since it's inception. The ISP who sits between the consumer and the content provider doesn't give any preference to CNN or my site.
Quote:
Also, the ISPs never had control of the money generated by content provided by services available through the Internet.
Small content providers face more direct difficulties from dealing with large MSOs than they face from large ISPs.
I never said they did but that is what can happen. As a small content provider my greatest concern from the competition is them writing a big fat check to the ISP for preferential treatment. I'm already paying a lot of money for a very fast server and bandwidth.
If I pull up CNN my limits are based on the what I'm paying the ISP for and whatever CNN's servers can provide.
That's not the entirety of what net neutrality involves. CNN is not the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I'm already paying a lot of money for a very fast server and bandwidth.
You're paying for (a) what you're explicitly promised in the Ts&Cs, and (b) what provisions above and beyond that the government secures for you through its regulation of the industry.
Which is where we part and the rest is nothing but fluff.
Since, as you said, "we part" at that point, your assessing the rest as "fluff" is "fluff". You simply don't like the reality I outlined for you, and you had no legitimate response, so you posted this instead. Pretty silly rhetorical nonsense you're posing, it seems to me.
Since, as you said, "we part" at that point, your assessing the rest as "fluff" is "fluff". You simply don't like the reality I outlined for you, and you had no legitimate response, so you posted this instead. Pretty silly rhetorical nonsense you're posing, it seems to me.
That's not the entirety of what net neutrality involves. CNN is not the issue..
Reread what I have posted, CNN is just an example and could be <insert any site here>
Quote:
You're paying for (a) what you're explicitly promised in the Ts&Cs,
This not a shared hosting plan, X amount of bandwidth is allocated to me and if I go over it then I pay more. I specifically picked a host with s fast connection. I'm paying a premium for that and it will be irrelevant if the ISP can throttle the speed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.