Last edited by a moderator:
FCC and the internet
- Thread starter Loren Littlejohn
- Start date
He's Dead, Jim
Member
The huge fear everyone had regarding the FCC was that it was going to allow ISPs to outright block websites. It seems like there's no way that's going to happen, so that removes part of the stigma surrounding these rules.
But the other issue here is market pricing. If Netflix is using half the bandwidth in existence, I think it should pay according to a different model than Tumblr, which uses dramatically less. My hope is that if we allowed ISPs to charge different prices, they could improve services, load times, make investments in needed infrastructure, etc. But I think a lot of the problems with ISPs (in the U.S., at any rate) aren't due to a lack of money, but the failure of regulators to enforce point-of-distribution competition, i.e., making all the infrastructure up until the point where the ISP takes over shared, so different companies can compete on the same "grid" area.
The flipside of this is that it might hurt startups, which could potentially have bandwidth-heavy content but wouldn't be able to pay ISPs for it out of the starting gate, which would favor large, established companies like Netflix and Google. I don't really know enough about Internet governance or telecommunications regulations to discern which of these is more of an issue, but my knowledge of economics sort of suggests that tiered pricing makes a lot of sense as long as ISPs can't block access to a given site.
But the other issue here is market pricing. If Netflix is using half the bandwidth in existence, I think it should pay according to a different model than Tumblr, which uses dramatically less. My hope is that if we allowed ISPs to charge different prices, they could improve services, load times, make investments in needed infrastructure, etc. But I think a lot of the problems with ISPs (in the U.S., at any rate) aren't due to a lack of money, but the failure of regulators to enforce point-of-distribution competition, i.e., making all the infrastructure up until the point where the ISP takes over shared, so different companies can compete on the same "grid" area.
The flipside of this is that it might hurt startups, which could potentially have bandwidth-heavy content but wouldn't be able to pay ISPs for it out of the starting gate, which would favor large, established companies like Netflix and Google. I don't really know enough about Internet governance or telecommunications regulations to discern which of these is more of an issue, but my knowledge of economics sort of suggests that tiered pricing makes a lot of sense as long as ISPs can't block access to a given site.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
I think Tumblr should pay a tax levy for hosting so much content that reduces our collective IQ levels.
anotherpaul
Member
ISPs can outright block websites over here 
Mostly this is done for censorship reasons - we had a wave of "protect children from unsafe information" shit going on. So now there is a special commitee and basically any user can send them a notice that a certain website contains "drug usage propaganda" or "suicide propaganda" or whatever. If the website administration does not remove "dangerous information" in like 3 days it will be blacklisted and local ISPs have to block this website.
More than that, they block the entire IP ADDRESS! So several websites on the same cloud platform can be blocked because somebody on the forum discusses effects of drugs in some MMORPG (true story).
Mostly this is done for censorship reasons - we had a wave of "protect children from unsafe information" shit going on. So now there is a special commitee and basically any user can send them a notice that a certain website contains "drug usage propaganda" or "suicide propaganda" or whatever. If the website administration does not remove "dangerous information" in like 3 days it will be blacklisted and local ISPs have to block this website.More than that, they block the entire IP ADDRESS! So several websites on the same cloud platform can be blocked because somebody on the forum discusses effects of drugs in some MMORPG (true story).
Vice//Versa
Dude among dudes
Me and my roommate have been pissed off about net neutrality for a couple weeks, and honestly, I'm starting to believe that maybe the internet is bound to behave regressively. Anyway, its funny seeing my roommate get pissed about politics with me for once, its normally me who does all the serious ranting.
AD Chaos
MGTOW
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
The business model is to charge sites like Netflix or Google so that users can keep getting those contents at a decent speed. Never mind actually investing on improving infrastructure or costumer service 
That's why Netflix had to paid Comcast, because Comcast users were complaining about the increasingly crappy service they were getting from Netflix..
But, it as not Netflix's fault, it was Comcast, who were maliciously lowering the speeds (even though costumers kept paying for full bandwidth). Look at what happened once Netflix paid Comcast:
Gotta love some greedy corp. ass-raming, I guess..
That's why Netflix had to paid Comcast, because Comcast users were complaining about the increasingly crappy service they were getting from Netflix..
But, it as not Netflix's fault, it was Comcast, who were maliciously lowering the speeds (even though costumers kept paying for full bandwidth). Look at what happened once Netflix paid Comcast:
Gotta love some greedy corp. ass-raming, I guess..
