You Are Not Alone: Net Neutrality.

[Amnestic]

Net Neutrality should be no great new issue for any Escapist. It's something that has been in the news on and off for the past few years, with some companies angling for a system of internet provision where some internet traffic gets priority over other internet traffic - decided entirely by the ISP you happen to sign up with or whichever one happens to be in your area. Many people have expressed concern that big companies wouldn't have to worry about such things as they would be more likely to recieve high-tier internet speeds due to their size, meaning that they wouldn't give two hoots about whether or not Net Neutrality continues to exist.

However, this is not the case. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8315918.stm] In a joint letter today numerous large internet bodies such as Google, Facebook and Yahoo alongside others sent a letter to the FCC saying that they want Net Neutrality to stick around to help promote a more diverse, open and competitive internet environment where even small companies can become giants (Looking at you, Facebook).

Some ISPs have argued that a tier system is the only way we'll see 'smooth' internet in the future. Personally, I think they're talkin' a load of ol' shit.

Obligatory Net Neutrality Picture:

Spoiler

I can already guess where the general theme of responses will go for this thread, I just thought more people might want to hear about it \o/ Plus, since the article was today and I checked the search bar, I think it's fair to say this is definitely not a repeat thread.

 

[Inverse Skies]

It's something new to me. I've never heard of this. Basically it's like pay tv, except the more you pay on your plan the more efficient certain sites will run because more data is dedicated to them? Or am I missing a big point here?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Not an issue as far as I am concerned. If this goes ahead I drop down and get the most basic of packages on the internet and let the rest of the stuff go (my lovely lady, the one who is the heavy internet user in our house, only really cares about BBC news, LOTR online, and ebay/amazon anyway). If the rest of the net doesn't want to fight for its own survival then that's its business.

 

[cobra_ky]

Not an issue as far as I am concerned. If this goes ahead I drop down and get the most basic of packages on the internet and let the rest of the stuff go (my lovely lady, the one who is the heavy internet user in our house, only really cares about BBC news, LOTR online, and ebay/amazon anyway). If the rest of the net doesn't want to fight for its own survival then that's its business.

well since there's no way the escapist is making the bottom tier, let's take this opportunity to say our goodbyes now. I hope you've enjoyed your time here, and good luck in your new, internet-free future.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Not an issue as far as I am concerned. If this goes ahead I drop down and get the most basic of packages on the internet and let the rest of the stuff go (my lovely lady, the one who is the heavy internet user in our house, only really cares about BBC news, LOTR online, and ebay/amazon anyway). If the rest of the net doesn't want to fight for its own survival then that's its business.

well since there's no way the escapist is making the bottom tier, let's take this opportunity to say our goodbyes now. I hope you've enjoyed your time here, and good luck in your new, internet-free future.

Hasn't happened yet. When it does we will be saying our goodbyes - access to the Escapist isn't worth any amount of money quite frankly.

 

[Kollega]

Sorry,but what? I don't get it. Is it like when you pay more,your traffic goes more smoothly? Or it's an outright "pay to get acsess at all,sucka"?

Spoiler: In the latter case...

Help! Help! We are being repressed!

 

[NotMemorable]

There's all this bs around it but all I see/hear is that I'll have to pay an extra $30 dollars for internet acces. What does the consumer get out of this deal exactly? I thought nobody "owned" the internet, so who would be cencoring our browsers if we don't pay the full $50?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

There's all this bs around it but all I see/hear is that I'll have to pay an extra $30 dollars for internet acces. What does the consumer get out of this deal exactly? I thought nobody "owned" the internet, so who would be cencoring our browsers if we don't pay the full $50?

Your ISP. The proposals are basically about changing the internet from being an open and free digital media system to being more like a commercially driven digital TV service.

 

[Labyrinth]

Your ISP. The proposals are basically about changing the internet from being an open and free digital media system to being more like a commercially driven digital TV service.

Screw that noise. Treating the internet like a series of television channels is ridiculous. It's an entirely different medium and as such needs an entirely different approach. It's like suggesting that people use lane markings for submarines and keep to the left at all times.

 

[Legion]

Sorry,but what? I don't get it. Is it like when you pay more,your traffic goes more smoothly? Or it's an outright "pay to get acsess at all,sucka"?

Spoiler: In the latter case...

Help! Help! We are being repressed!

Ok I shall try to explain from what I understand.

Right now we all have Internet Service Providers (ISP's) such as AOL, BT and Virgin. They are different companies that give access to the internet and allow us all to view the same content. The problem is that some content is slower than others, videos for example make the net run slower than text and the more people using it the slower the net becomes overall.

The proposal is that ISP's will offer different content, and that content will cost a different amount to use. In the same way as Sky does: If you have the basic package of Sky you get a certain amount of channels but if you pay more you can get the movie channels and the sports channels and so on.

So basically rather than being able to access everything like you do now, we would have 'tiers' and depending on what tier you are on (how much you are paying) decides on what content you can have. So the lower tier or 'basic package' will allow you to use some sites, say Amazon, Ebay and so on then if you pay more to be on an upgraded or higher tier then you get access to other sites such as youtube and whatnot.

Your ISP. The proposals are basically about changing the internet from being an open and free digital media system to being more like a commercially driven digital TV service.

Screw that noise. Treating the internet like a series of television channels is ridiculous. It's an entirely different medium and as such needs an entirely different approach. It's like suggesting that people use lane markings for submarines and keep to the left at all times.

The question is how can it work anyway? Sky has around 1000 channels or something so it's fairly simple to limit access because they are all bundled into groups (Movies, Music Channels etc.) The internet has millions of websites and not all of them can be easily categorised, some are even just small businesses or home-made sites.

I cannot see how it is possible to put all of those into groups so that the system could work, especially as making a website is a hell of a lot simpler than making a TV channel for a start.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Better solution:

More bandwidth.

 

[tk1989]

Better solution:

More bandwidth.

Thats what i dont get, bandwidth is increasing every day for everyone and they are kicking up a fuss? My internet connection has just gotten faster in the last few years, not slower..

 

[Talendra]

Screw that noise. Treating the internet like a series of television channels is ridiculous. It's an entirely different medium and as such needs an entirely different approach. It's like suggesting that people use lane markings for submarines and keep to the left at all times.

It is pretty stupid, I can't imagine too many people being any form of pleased about it. That analogy seriously made me giggle though, thanks for making my night better

 

[Labyrinth]

It is pretty stupid, I can't imagine too many people being any form of pleased about it. That analogy seriously made me giggle though, thanks for making my night better

My pleasure, any time.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Your ISP. The proposals are basically about changing the internet from being an open and free digital media system to being more like a commercially driven digital TV service.

Screw that noise. Treating the internet like a series of television channels is ridiculous. It's an entirely different medium and as such needs an entirely different approach. It's like suggesting that people use lane markings for submarines and keep to the left at all times.

While I agree with you, several people who have far more say in the matter than us don't. Specifically, the US commerce department, several senators, and the ISPs. They think there is a lot of money to be made from doing this, and you and I both know that money+politics = bad decisions^greed.

EDIT:

Read this...

http://news.cnet.com/Senate-deals-blow-to-Net-neutrality/2100-1028_3-6089197.html

 

[zidine100]

wait, so what there suggesting is that you can only access certain websites in your alloted teir group, hmmmmmm why dont they just go feck it and pull the plug on the internet altogether, i doubt that anyone is going to be happy about this change bar the isps themself, and of course all those anti internet people, but yeh wasnt the main purpose of the internet being given to the public unrestricted access to information?

 

[Labyrinth]

While I agree with you, several people who have far more say in the matter than us don't. Specifically, the US commerce department, several senators, and the ISPs. They think there is a lot of money to be made from doing this, and you and I both know that money+politics = bad decisions^greed.

EDIT:

Read this...

http://news.cnet.com/Senate-deals-blow-to-Net-neutrality/2100-1028_3-6089197.html

Hello profiteering! Thing is, as much as I would like everyone in power to agree with my ideas about widespread, cheap, fast internet access, if they can make a buck off it, they won't.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

You see, the internet is a series of tubes. And if you put stuff into those tubes, it just clogs up.. and the more that people put into those tubes, the more it effects your own personal internet.

That's right. The internet is not a big truck.

 

[Amnestic]

Your ISP. The proposals are basically about changing the internet from being an open and free digital media system to being more like a commercially driven digital TV service.

Screw that noise. Treating the internet like a series of television channels is ridiculous. It's an entirely different medium and as such needs an entirely different approach. It's like suggesting that people use lane markings for submarines and keep to the left at all times.

While I agree with you, several people who have far more say in the matter than us don't. Specifically, the US commerce department, several senators, and the ISPs. They think there is a lot of money to be made from doing this, and you and I both know that money+politics = bad decisions^greed.

EDIT:

Read this...

http://news.cnet.com/Senate-deals-blow-to-Net-neutrality/2100-1028_3-6089197.html

Indeed, which was why I posted the thread in the first place. While there are plenty against Net Neutrality, like those you mentioned, my initial point was that there are large bodies and companies who support Net Neutrality and deride the ISPs for what is essentially an attempt to gouge more profits and stifle the Internet.