- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Net Neutrality - Layman's Terms
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:00 am
Can someone please explain what exactly this is? One of my buddies was talking about it over the weekend and he said this could be a bad thing, but I didn't quite understand exactly what will happen if it is enforced. TIA
3
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:05 am to joeytiger
Net Neutrality (as it refers to what you probably want to know) is the idea that all data you can find on the internet is equal. You cannot charge more for some data over another.
If certain companies got what they wanted and did away with net neutrality, they could charge you more to visit certain sites. For example, Comcast could throttle bandwidth to Netflix unless either you or Netflix paid more.
If certain companies got what they wanted and did away with net neutrality, they could charge you more to visit certain sites. For example, Comcast could throttle bandwidth to Netflix unless either you or Netflix paid more.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:06 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:12 am to taylork37
quote:
idea that all data you can find on the internet is equal. You cannot charge more for some data over another.
But how would this affect my daily browsing of the internet? I am not that computer savvy, but are you saying that without Net Neutrality when I stream Netflix, it would be slower because I have service through Comcast?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:20 am to joeytiger
Cable and phone companies (ISPs) have government sanctioned regional near monopolies on our internet connections. They also sell us TV content. They want to keep it that way.
This isn't all about NetFlix, but they are the canary in the coal mine so to speak. What the ISPs are doing to NetFlix is what they will do to all internet content providers if they are successful. The ISPs already charge customers to access NetFlix, they'd like to double dip and charge NetFlix for access to it's customers, even though they already got money from their customer to pay for the data consumed. NetFlix traffic is being intentionally slowed down by ISPs, they essentially need to upgrade the connection between themselves and NetFlix, a solution that is relatively inexpensive, but they choose not to because they are going to get their money, either from shaking down NetFlix, or from keeping their customers away from NetFlix so they will keep buying cable TV.
There has been some "Net Neutrality" legislation introduced, but the main legal tool people seem to want to use to stop this is have the FCC declare the ISPs a common carrier so they can regulate them.
This isn't all about NetFlix, but they are the canary in the coal mine so to speak. What the ISPs are doing to NetFlix is what they will do to all internet content providers if they are successful. The ISPs already charge customers to access NetFlix, they'd like to double dip and charge NetFlix for access to it's customers, even though they already got money from their customer to pay for the data consumed. NetFlix traffic is being intentionally slowed down by ISPs, they essentially need to upgrade the connection between themselves and NetFlix, a solution that is relatively inexpensive, but they choose not to because they are going to get their money, either from shaking down NetFlix, or from keeping their customers away from NetFlix so they will keep buying cable TV.
There has been some "Net Neutrality" legislation introduced, but the main legal tool people seem to want to use to stop this is have the FCC declare the ISPs a common carrier so they can regulate them.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:27 am to joeytiger
Net Neutrality is a good thing. It means that all packets of information on the internet should be treated neutrally -- equally -- by your ISP regardless of their source or destination.
Here are a couple of reasons why eliminating Net Neutrality would be bad:
On the consumer end, you could very well be faced with a tough decision as to which ISP you want. The problem is, rather than choosing an ISP based on price and quality of service, you may have to choose based on which websites the ISP has made back-end deals with. For instance, one ISP may have a quality Netflix experience, while another may have a quality Hulu experience, but neither offers both. Also, the ISP may tier their services by which websites you can access at all (like TV), rather than speed of service. Couple these issues with the fact that most large ISPs basically have monopolies in their service areas, and the fact that these ISPs are fighting against allowing municipal broadband (and winning), and we have a bad situation for consumers.
On the business side, the ISPs would essentially be able to decide which online services succeed and which ones fail. As an example, you may know that Google makes most of their money from online ads, and Google serves up the ads you see on most websites. Without Net Neutrality, and ISP could throttle (or block completely) packets that originate from Google's servers. What this means is, if some small website (like TD) survives by making money on Google ads, then ISPs would be free to make those ads slow or never even load, essentially killing small websites (and not to mention hurting Google's revenue). Google would be left with no choice but to pay off the ISPs to "fix" this problem, and the same goes for every website that wants to survive. And they would have to pay multiple ISPs for access to their customers.
What it boils down to is, without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be free to double-dip, charging individual websites to allow their packets onto the ISPs network, and then charging the customer on the other end for delivery. It would be like Amazon paying UPS to deliver a package, and then UPS charging the customer again for the right to accept a package from Amazon specifically. And then UPS lobbies the government to disallow USPS from servicing the area.
Here are a couple of reasons why eliminating Net Neutrality would be bad:
On the consumer end, you could very well be faced with a tough decision as to which ISP you want. The problem is, rather than choosing an ISP based on price and quality of service, you may have to choose based on which websites the ISP has made back-end deals with. For instance, one ISP may have a quality Netflix experience, while another may have a quality Hulu experience, but neither offers both. Also, the ISP may tier their services by which websites you can access at all (like TV), rather than speed of service. Couple these issues with the fact that most large ISPs basically have monopolies in their service areas, and the fact that these ISPs are fighting against allowing municipal broadband (and winning), and we have a bad situation for consumers.
On the business side, the ISPs would essentially be able to decide which online services succeed and which ones fail. As an example, you may know that Google makes most of their money from online ads, and Google serves up the ads you see on most websites. Without Net Neutrality, and ISP could throttle (or block completely) packets that originate from Google's servers. What this means is, if some small website (like TD) survives by making money on Google ads, then ISPs would be free to make those ads slow or never even load, essentially killing small websites (and not to mention hurting Google's revenue). Google would be left with no choice but to pay off the ISPs to "fix" this problem, and the same goes for every website that wants to survive. And they would have to pay multiple ISPs for access to their customers.
What it boils down to is, without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be free to double-dip, charging individual websites to allow their packets onto the ISPs network, and then charging the customer on the other end for delivery. It would be like Amazon paying UPS to deliver a package, and then UPS charging the customer again for the right to accept a package from Amazon specifically. And then UPS lobbies the government to disallow USPS from servicing the area.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:27 am to TigerinATL
quote:
TigerinATL
So the cable/phone companies are looking to make up lost revenue from Hulu and others that allow users to watch shows via the internet instead of cable? If so, that's some shady shite.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:31 am to joeytiger
quote:
But how would this affect my daily browsing of the internet?
NetFlix buffers a lot for people on certain ISPs. There is plenty of capacity on both sides of the network, literally the only thing causing the problem is an ISP like Verizon refusing to install a few more pieces of equipment to allow more capacity between networks. LINK/
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:39 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:31 am to joeytiger
quote:
But how would this affect my daily browsing of the internet? I am not that computer savvy, but are you saying that without Net Neutrality when I stream Netflix, it would be slower because I have service through Comcast?
until someone ends up paying for the "fast lane" yes, you could be throttled.
The thing is TWC has a reason to throttle Netflix. They are direct competitors.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:33 am to Korkstand
Solid info. What's the chances of Net Neutrality ending? It's great for consumers obviously, but who is the government to say what private companies can do with their businesses? Very strange situation. Is there any recourse for Google and the like against the ISPs without Net Neutrality without government regulations?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:35 am to joeytiger
This should explain it
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:37 am to joeytiger
quote:
If so, that's some shady shite.
So was the housing bubble. Companies will be as shady as we allow them to be, and when they become mega-conglomerates with many different interests, the consumer often gets screwed. I'm not pro big government at all, but if the ISP business and the TV Content business were separate entities, this wouldn't be a problem. When they control both and are protected by the government as a quasi monopoly, they are able to screw us all.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:39 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:45 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I'm not pro big government at all, but if the ISP business and the TV Content business were separate entities, this wouldn't be a problem
Agreed. I am definitely not pro-government, but in this case it seems logical for them to step in and do this. The problem is, government usually has a way of fricking things up worse.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:50 am to joeytiger
quote:
overnment usually has a way of fricking things up worse
Precisely why att and comcast are in the position they are now.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:02 am to CAD703X
It doesn't help that the existing chairman of the FCC is a former lobbyist for one of the largest firms supporting the cable companies.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:26 am to joeytiger
quote:In the case of companies that provide vital infrastructure, there is a strong case to be made that government involvement is necessary. Imagine if all of our utilities and infrastructure like electricity, water, sewer, roads, etc. were really free markets. Imagine all the duplication of effort, the multiple competing and separate electric grids, etc. Choice is great for consumers, but dozens of cables, pipes, or even roads running to each neighborhood and house would be a terrible situation.
who is the government to say what private companies can do with their businesses?
It's really a question of whether internet service should be considered a utility. This is kind of where the talk of classifying ISPs as "common carriers" (like phone companies) comes in. As the electric grid example kind of points out, it doesn't make much sense to have that sort of competition (duplicate infrastructure), so it is argued that the better scenario would be to regulate ISPs, force them to sell access to their infrastructure, which would allow ISPs to compete using the same set of wires. This is how they do it in Korea, and it works very well. In this scenario, Net Neutrality regulation wouldn't be so necessary since anti-consumer practices would have consequences... another ISP could spring up overnight and offer better service.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:40 am to Korkstand
So even though Netflix at any given time can account for over a third of all Internet traffic, ISP's should be required to deal with them as if they're a small site like TD? Where is the incentive for an ISP to invest in improving its infrastructure if a third of that infrastructure is supporting companies that take away their cable/IPTV business? I don't won't a tiered system of Internet access options either, but IMO an ideal solution is somewhere in the middle. I realize this opinion is at odds with what 99% of people that post on forums believe and am prepared to be demonized 
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:52 am to jbond
quote:If they can deal with Netflix traffic as they see fit, what is the threshold for dealing with individual websites? What are the criteria? Should ISPs just be able to decide who lives and dies?
So even though Netflix at any given time can account for over a third of all Internet traffic, ISP's should be required to deal with them as if they're a small site like TD?
quote:Ah, yes, where is the incentive to compete if all you have to do is flip a switch?
Where is the incentive for an ISP to invest in improving its infrastructure if a third of that infrastructure is supporting companies that take away their cable/IPTV business?
quote:Somewhere in the middle of what? Net Neutrality regulations are "somewhere in the middle", with the extremes being allow ISPs to do as they wish on one end, and classifying ISPs as common carriers on the other.
I don't won't a tiered system of Internet access options either, but IMO an ideal solution is somewhere in the middle.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 11:58 am to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
Well said.
quote:
Where is the incentive for an ISP to invest in improving its infrastructure if a third of that infrastructure is supporting companies that take away their cable/IPTV business?
I might think this was a valid argument if these companies were not already gouging consumers and not on their way to a full monopoly with all the recent mergers.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 12:13 pm to Korkstand
I didn't say that they should have the leeway to deal with particular sites as they see fit, but rather that there could be some middle ground (to be determined by regulators). I don't know what that middle ground should be because I'm not an antitrust or telecom policy expert, but it just doesn't make sense (to me) that Netflix and a personal website be treated the same when one uses a third of the nation's data. I was purposefully vague and didn't specify what this middle ground is because I don't have a solution. It's completely disingenuous to imply upgrading infrastructure is as simple as flipping a switch when a single cabinet of equipment is on the order of 6 and often 7 figures.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 12:21 pm to jbond
quote:
So even though Netflix at any given time can account for over a third of all Internet traffic, ISP's should be required to deal with them as if they're a small site like TD?
Why does it matter what data ISP customers access? It doesn't cost the ISP more whether the data coming across is 00110011 or 11001100, what costs them more is the volume and velocity of the data, and that is what they charge their customer, the data consumer, for.
quote:
Where is the incentive for an ISP to invest in improving its infrastructure
Because they can charge THEIR customers more to access more data. NetFlix is NOT Verizon's customer. Verizon's customer is the one choosing to access NetFlix, if that causes Verizon problems, then Verizon should take it up with THEIR customer.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News