• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The death of the Internet

Alferd_Packer

Philosopher
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
8,746
What do you think of the proposed FCC rules?

If they kill net neutrality, then things are looking bad indeed.
 
The second the big names start killing the internet, the various darknets lurking in the background will come to the fore. The first internet will die and its successor will come to the fore.

This is what I expect anyway.
 
First I must say that the title of this thread is stupid.

Bigger concerns should be whether major providers will found to be a monopoly (re: Comcast buying up Time Warner). Personally I usually sympathize with anyone who provides the infrastructure charging reasonably for their infrastructure and I even go so far as to say that it's obvious you charge more for the people who use your infrastructure most such as streaming services. I mean it's nonsensical NOT to and the thought would be that it'll hit an equilibrium. However, that situation isn't completely true for ISPs. ISP's make cash on both ends regardless of the impact on streaming services or customers because people will want internet (surely they would) so they'll get Comcast and Comcast gets money, but they may not want Netflix, so Netflix gets no money. Or the want Netflix which means they customer has to pay for Netflix plus any increase in price to cover Comcast's charge. Either way Comcast gets cash with minimal risk (their costs for customer acquisition should be entangled with the streaming services and their infrastructure costs are based on population).

What I'm wondering is what's going to happen when/if 4k streaming catches on (God I hope it doesn't >.> I think 4k is interesting but investing into that infrastructure requires so much adoption, whoever wants to take that risk more power to them) whether Net Neutrality would come back (basically FCC backing off) because this "fast lane" business stifles the growth of 4k ventures.

We'll see. I'm more interested how it'll affect videogame streaming which requires really high bandwidth consistently. I'm wondering how it'll fare with the way the FCC is behaving. Again I hope that it'll be lobbied in a way that Net neutrality is restored in order to prevent stifling the new service (which should translate to more demand from customers which means more demand for ISP's to capitalize on which means you don't bite the hand that feeds with a toll booth)
 
Last edited:
The second the big names start killing the internet, the various darknets lurking in the background will come to the fore. The first internet will die and its successor will come to the fore.

This is what I expect anyway.

I think that's where I came in. The whole damn thing has been taken over by business and everything has been "monetized".

The Internet Wants to be Free.
 
First I must say that the title of this thread is stupid.

Bigger concerns should be whether major providers will found to be a monopoly (re: Comcast buying up Time Warner). Personally I usually sympathize with anyone who provides the infrastructure charging reasonably for their infrastructure and I even go so far as to say that it's obvious you charge more for the people who use your infrastructure most such as streaming services. I mean it's nonsensical NOT to and the thought would be that it'll hit an equilibrium.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Network providers already charge customers for the bandwidth they provide to them at both ends of the pipe.

The objection that some people actually use that bandwidth and this costs them money is, quite frankly, stupid. If you don;t want people to use that bandwidth don't offer it for sale.



We'll see. I'm more interested how it'll affect videogame streaming which requires really high bandwidth consistently. I'm wondering how it'll fare with the way the FCC is behaving. Again I hope that it'll be lobbied in a way that Net neutrality is restored in order to prevent stifling the new service (which should translate to more demand from customers which means more demand for ISP's to capitalize on which means you don't bite the hand that feeds with a toll booth)


What they are really trying to do is set up vertical monopolies. You would still be able to game on their network service, but only the games they sell would work properly unless you payed and extra fee to use the bandwidth you have already paid for. Essentially when you sign up with a provider you won't be signing up for Internet access, all you are really getting is access to their private network. This whole private network model flopped badly back in the 90's because it was useless. Nobody bothered with it until they set up free exchange of data between the private networks.

In fact this connection between the independent networks is what the word "Internet" actually means. Throttling the connections between the various network providers is by definition restricting the internet.
 
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Network providers already charge customers for the bandwidth they provide to them at both ends of the pipe.

The objection that some people actually use that bandwidth and this costs them money is, quite frankly, stupid. If you don;t want people to use that bandwidth don't offer it for sale.

Not quite what I was meaning to convey; you're twisting the situation. ISP's offer the physical installation of the cable, employ customer services and the devices as part of their entire package. They want you to use the bandwidth you're subscribed for (how much you're using overall, well not sure how much more it costs them but if I used my 30 mb/s every second of every day for a year I wonder if that costs them more than my 720 bucks covers...not sure) but they also have overhead to reach. I'm not saying it's "fair" for them to charge everywhere they can but I can see why they would. It's the obvious move, FCC regulations non withstanding. Again to reiterate I don't support them in it because the game isn't fair but if my money were invested in them then I'd be writing letters asking why the hell they haven't done it yet. It's a "can the market bear it" issue.


What they are really trying to do is set up vertical monopolies. You would still be able to game on their network service, but only the games they sell would work properly unless you payed and extra fee to use the bandwidth you have already paid for. Essentially when you sign up with a provider you won't be signing up for Internet access, all you are really getting is access to their private network. This whole private network model flopped badly back in the 90's because it was useless. Nobody bothered with it until they set up free exchange of data between the private networks.

In fact this connection between the independent networks is what the word "Internet" actually means. Throttling the connections between the various network providers is by definition restricting the internet.

I know, and that's why I'm worried about the Comcast/Time Warner merger (I have Time Warner at the moment). But to be specific to the highlighted statement I do NOT think it'll come to that (and if it really were to get that far you'd see me much more upset) because if they were allowed to reduce the speed of services like games to a point where they didn't work properly I think that'd be ground for lawsuit because that's extortion. Now of course there's no language to prevent that so far (there's no concrete language moving forward yet anyways, it's all getting worded up at this moment) but I think there would be more efforts to prevent ISP's from throttling to a point where a service was unable to be used properly. That goes the same for 4k streaming; I think because they're new and have a lot of backing from multiple services and devices I think that it would hurt ISP's to do that because customers vote with their feet and agencies don't want to inhibit the growth of these newer technologies.

To reiterate, the above is speculation but I'm more inclined to believe that ISP's wouldn't be allowed to prevent the techs from working properly, fast lane or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I'm interested in what happens if the U.S. goes this route but other nations do not. How is it going to work when people outside the United States attempt to connect to these U.S. web sites? Do they get unthrottled access while only some Americans have reduced speed? Or does every user no matter where they are get reduced speeds unless they are with the given provider?

Sounds like a recipe for a disaster.
 
It's always a bad thing when big businesses get their present advantage legally set in stone. It's not impossible to undo this later, but it still requires effort better spent elsewhere.
 
I think that's where I came in. The whole damn thing has been taken over by business and everything has been "monetized".

The Internet Wants to be Free.
TPTB disagree. Flashmobs bother them almost as much as does the free exchange of, in particular, political info not dependent on the MSM which for the most part TPTB already control.

The word you are looking for is "politicized"; think NWO.
 
The word you are looking for is "politicized"; think NWO.


In the U.S. these days "politicized" is pretty much synonymous with "monetized" given the nearly unfettered degree to which private money is allowed to slosh around in politics. What could possibly go wrong with what are essentially legal bribes? "Here's a few million, Senator, for your re-election campaign from XYZ Corporation. Just remember when that legislation we are against comes up to a vote which way we'd like you to vote."
 
In the U.S. these days "politicized" is pretty much synonymous with "monetized" given the nearly unfettered degree to which private money is allowed to slosh around in politics. What could possibly go wrong with what are essentially legal bribes? "Here's a few million, Senator, for your re-election campaign from XYZ Corporation. Just remember when that legislation we are against comes up to a vote which way we'd like you to vote."
Or stop Keystone and I'll donate $100 million?
 
The Internet Wants to be Free.
Bandwidth costs money.

I am for net neutrality.
Nothing is free.
 
The Internet Wants to be Free.
Bandwidth costs money.

I am for net neutrality.
Nothing is free.

I am quite prepared to pay money, and have and am paying money for the Internet I want and use.

But I want it on my terms. If someone wants to sell me something and puts ads on my computer don't expect me to be happy about it. Let them pay me. "This site requires you turn on and use cookies". Snicker.

It was once this way. Nobody asked me about any changes.
 
Or stop Keystone and I'll donate $100 million?


Flip side of the same coin. Were you expecting a different answer?


Nice try at deflection; try again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ipeline-energy-fuel-oil-obama-column/8159277/

It's hard to beleive you weren't aware of the facts.


Hmmm, I'm not sure what is clearly labelled an opinion piece is necessarily where one should get their 'facts' given the degree to which opinion pieces these days feel free to leave out important context or facts.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom