Net Neutrality RIP - FCC Loses Appeal
 

US court rules against FCC on `net neutrality'
"A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks."

the death nail for net neutrality?

damn....They must have won on a technicality.

fucking comcast! lawyers guns and money....

Amen BROmance.
:disgust

it's about time america strangled the last bit of economic vitality it had.

Actually this can be a nail in the coffin for online porn when you think about it.

Yeah because the FCC in the hands of someone like Bush, if they had the authority, wouldnt ban porn :helpme

I dunnow. Likely the broadband providers will hit sites that take up most of their bandwidth - tubes, torrents etc.

:2 cents:

thats an interesting possibility, they could decide to throttle them.

I used to be for a totally equal internet, but lately I'm starting to believe a more "bandwidth tariffed" solution would be better. Theoretically, it could almost eliminate piracy. If some guy has to pay extra for the bandwidth to download a torrent of "Ass Reamers volumes 1 thru 20" in Blu Ray quality, then he'll think twice about it. Why risk the illegal activity that costs the same as buying it legit?

Discuss.

This has nothing to do with politics think bigger. If net neutrality is bye bye the broadband companies basically can control whats online and whats not because they will control the flow of bandwidth.

but wouldn't he have a pay extra to download the legit copies as well? who would have to pay in that scenario, the buyer, distributor or both?

Oh I was assuming the "buying legit" alternative was to buy physical media(DVD).

Bump. this has interesting implications on free speech, not to mention the ocean of filesharing & tubes. I'm not certain on the consequences, but Comcast was battling a torrent in the case. So how can that be bad for the industry?

I wonder what kind of effect that will have on streaming movies from blockbuster and netflix. Not to mention sites like Itunes etc., etc.

I think there are going to be things that suck for sure...for the individual user, it would be higher prices if you download more than your fair share. But, it should lead to less piracy -- which is good for businesses that produce digital products that have large file sizes.

I may be over-simplifying.

I mentioned this in another thread about piracy. Eventually the companies the produce/sell content and the companies that control the bandwidth will have the same interests. Either through mergers or other deals. Even Google will eventually buddy up with some giant media company one day and I bet as soon as they do you will stop seeing torrent links for that companies property on Google.

Multi billion dollar companies usually get what they want, good or bad, especially when they team up.

But what I see is basically a system where if you are consuming content that makes money for Comcast or whoever, they will subsidize the BW, if not, they will restrict it or make it so that it costs more to pay the BW bill for filesharing as opposed to just buying the content legally.

you basically said it better than I was trying to articulate. It can't be bad if you sell digital content -- that is when end users have to resort to paying legally, instead of just downloading all of a producer's content in one shot.

$29.95 per month broadband is allowing anyone to take what they want, when they want it.

the senario would screw paysites and just about every website built by an individual. affiliates will have no chance, home businesses will be sunk, etc. if such a thing does happen, i hope some new providers come along where their main selling point will be, no filitered traffic and sink those greedy faggots.

I've never understood why I pay as much for my internet access as some douchebag who is downloading shit from bit torrent and seeding loads of huge files. I'm all for bandwidth quotas. If you go over, you pay.

I don't like the idea that someday ISPs could have "packages" where you could not access certain sites without paying extra for them.

its not about having bandwidth limits, i've never heard of an isp that doesn't have them...its about throttling all sites that do not pay the isp's to have fast access. in a nutshell its about creating a "big business only" internet.

The government wont want to control bandwidth? :1orglaugh Or TAX bandwidth? :helpme

I have two internet connections into my office, and neither one of them are throttled.

That said however, I am also not doing some of those things mentioned in this thread either. So I would not be pushing those limited for clouds, gideongallery back ups, torrents, or that other shit.

Well considering that they are a competitor to cable what do you think cable ISPs are going to do to those sites. Throttle throttle throttle.

This has nothing to do with quotas. It's about Comcast not liking Netflix, Itunes, Amazon video on Demand taking away PPV revenue from them. So now Comcast is free to throttle those sites down to dial-up speeds so you'll buy their PPV movies.

Capitalism at it's finest.

if i download over 60 gigs/month, i have to pay more. I won't be throttled, just will have to pay up.

Yep, however things are also changing in a way where where the consumer could be protected by the market.

My town is a great example. For many years the only high speed internet connection they had was through the cable company. They charged a pretty high fee, but if you wanted high speed internet, you had no choice but to pay it.

Then the phone company started offering DSL. It wasn't as fast, but was close and it cost about 1/3rd less. The phone company also started offering cable TV service via the dsl line. The cable company shit their pants as customers moved away from them and over to the phone company service. As a result the cable company has upgraded what they offer and has lowered prices. When I first moved here 5 years ago high speed internet was 3mbps and it cost $49.95 a month. Now they offer 10mbps for $39.95 per month. The 3mbps is now $29.95 and you can get 18mbps for $49.95. When I first moved here their extended basic cable was around $60 and only had about 50 channels. Now the extended basic cable is around $55, but they have about 75 channels and you get free starz, encore and you get the main showtime channel as well as getting starz and movieplex on demand.

So if Comcast starts to throttle every user no matter how you use your internet I won't be surprised that they get a lot of complaints and either have to change their system or they offer an unthrottled version for those who want to just surf and download the occasional thing, but don't burn a ton of bandwidth.

I think this is more likely what will happen. If you download a ton of stuff then they will throttle everything but what they approve of (or get paid to keep fast). If you want to speed it all back up you will have to pay extra.

If they just throttle everyone they will lose a lot of customers to DSL and other high speed companies and they will get slammed with complaints, but this will open the door for them to heavily charge those that download a lot.

Most people have only ONE choice. If they have any choice. Now in my town I do have two chocies but if Charter decides to thottle then my other choice is at&t which maxes out at 6 Mbps instead of the up to 60 Mbps I can get from Charter. So is it really a choice?

For a lot of people it will be that way, sadly. Up until a few years ago my town only had one choice. But a friend of mine that lives about 20 minutes from me has several options.

I still think they will not throttle everyone. If they start throttling it down to dial-up speeds, people will never pay full price for that and will go back to dial-up. If people are paying $40-$60 a month for high speed internet they want high speed access and won't settle for getting garbage. But I will not be shocked to see those who use a lot of bandwidth get throttled and be forced to pay more to keep their speed up.

I could see wimax/and wireless ISPS becoming more popular etc that would offer connections vs comcast for internet one thats not filtered/throttled.

yeah sure Verizon charges $50 a month for 3G that maxes out at 1.4 Mbps and has 5 GB monthly cap with $51.20 per GB overage. Yeah I see people flocking to that.

I don't want them filtering by website but I would completely support them throttling certain protocols and having stricter bandwidth limits or just charging by the GB.

really doesn't matter here... see, internet providers now control their networks..
What does this really mean? It instantly means now, you are not paying for internet connection.. It means you are paying for a hookup to the internet... every network being not the internet but a connection to the internet....

It's a step of shaping what the internet is... The real angle to be afraid of is the internet to become now and how is it going to be controlled?

I see this as 2 current ways (not that i thought about it much)
1. The government takes over with free internet as they have wanted, not sure why.
The other networks offer their value added services with gimmicks to use them.

2. Or the next would be the disassembling of the internet into segregated networks.
Everyone will start making intranets that are more both public, and private, and controlled and dictated.. In other words.. States start being born... controlled networks with their own laws, jurisdictions and connection spots... and i don't think you will be connecting to the internet to get to these things so how this happens is uncertain
but i'm pretty sure it'll start with the adult intranet AOL (Adults Online)
The adult intranet would bring security to the producers and such, security to the site runners, becuase you need not worry about public concern.. People are connected, they are agreeing to the laws and whats on there and noone can really police it, without a lot of insane work, its a private intranet... if nothing outright criminal is going on.. not much can be done.

That's how i perceived it 10 years ago.. Thought the real AOL would be here already....

You really have no idea how the wireless technology really works in the commercial world do you?

I'm not talking about Verizon sponsored wireless. Verizon's purpose in life is for you to NOT use their bandwidth.

Thats not true really the data plans will grow as they expand.. The problem is they cant be having home accounts using the bandwidth, people would all drop their home service 1.5mbps DSL lines for 10mbps mobile.. same cost..

i was looking to do it and so was everyone else in major cities.. hence why they had to but the shabob(??!!? whats that word suppose to be) They dont have the b/w capacity yet on the wireless...

This opens whole new doors to internet business and laws/regulations..
Imagine having a private intranet... Say porn peddling is illegal in Pensacola, FL for example. But there was a private intranat, but NOT ALLOWED for Residents in Pensacola... You couldnt go after the site hoster, since they dont allow residents to join, it would be the end user.. It's not THE INTERNET, its not totally PUBLIC..

Now stay with me for the really interesting bit.... Imagine if you were in Pensacola, FL and you owned or participated on adult sites but they were not IN Pensacola, FL. Could they arrest you for peddling porn because YOU RESIDE in Pensacola, FL. I can't see how that would be possible, you were not PEDDLING PORN IN PENSACOLA, FL it would be a violation of your constitutional rights no? Because Pensacola FL is saying you can't run a business in another state? Holy wall of Freedom batman... Times are a changing.. get ready for a new ride :D

You would be HIGHLY surprised what todays wireless systems can put out.

I'm not going to dig into this because everyone else that knows oh so much about this industry is going to lash out against me and other people that understand this. But if this happens you will see a surge in wireless networking and other isps.

Small isps picking up DSL again will come out of the woodwork. All of a sudden that 5Mbps dsl line that isn't restricted isn't looking so bad anymore is it?

doing some reading, its just too early to predict what happens from here. The only solid prediction is that a democrat congress will be more then happy to pass broadband regulation, or at least give the FCC the power to do it. Most likely the regulations will be written by lobbyists for ISPs & Hollywood. It may yet become a win for people who create content because the current affairs are a fucking joke for content producers.

Yeah. Rogers has been throttling torrents here for years now. I have no problems with it. However, this is not what they have in mind, in my opinion. They want to basically receive 'advertising' dollars from companies to ensure access to their sites is fast while sites who pay nothing will be put in the 'slow lane' as they do nothing for the isp's bottom line so why should they get the same priority. Its the next step to totally regulating who and what will be allowed to have a web presense. They want to make it like television because this is the model the cable companies understand and know they can monitize. Keep down new ideas and startups, keep the status quo. Keep them in charge. Thats what its all about.