Could this court decision affect the adoption of 4k?

The idea is to avoid a future where everyone has access to a different internet based on ISP and rates. If Google (or any other large content-provider) were to block their content from all users of a particular ISP, then they would essentially be normalizing the scenario that some of us find so scary to begin with. Besides, I don't know about you, but my options for internet are either Time Warner for broadband, or painfully slow DSL from Verizon. if i can't get the whole internet on Time Warner, then i have no reasonably priced broadband option available to me.
 
stefancolson said:
The idea is to avoid a future where everyone has access to a different internet based on ISP and rates. If Google (or any other large content-provider) were to block their content from all users of a particular ISP, then they would essentially be normalizing the scenario that some of us find so scary to begin with. Besides, I don't know about you, but my options for internet are either Time Warner for broadband, or painfully slow DSL from Verizon. if i can't get the whole internet on Time Warner, then i have no reasonably priced broadband option available to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Wireless services and cable ISP's should be classified as common carriers by the FCC and required to maintain open access to their networks just like the traditional phone companies have to. We and the content providers pay for access to open pipes via our local services. It doesn't matter that Netflix or Google or whoever is taking up significant bandwidth on any provider's network. The end users are paying for that bandwidth.
 
There is no doubt this is a messed up situation. Reading Adkimery's articles, it seems the content providers do pay somebody for bandwidth, but it is not always the ISPs. The ISPs are only selling access to the internet, not a secured link to Google, Netflix or Amazon. By its nature, the internet's design is so fragmented that it is a wonder that it still works with the amount of use it gets. We all want the open, information centered internet where knowledge and learning are at our fingertips, but it is my opinion that the media wings of Goggle, Amazon and Netflix are over reaching the scope of the internet. They are wanting the ad hoc internet to serve as a broadcast style entertainment world which it is not designed to do very efficiently. So I say let them pay up to make the internet into this thing they want it to be because we already have a broadcast entertainment world, you just can't carry it around with you on a tablet and, it currently does not involve Google or Amazon to large extent.
 
In my view, ISPs are leeching away from content providers. From the money I spend on having internet access and content, the vast majority goes to the ISP. I don't pay to Google for its search engine or its email service, I don't pay to Facebook for keeping me in contact with old friends, I don't pay to dvxuser for using this nice environment to talk to filmmakers around the world. I pay a relatively modest amount for music and movies, that's about it. Everything else goes to the ISP. THEY should be paying Google, Facebook, dvxuser, etc, for their services to be available on my ISP. Just like your cable provider pays HBO for their content to be available to their subscribers.
 
Bassman2003 said:
There is no doubt this is a messed up situation. Reading Adkimery's articles, it seems the content providers do pay somebody for bandwidth, but it is not always the ISPs. The ISPs are only selling access to the internet, not a secured link to Google, Netflix or Amazon. By its nature, the internet's design is so fragmented that it is a wonder that it still works with the amount of use it gets. We all want the open, information centered internet where knowledge and learning are at our fingertips, but it is my opinion that the media wings of Goggle, Amazon and Netflix are over reaching the scope of the internet. They are wanting the ad hoc internet to serve as a broadcast style entertainment world which it is not designed to do very efficiently. So I say let them pay up to make the internet into this thing they want it to be because we already have a broadcast entertainment world, you just can't carry it around with you on a tablet and, it currently does not involve Google or Amazon to large extent.
Click to expand...

By that logic companies with fleets of trucks should pay more for road maintenance.

ISPs should be spending more on infrastructure improvements because that is their business model and THEY ARE MAKING RECORD PROFITS while simultaneously enjoying record low operational costs. It's completely ridiculous that their response to rising profit margins and a lower cost of business is to raise prices and degrade service. There would be a valid argument here if the ISPs were struggling with profitability, but Time Warner (for example) beat projections and saw net income rise almost 7% between 2012 and 2013.

That sounds to me like a thriving business with healthy earnings and growth. Why should they be able to demand higher and higher fees from their customers (while providing worse and worse service) when the increases go directly into the pockets of investors? In the absence of competition, where will a line be drawn between extortion and profitability? If this plan works, then aren't we sending a message to the ISPs that they can be as anti-consumer as they please without repercussions? Has the internet become integral enough to society that we should be protecting it the same way we would other elements of basic infrastructure?
 
Bassman2003 said:
So I say let them pay up to make the internet into this thing they want it to be because we already have a broadcast entertainment world, you just can't carry it around with you on a tablet and, it currently does not involve Google or Amazon to large extent.
Click to expand...

But they ARE paying up. They are even offering ISPs FREE upgrades to their infrastructure. And it's not like the infrastructure is on the brink of failure because, for example, Comcast and TW offer UNLIMITED streaming services (no data caps, no throttling) as long you use their streaming services. Verizon is throttling Netflix but I have not read any reports of Verizon throttling RedBox streaming (a company it has partnered with to get into the streaming market). Interesting how the ISPs' networks are totally fine as long as you use their streaming services but if you want to use Netflix suddenly there's not enough bandwidth...

To come back to your TV example, how much does Viacom pay DirecTV to be carried on their service? Oh, that's right cable/sat providers actually PAY content providers for the right to distribute their movies, TV shows, etc.,. Would you be okay if Time Warner cable intentionally degraded the image quality of Showtime for paying customers because they want to 'encourage' them to pay for HBO instead (HBO is owned by TW)?


Net Neutrality goes far beyond commercial pissing matches between giant corporations though. It boils down to ISP wanting complete and unchecked control of the Internet which has become a nearly ubiquitous tool for global communication. Saying it's okay for ISPs to arbitrarily throttle bandwidth is like saying it's okay for phone companies to arbitrarily refuse to connect your call (or to habitually degrade your service for any reason they want).



stefancolson said:
By that logic companies with fleets of trucks should pay more for road maintenance.
Click to expand...
Well, they do pay more for road maintenance as that's usually covered by gas taxes and a fleet of trucks is going to use a lot of gas. Along the same lines Amazon, Google, etc., use a lot of gigs and they pay for each gig they use.

I think a more fitting analogy would be that Trucking Company A, which is in business with local politicians, gets to use an unlimited amount of trucks on an unlimited amount of routes and even gets a police escort every now and then, where as Trucking Company B, which is not in business with local politicians, only gets to use a few trucks a day and are limited to using serpentine routes on back roads which drastically delays shipping. It has nothing to do with inadequate infrastructure and everything to do with power and greed.


-Andrew
 
We subscribers pay ridiculous amounts for the bandwidth we get. I pay very little for Netflix or Amazon Prime compared to what Verizon gets for Internet and "cable" services. It is almost 10 times what I pay the other services! Verizon is making tons and just wants to make more. If I want to use that bandwidth to access streaming video from legitimate services, I'm just using something I've paid for. What the Providers are protecting is their cable TV business, with it's outdated cable boxes and old timey channel modulation and delivery schemes.

It is just corporate greed and is a kick in the arse for the consumer and sets a horrible precedent.
 
You guys are correct. I know it sounds lke I am defending the ISPs but I am not so much. I think my Time Warner bill is quite high. No, I do not want any kind of throttling or censorship but that is a part of how large companies operate. You don't see any mention of CBS anything on NBC broadcasts/shows and you won't see anything Netflix around anything Google. I guess my thinking here is there is no overall "good guy". These are all competing interests that would probably act the same way given the opportunity.

We don't pay for Google, Yahoo, DVX etc... because that is their business model. They chose this approach to run their business. The 'advertising only' can only exist in certain environments, like very low cost for consumer access. The internet is the lowest cost place around for business to operate. I guess it seems a bit like whining when a company like Google that basically prints money it is so profitable might say it is unfair to have to pay a little more to delivery its content. (that most of it was not even produced by them).

Whatever happens, the "losing" concern will pass the costs down to the consumer anyway. No heros here and we will pay more in the end.
 
This is my limited understanding of "net neutrality". Right now, the net is neutral. If I put up a stupid video I made of cats and netflix puts up a movie, the internet is "neutral" in regards to us as far as speed and bandwidth.

You decide to watch my stupid cat video, or you decide to watch the movie on Netflix, you get the same results basically, you see a movie.

Removing net neutrality does this. Netflix can now make a deal with Comcast. They say, hey Comcast, we'll pay you X dollars so that our movies will download really fast. If the guy with the cat videos doesn't pay you, his stuff will download really slow. He probably doesn't have the money to pay you like we do, so we win! No one will watch his cat videos because they will be so slow!

Right now it's "neutral". you can compete with netflix on an even playing field. But imagine if you had to pay comcast for each person that watched your cat video to amke sure it was downloaded as fast as a movie on netflix. you'd have zero chance of competing with corporations.

Same goes for any website, like selling shoes. Joe's Favorite Shoes website would run really, really, really slow unless Joe forked over money to Comcast. Amazon would run like lightening, because they can afford it. Joe would not stand a chance against Amazon. No more "neutrality".

This would basically make sure there were no new Amazon's started except by large corporations with deep pockects. The existing companies would be baked in to the internet. They have the money to pay for the fast speed, and no one else without deep pockets could compete because their sites would be just way slow.

IMO, because the internet is used for commerce, much like roads, it should be "neutral". Imagine if there was a lane for trucks carrying Amazon goods that was 100 miles an hour, and everyone else sending a package had to take the slow lane, or pay extra to access the fast lane. Right now it's "neutral". The road is there for everyone. The net should be the same because it's used for education and commerce.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
You guys are correct. I know it sounds lke I am defending the ISPs but I am not so much. I think my Time Warner bill is quite high. No, I do not want any kind of throttling or censorship but that is a part of how large companies operate. You don't see any mention of CBS anything on NBC broadcasts/shows and you won't see anything Netflix around anything Google. I guess my thinking here is there is no overall "good guy". These are all competing interests that would probably act the same way given the opportunity.
Click to expand...

I agree that none of these companies are altruistic which just underscores the need for Net Neutrality. As Gillvane points out, Net Neutrality goes 'both ways' and is supposed to insure that all data (whether from a big company, a little guy, a friend or a foe) gets treated the same.

I guess it seems a bit like whining when a company like Google that basically prints money it is so profitable might say it is unfair to have to pay a little more to delivery its content. (that most of it was not even produced by them).
Click to expand...
Comcast and Time Warner aren't exactly hurting for cash themselves though I think talking about the economics so much clouds the basic issue. ;) Without Net Neutrality data could be throttled (or fast tracked) and there would be no recourse for those affected.
 
Without Net Neutrality a wealthy entertainer like a Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow (one is liberal and one is conservative in case you didn't know) would have very fast speed on their blogs. Joe the blogger would have crap speed. People would never bother to read Joe the blogger because it was so slow.

In fact this site itself could be affected. The Canon site, or the Sony site, would run really fast. This site? I doubt they would have the cash to pay the ISP's like a Canon or a Sony. It would run slower. This would drive traffic to the faster corporate sites.

Look at it like websites were pizza companies delivring pizza. There are two roads. One goes 20 mph and one goes 55 mph. Dominoes, Papa John's and Pizza Hut each pay 5K a month to drive on the 55 mph road. If you start a pizza company and don't have that kind of cash, you're on the 20mph road. You can't compete and you'll go out of business. Of course the big businesses would love less competition. Competition is good for the free market and consumers.
 
It's kind of like that already. My web hosting is probably a lot worse than what a wealthy entertainer would buy...
 
Bassman2003 said:
There is just too much money flying around for the internet to just be free anymore. I can see the IPS's position as they are paying for the infrastructure and others are making money over that infrastructure with a free ride. Television broadcasting is not free for the companies involved, at some point the internet companies have to come of age and see if they can survive with real world expenses like the television medium they are trying to take business away from.
Click to expand...

I actually hope the internet becomes a bit more expensive. People waste way too much time streaming stuff, including me. If it costs more, maybe our society won't spend as much time vedging in front of screens. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vedging, just not "from the moment I get home from work till I go to bed" vedging. That kind of TV and film viewing is kind of screwing us up.
 
16mman said:
I actually hope the internet becomes a bit more expensive. People waste way too much time streaming stuff, including me. If it costs more, maybe our society won't spend as much time vedging in front of screens. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vedging, just not "from the moment I get home from work till I go to bed" vedging. That kind of TV and film viewing is kind of screwing us up.
Click to expand...

You can always trade monthly payments for watching ads. That model isn't going to suddenly disappear.
 
Samuel H said:
It's kind of like that already. My web hosting is probably a lot worse than what a wealthy entertainer would buy...
Click to expand...

Nope. It's really not the same thing. This isn't just bandwidth, or speed, it's priority. I open up two windows and go to check out your website, and the rich entertainers website. you both have the same speed connection to the web on your site. I get the rich entertainer's content first, yours comes later. Unless you pay an extra monthly fee to be first.

It's not like I buy 5 mps, it's the same as a a corporation with 5 mps. I buy 12 mps it's the same as a corporation with 12 mps. It's pay to be FIRST, no matter the speed of your connection, everyone else comes after you. Your packets of data are going to be put on hold, until all the priority packets get sent, no matter what speed connection you purchase.

Amazon could outbid ebay so they are first, etc. The one who pays the most, gets to the end users the first. Everyone else waits in line behind them.

Right now you can afford the same connection speed on a server as a big company. Your website on say Bluehost.com can be just as fast as the website for Saturday Night Live, or CNN.

Without net neutrality Saturday Night live can say here you go Comcast. Here's a million bucks. Anyone that pays less will be slower than us. If you can't afford a million, to bad. You come last.
 
On a related note, Verizon is set to purchase Intel’s Media division which most likely means they are looking to greatly expand their first part streaming services. With accusations that Verizon is already throttling Netflix things will probably get a lot worse if Net Neutrality disappears.

Samuel H said:
It's kind of like that already. My web hosting is probably a lot worse than what a wealthy entertainer would buy...
Click to expand...

Here comes a flawed but hopefully still illustrative analogy. Look at the car service industry as an example. There's a wide variety of services (taxis, limo services, airport shared ride vans, etc.,) that let consumers get from point A to point B. They all travel on the same network of roads and highways and no service gets artificially sped up or slowed down. Because there's 'road neutrality' that opens the door for smaller players to get into the mix such as Lyft and Uber. If Yellow Cab, or another big player, could determine who gets to use the best routes and who is forced to use the worst routes then competition would dry up pretty quickly but the effects would not be limited to just other car services. Since Yellow Cab (to keep with the example) bought up the 'rights' to certain roads then Yellow Cab could limit use how they see fit to all traffic (private and commercial). Imagine driving to work one day and finding out that the highway you usually use is down to one lane because the other 4 lanes are reserved for Yellow Cabs only.

Naturally this might make you mad so you talk to the TV stations and start tweeting about how horrible Yellow Cab has made traffic in the city. The next day when you leave for work you are surprised to find out that Yellow Cab is blocking you, you personally, from getting onto the highway. Yellow Cab has blocked you from driving on any major roads so it takes you two hours to wind your way to work that day. Being even more pissed off than the day before you send out twice as many Tweets about how horrible Yellow Cab's policy is for the city and it citizens. The following day you wake up and Yellow Cab has bared you from using every road they own, including the road you live on.



16mman said:
I actually hope the internet becomes a bit more expensive. People waste way too much time streaming stuff, including me. If it costs more, maybe our society won't spend as much time vedging in front of screens. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for vedging, just not "from the moment I get home from work till I go to bed" vedging. That kind of TV and film viewing is kind of screwing us up.
Click to expand...

On average Americans still watch traditional TV (cable/sat/ota) 2-3 times more than they watch streaming media though and back when I had cable it was about 1.5-2 times more expensive than my ISP.
 
@Gillvane and @adkimery: I get your points, but I really think it's not that different. I do not have the same hosting as richer players have. And I don't have a private jet, which other people do have, so it takes me longer to go from one point to another. And it's not the end of the world.

Plus, I still believe in a non-neutral internet the content providers would badly squeeze the ISPs. Really, an internet connection without Google or Facebook is not an internet connection.

Of course, first-best probably is that it remains neutral.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Just read this. Since much of 4k's future may be tied to streaming, could this
court decision have an impact? It basically allows ISPs to charge Netflix and others
for the privilege of reaching viewers. At the very least, I would bet the cost for 4k
streaming would go up......assuming the ruling isn't appealed and overturned of course...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/technology/court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-20140114
Click to expand...

In short it will have little or no effect. The ruling only applies to the USA not the rest of the world. So unless other countries follow suit it won't have any effect.

On the other hand mobile phones started out expensive with expensive call charges but took off across the world and in that case the US was a late adopter.
Wi-fi is much the same wifi hot spots in hotels, cafes, airports etc were expensive but are getting cheaper and more and more are free.
The high initial charges did not stop the mass take up and use of the technology.
 
Samuel H said:
@Gillvane and @adkimery: I get your points, but I really think it's not that different. I do not have the same hosting as richer players have. And I don't have a private jet, which other people do have, so it takes me longer to go from one point to another.
Click to expand...

I guess I see a distinct difference between, for example, not being able to fly in a private jet because it's not cost effective for me right now vs not being able to fly in a private jet because a third party has arbitrary decided that they don't want me to be able to fly in a private jet.

Beats, the headphone makers, just launched a new music streaming service and while they currently don't have huge server farms like Apple they do have the freedom to grow if their user base grows. W/o Net Neutrality Apple could reach into it's very deep pockets to buy 'priority access' for it's iTunes Radio service and very quickly kill competing services such as Beats, Spotify and Pandora. Or an ISP that has it's own music streaming service could just degrade bandwidth for the other services to the point that customers don't want to use them. As a paying customer for Netflix I'd be really pissed if I found out my ISP was artificially degrading my connection with Netflix.

And it's not the end of the world.
Click to expand...
No, not literally the end of the world but I don't think anyone should trust ISPs with unchecked power especially when we are quickly moving towards a time when all information and media will primarily come via ISPs. If someone high up at AT&T or Comcast (the two biggest ISPs in the US) decided that news organizations like the BBC or Al Jezeria were 'un-American' they could just degrade data coming from those servers to the point where users would just give up on connecting. Losing Net Neutrality takes all the power out of the users' hands, all the power out of the content creators' hands (everything from email and mommy bloggers to Netflix and Facebook), all the power out of the government's hands and puts it into the hands of a very select few, the ISPs. Unless you own an ISP I really don't see anything positive coming from that scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top