Must See Video – Goodbye Net Neutrality, Hello Gilded Age Internet by Mark Fiore
Video at the link. (1) Entertaining. Well written, animated, voiced over. (2) Under 2 minutes. Short and to the point. You sat through the Superbowl; you can do this. (3) Best Net Neutrality explanation I have seen to date.
Honestly, point three is most important, just not as sexy to get people to pay attention to what big telecom/cable/wireless want us to lose.
#NetNeutrality #IsABadThingToLose?
Video at the link. (1) Entertaining. Well written, animated, voiced over. (2) Under 2 minutes. Short and to the point. You sat through the Superbowl; you can do this. (3) Best Net Neutrality explanation I have seen to date.
Honestly, point three is most important, just not as sexy to get people to pay attention to what big telecom/cable/wireless want us to lose.
https://www.markfiore.com/mark-fiore-blog/cartoons/goodbye-net-neutrality-hello-gilded-age-internet.html
#NetNeutrality #IsABadThingToLose
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
You know, the way the streams are on here, I think Google lost neutrality long ago.
Feel free to move to Europe or get an area with google fiber
I'm still thinking on this topic, and I'm not siding with the big corporations, but even the biased write up doesn't make a strong case. Let me explain. From the article, "…[one Internet] that zips along the latest Netflix movie and another Internet that creeps along, delivering boring old educational material to public libraries."
This sounds like nothing more than the very standard QoS (Quality of Service) that is built into the IP (Internet Protocol) stack itself. It is very common to give higher priority to certain data packets, such as voice or video, to ensure a better experience for the user. I don't want someone hogging the bandwidth to download databases while I'm watching a movie. Let the public library wait a little longer. It's a batch job, not real-time streaming.
And as far as blocking objectionable content, that is nothing new. It happens all the time on YouTube.
+Jim Gomes The difference being QOS to improve the internet for all, in a techie practical way vs. pay to play and imposing caps strictly by monetary influence and not technical reasons.
But that already exists. Comcast has higher rate plans for faster speeds. T-mobile has different tiers of high speed plans before you get throttled. Pay more, and you get more high speed access. These things are already going on. This has gone on for years. How many of us were stuck with dial-up because we couldn't afford an ISDN line or a T1 line (or an even faster T3)?
+Jim Gomes the don't offer unlimited bandwidth on your internet plans, here it's not even practical to put a limit, they last time they tried they ended up rebuilding their offices….. you just buy the speed and channels that you want, in my case 74 channels+30Mbps down+3Mbps up+2 phone lines= 52 euros
+Simos Katsiaris I take it you are multiplexing those channels together to create one big fat pipe. A very good example of paying more for faster speeds.
+Jim Gomes those are for the family, the internet is for gaming, do you know how big a weekly gw2 patch is? from 300MB to 4GB, the 3.8MB down come handy and i'm on the slowest of the europe, the average household speed in europe is 50Mbps and many friends from Finland,Germany and UK have 100Mbps and 200Mbps at the same price, we just have a better working competition system than you guys have
Ok, I see where you are coming from on that. BUT that is the bandwidth/speed I pay for at home. It gets me to any site for any content. It does not limit some sites over others or even eliminate the ability to view a site or type of content.
+Scott Cramer I'm totally against censorship (inability to reach a site). Where can I find out more about that topic in regards to this change in net neutrality?
Food for thought:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/net-neutrality-becomes-programmed-censorship.html
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2014/01/coming-clean-on-net-neutrality.html?m=1
https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality
I still don't buy it. I'll read all of the links you posted, Scott, but from the first article:
"… this decision clearly implies that internet access is now a privilege, at the effective discretion, if not mercy; of a provider that allow an account for service."
"A free WiFi link may well become a memory."
This is not new. This has been the case since we first logged on to AOL. There has never been a free WiFi link.
"'For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay up.' – Tim Wu"
Nothing is being ushered in. This is status quo, and always has been. I don't run a server from my home machine because I haven't paid for the bandwidth to do so. Even major services crash sometimes because they get overloaded (i.e., they didn't pay for enough bandwidth). Bandwidth comes in many forms, only one of which is the internet connection pipe. All bandwidth must be paid for. Of course I want to pay the lowest price for it, and for that I believe that free and open competition will drive down prices. I can't wait for Google Fiber to become more widely available. It will make Verizon and Comcast lower their pricing.
"No matter what method is used to surf the net, this decision clearly implies that internet access is now a privilege, at the effective discretion, if not mercy; of a provider that allow an account for service."
Of course it's a privilege. Internet access is not a right. The new-think has corrupted the concept of "rights". You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But no one has a "right" to the Internet. We want everyone to have access, because the more the merrier.
I'm with you against the arbitrary censorship, but having tiered data plan pricing is not censorship.
(Apologies for the long post. I'll keep researching, and I hope you'll keep pointing out flaws in my arguments. I'm becoming more interested in this topic.)
+Jim Gomes I feel sorry for you guys and your congress is to blame, they give way to much power to a small group of people that don't understand that they are there to serve not to abuse…. wait, didn't the same happen also with the beers you drink?
I'd prefer to think you are right +Jim Gomes and that things will stay as is. However I do not believe that. I pay $50/month for my internet and surf where I want to any content available with equal access to get to any of it. I would hate to suddenly have to choose internet access packages like cable package where they bundle sites like premium access channels. Basic internet only getting basic sites. Or, providers of sites who don't want to or can not pay to make sure their content gets preferred bandwidth getting pushed into obscurity. I don't want big sites with deep pockets to make it harder for the new comers to play on the same level field.
+Scott Cramer sorry for breaking to you but if the internet is right only Facebook will be free with the basic subscription, everything else is going to be access substitution some $ and then for every MB more $, each city well be forced to also have an unlimited slow provider without restrictions, you are basically screwed and google the only one that will have no privileged access other than faster loading time to her sites since you are on the same network
+Scott Cramer I read the ACLU link you included, and to me the important take-away isn't the ambiguous sounding "net neutrality" phrase that is being thrown around. The important concept is to have internet carrier pipelines be declared as "common carriers". To wit:
"Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept – these rules have a centuries-old history. They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks. In fact, common carrier rules have already been written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by Congress; they just need to be applied to broadband Internet communications by the FCC."
That's what we should be demanding. Nothing more. Once that is achieved, then all else falls in line. In fact, their final "Take Action" recommendation says just that:
'Tell the FCC that it can and should immediately move to protect free speech, consumers and network neutrality either through reclassifying broadband providers as telecommunications services or acting to promote broadband deployment."
Works for me. And, the "net neutrality" phrase is an absolute horrid way of classifying or trying to describe this. Most people are like, "Hey, am I FOR or AGAINST net neutrality? What does that mean again?"
Updates: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/fcc-to-propose-new-rules-on-open-internet.html
+Jim Gomes Thanks for the update. I am glad to see the FCC addressing this. I also liked, "Mr. Wheeler said that the commission would look closely at overruling state laws that restrict the ability of cities and towns to offer broadband service to residents." I had read one small town was actually being kept from giving it's residents better access. Crazy.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/18/263781846/net-neutrality-court-ruling-could-cost-consumers-limit-choices
Here is the NPR story that explains why YouTube streaming sucks at times. The ISP s have been doing it all along. Now, it's legal. It's about a five minute listen.
ts;dl. (Too slow; didn't listen.)
Thanks +Terrence Roberts! NPR junkie here; did not hear this.
For a slightly more technical look at this issue, I refer you to this: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-slow-on-verizon-or-comcast-a-vpn-might-speed-up-that-video/
NPR is good, but I don't consider it to be a good technical resource, and this is a very technical issue.
Very good article +Jim Gomes. I like how Netflix does not respond. It does nothing for them at this point; especially if they are practicing their own "Art of War" strategies.