Originally Posted by Bladewire (Post 22086981)

Fucking ASSHOLES!

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

For years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network.

This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.

But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization.

Instead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month. With no FCC rules against paid fast lanes, it would be up to Comcast to decide whether any specific prioritization deal is "anti-competitive."

We do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content. We will continue to make sure that our policies are clear and transparent for consumers, and we will not change our commitment to these principles. pic.twitter.com/19PFCPJ3TY

? Comcast (@comcast) November 22, 2017
?Comcast has never offered paid prioritization?

Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following:

To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners.
Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." Comcast said that it agreed with then-President Obama's stance that there should be "no paid prioritization."

The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal.

But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises.

Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order.

"[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization.

The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principles?no blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency."

As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic.

The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization.

Comcast?s future fast lanes

The remaining question is how Comcast's paid fast lanes would be implemented.

We contacted Comcast today to ask how it defines "anti-competitive paid prioritization." A spokesperson did not answer that question but referred us back to previous Comcast statements on the topic.

Comcast's promise not to "discriminate" suggests that its paid prioritization would be available to anyone who wants it and can afford it. Offering paid fast lanes to anyone at similar rates could help prevent the Federal Trade Commission from stepping in to block unfair trade practices.

Comcast's July 2017 filing with the FCC offers some hints on how the ISP will implement paid prioritization:

[T]he Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public. For example, a telepresence service tailored for the hearing impaired requires high-definition video that is of sufficiently reliable quality to permit users "to perceive subtle hand and finger motions" in real time. And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Commercial arrangements that entail prioritizing such traffic could ensure the low latency levels needed to achieve the high level of data quality necessary for such services to thrive.
Comcast stood by its 2014 statement in support of a rebuttable presumption against "exclusive [paid prioritization] arrangements and arrangements that prioritize a broadband provider's own affiliated content vis-à-vis unaffiliated content."

Originally Posted by kane (Post 22087032)

Of course they are. They aren't dumping millions into the effort to get rid of Net Neutrality just so they won't use the new rules to their benefit. It is funny that this comes out just a few days after they issued a statement saying they wouldn't be doing this.

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho (Post 22087266)

Just look at this asshole:



You don't need to know anything more

go with your instinct

call your senator, file a petition, do anything you can.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proc...ame:((17-108))

Originally Posted by sarettah (Post 22081491)

Understood, BUT it should be being discussed here because of the effect it could have on the Adult Internet (This is an Adult Industry Forum if you recall).

If Net Neutrality is repealed then ISPs could pretty much block adult content if they chose to or charge a premium to users to be able to access it.

That's not a real good thing for us.

.

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 22087146)

More like trickle down your leg ...

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22096020)

As someone who sold videos @ $30 for 3 solo girls scenes at a time when companies sold hardcore @ $50 for 90 minutes. I can't see why raising the price of porn is a problem.

Old-timers will tell you about the good old days when B/W was $5 and conversions were 1-300. The low price of B/W has allowed surfers to not buy porn at all. Giving them free access to millions of scenes. That has decimated the industry. Maybe putting up the prices will save it.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22096020)

As someone who sold videos @ $30 for 3 solo girls scenes at a time when companies sold hardcore @ $50 for 90 minutes. I can't see why raising the price of porn is a problem.

Old-timers will tell you about the good old days when B/W was $5 and conversions were 1-300. The low price of B/W has allowed surfers to not buy porn at all. Giving them free access to millions of scenes. That has decimated the industry. Maybe putting up the prices will save it.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 22096134)

The problem is that the internet is not only used for porn, it's used for most things nowadays.

But first, let's break down some of the bullshit flying around.

At its core, the argument against net neutrality is that "fast lanes will be good for businesses". But we already have "fast lanes", it's called bandwidth. Higher bandwidth = faster access = higher fees.

What repealing net neutrality means is that ISPs will double-dip: they'll charge consumers for bandwidth AND they'll be able to charge websites also for these so-called "fast lanes". ISPs will be able to throttle sites and make them pay for "fast lane" access, and the cost will, obviously, be passed down to you, the consumer, for something you're already paying for.

So you, as the consumer, are going to get charged more money for the same service you're already getting already, or poorer if ISPs decide to bundle "fast lane" sites under packages.

The second, and particularly idiotic, argument is "the government shouldn't be regulating anything, let the free market decide". Except government regulations are sometimes not only necessary, but essential.

Take food regulations for instance. Or traffic regulations. There's a reason government regulates these aspects: they're too important. Same with net neutrality.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22097130)

Welcome to the real world. Where a Skoda cost less than a Rolls Royce, fast food costs less than a fine steak.

Where 10 gb costs less than 1,000 gb.

Where you get the government you voted for. This has been on the cards for ages.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 22097253)

Right now, with net neutrality, a Skoda costs less than a Rolls Royce, in the sense that, yes, 10 gb costs less than 1,000 gb. You got that part right :1orglaugh

WITHOUT net neutrality, a Skoda can cost the same as a Rolls Royce if an ISP decides that it should.

Let me frame it another way.

It's like if electricity companies decided that you should pay depending on the type of devices you have in your home.

You have a fridge? Well, then the electricity companies will charge all fridge-making companies extra fees because fridges consume more electricity than light-bulbs so that electricity companies can create "fast lanes" for fridges which are in homes.

You have an electric car? Then the electric companies will have to charge electric-car companies extra for "fast lanes" for those electric cars that people have.

And we, the consumers, will obviously be absorbing these costs. Net result: we'll have lesser access, and end up paying more.

And these changes will have repercussions that we cannot predict right now, since so much of today's business happens over the net. Banking, health services, shopping.

Bandwidth is an utility, just like electricity under net neutrality rules. Take it away, and it becomes a luxury item.

And no, doing away with net neutrality will not bring back your "good ol' days" :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22097313)

If you believe millions of consumers will pay for a Rolls Royce but get a Skoda. You have no idea.

Yes a faster connection will cost more and if you need it to consume or distribute 1,000s of gb a minute. Pay for it.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22097313)

Low cost B/W ruined this industry.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22097313)

If you believe millions of consumers will pay for a Rolls Royce but get a Skoda. You have no idea.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 22097631)

We're already paying for it. Do you own any websites or do any kind of marketing that needs webhosting?

As a producer, you want to give your visitors faster access? You get a higher data plan/broader pipe.

Do the terms shared hosting, dedicated hosting, vps server mean anything to you?

That's, in terms you might understand: slow lane, highway, autobahn.

Those without a clue (like you) and those that have something to gain with the repeal of net neutrality, say "fast lanes" will be good.

Except, they ALREADY EXIST.

In short, the repeal of net neutrality means: giving an unprecedented amount of control to ISPs, and allowing them to double-dip consumers since we'll be paying for the increased costs that this would entail.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 22097871)

If you live in the USA, can you tell me how many broadband providers exist in your area?

If you're lucky there's three, and if there are more I can almost certainly guarantee that they're resellers.

You see, that "free market" argument works when it's an industry where there is one. That's not the case in telecommunications because of the humongous entry costs.

So, you'll be at the mercy of whatever ISPs in your area decide you'll be paying, and what websites they'll package for you.

So your "free market" argument is, as your presence is on this board, utterly meaningless :thumbsup

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22098882)

I live in Europe.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22098873)

I don't have to adept, I made my fortune with porn before the industry decided to give it away. I'm retired.

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22098882)

If the prices go too high, the suppliers lose customers. So you are protected. Making it too high for porn would close Tubes.

The free market has a habit of regulating prices according to demand.

Originally Posted by Boozer (Post 22082142)

Explain? What was the opposite?

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 22099728)

The market for porn is capable of selling 5 scenes at $50. So no worries for the industry. If people want to consume videos they will pay.

ADAPT OR DIE.

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp (Post 22100139)

Listening to Paul give advice is like being taught to drive by a blind man :1orglaugh

Amusing in a pitiful, sad sort of way but worrisome that some ignorant soul might actually take him seriously, not knowing the depths of ignorance from which his delusions spring forth.

Originally Posted by VRPdommy (Post 22101909)

In the US, only the cellular co's are allowed to meter usage.
Everyone else must offer a 'unlimited plan' even if they also offer metered plans, one plan has to be un-metered.

But the end of net neutrality is more about giving access to those that transmit high volumes of content to consumers a limit in the future.

So even if you do not currently have a lot of hits to your website or have a bunch of bandwidth getting to consumers, the future may have VR Content streaming, it might be hard for your customers to get that content without a bunch of lag unless you pay for higher volume access rates.

It's really about making money from the other side of the internet wire.
Content providers should be alarmed. If not, you just don't understand the motivation.

The next step for them is to make money from netflix, youtube, amazon prime and hulu.
If they get away with that, you are most likely the next on the list.
The cable co's bought all the movie houses (producers and holders) and netflix and prime decided to produce their own content. So this action is what they have left to make money on the competition they now have on their monopoly.

Bandwidth requirements always grow so, a cap on the line now may be acceptable, but we know it will grow larger and everyone will need to pay if they want their content unjittered and enjoyable to experience.

Think 4K and VR streams.

Many of those in the US do not have a understanding of those in the EU where you can get free to air satellite broadcasts. And those in the EU need to be aware we do not have that in the US. We pay dearly for it. Just like cable tv.

The EU has a much better regulatory arm and has not allowed what has happened in the US to happen over there.

Originally Posted by VRPdommy (Post 22108227)