Possible end to "net neutrality"

[EccentricM]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/21/the-fcc-has-unveiled-its-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.ffb4313382b7

 

 

Quote

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

 

[cricket246]

Hmmm...It would make it easier for them to block JW.org...

[EccentricM]

18 minutes ago, cricket246 said:

Hmmm...It would make it easier for them to block JW.org...

I was thinking the same.

[Allabord4Jah]

Pai is working the Internet just like Russia and China's control ability.  Band this and band that.  Well, there goes my favorite websites.  

[skipdaflip]

Satan is preparing this world for his last attack. He knows his time is near.

 

If this law will be approved and they will probably shut down the connection to jw.org in the future, then we still have our fall back locations.

This law will effect the US first, others second, if other countries will follow the footsteps of the US.

 

We know this will eventually happen. That is why we must read the bible day by day. We will need it very hard at the moment that Satan disconnects us completely from sources like the jw.org, bible etc. 

 

I'm very curious where this will lead us to. 

[Dages]

I'm wondering if it's possible to download the website to have it accessible "offline". It should be. It was some years ago, but website are getting bigger and bigger...

[Tia]

F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html

WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to have stronger oversight over broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most communications. It reflected the view of the Trump administration and the new F.C.C. chairman that

 

 

[hatcheckgirl]

8 minutes ago, CyreJay said:

prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites

 

This is a glimmer of hope.  Consumerism works both ways.  They ban websites, and consumers will move to other broadband providers.

 

So, it isn't about banning jw.org (not yet anyway), but about the telcos being greedy with market share of the internet, and wanting users to pay premium price for popular sites, which the owners of the popular sites will charge back to consumers.  Win-win for the greedy multinationals and telcos.  This was not how the internet was supposed to operate - it was freely offered not for financial gain, but the greedy (how many times have I written this already) companies think they can make a buck manipulating who gets what.

 

In their own words "this is not like other utilities, it is not a pipeline".

[Stavro]

10 minutes ago, hatcheckgirl said:

They ban websites, and consumers will move to other broadband providers.

 

https://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers

 

For the vast majority of the US, there simply are no alternative broadband providers. You either take what you're offered, move somewhere with a different provider, or live without any internet/tv/landline. Even where "alternatives" are offered, it will virtually always be DSL over ~100 year old telephone lines, with speeds only slightly faster than dial-up, and with a price nearly double that of cable/fiber from the local monopoly.

[Tia]

First word out of my mouth "GREED".

[hatcheckgirl]

2 minutes ago, Stavro said:

For the vast majority of the US, there simply are no alternative broadband providers

 

I didn't realise this.  We have quite a lot to choose from here in Australia, and I would have thought that competition in US would leave us for dead.  We also have an ombudsman who is tasked with keeping the internet providers in line (not as successful as they should be).

 

However, when one provider sees the "value" of this, then probably there won't be much alternative anyway, since it will become the norm for all providers.  I think it will decline and eventually we will see it being used against us.  But I was just trying to see some sort of silver lining.....

[Shawnster]

30 minutes ago, CyreJay said:

First word out of my mouth "GREED".

Right. Greed. This isn't about "making it easier to ban JW.org."  Satan's world already has it easy enough when the time comes to do what they want. 

 

This is all about greed. It's about people like me who have not had cable TV since 2009. I subscribe for internet through the local cable company. I watch TV online and I do not pay large cable TV bill.  Now the internet cable provider can jack up my bill or make me pay more money so I can watch Netflix or Hulu. 

 

Greed is the first factor involved in everything. Follow the money

[Shawnster]

[Tortuga]

2 hours ago, Shawnster said:

That's the way that cable channels are structured and it saves me money because I have a basic package. 

 

I don't stream TV so I'd happily get a cheaper data package from my ISP if it saved me money and still offered the internet access I currently use.

[dove]

It would still be less than what I'm paying now...

[hatcheckgirl]

But they are putting limits on what you can surf!  That's the point, isn't it?

[Tortuga]

4 minutes ago, hatcheckgirl said:

But they are putting limits on what you can surf!  That's the point, isn't it?

I don't surf Sports sites, Adult sites and many other types of sites just like I don't watch them on TV. If the intent is to restrict specific types of sites and offer the basic sites for less money, it would sound good to me.

[EccentricM]

Just now, Tortuga said:

I don't surf Sports sites, Adult sites and many other types of sites just like I don't watch them on TV. If the intent is to restrict specific types of sites and offer the basic sites for less money, it would sound good to me.

 

It might not be limited to just those areas. 

[Shawnster]

It might be limited in whatever ways they want. The graphic above was just an example. It wasn't literal. 

 

You pay $X now and can go anywhere on the internet.  In the future you might pay $X but only have access to non video sites like this.  Want to listen to online radio?  That will cost $X+1.  Want to download files?  That might cost $You per Meg.  Want to watch YouTube?  That costs $Z   

 

Is your provider so and so?  Well, so and so doesn't like your favorite news website so they will block you from going to that site.  You can only use their news site. 

 

It's however they want to run the internet. 

[Miss Bea]

My husband says they have a wrecking ball,  and are just plodding forward! 

[ChocoBro]

I don't really get what this is all about, but what the German media was saying is that this gives corporations with large budgets an unfair advantage towards start-up companies.

[Stavro]

3 hours ago, Tortuga said:

That's the way that cable channels are structured and it saves me money because I have a basic package.

 

In all likelihood, internet companies will add the tiers as an additional fee on top of your current rate, not give you a discount for what you don't use.

[Stavro]

2 hours ago, ChocoBro said:

I don't really get what this is all about, but what the German media was saying is that this gives corporations with large budgets an unfair advantage towards start-up companies.

 

In a general sense, it does give an advantage to larger companies, but the problem goes deeper than that.

 

Imagine that your town has two grocery stores, one with poor quality food and high prices, and another with good food and reasonable prices. Now let's say that the owner of the poor-quality store buys the roads from your government, and imposes a toll on everyone depending on their destination. If you go to the poor-quality store, you have no tolls. But if you go to the competitor's store, you have to pay a hefty toll.

 

If you're the owner of the competitor store, your business will undoubtedly suffer. If your store is well established you may be able to give your customers enough incentive to justify the higher tolls, but in doing so you'll be essentially handing over money to your competitor, which they will in turn use to further their goal of putting you out of business.

 

Or let's say that you're not the owner of the established competitor store, instead you run a co-op dairy. Since you're even further out of the way than the first competitor mentioned above, and you're not an established brand, the toll to reach your store will be double or triple that of the established competitor. Since farming generally doesn't have high margins, you have no room for discounts or incentives at all, and your sales are limited solely to those willing to pay the highest of premiums to reach your store. Before long, you're going to be out of business entirely.

 

It's clear who has the greatest advantage and disadvantage here, obviously the store that owns the roads is going to get the greatest profit by several orders of magnitude, those who were already established may survive but will never thrive, and those who are small or new will shrivel and die.

 

That's essentially what the NN repeal does for those in the US. It gives ISPs the ability to charge a fee to access sites and services run by other companies. Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, and similar sites are large enough that people will be willing to pay the premiums to access them, so they should survive, though the ISPs are already developing "free" alternatives that will seriously hurt these companies in the long run. And "small" sites like this would likely be accessible only through "unlimited" packages with the absolute highest premium, meaning most of the brothers and sisters in the US would disappear practically overnight unless they're willing to pay double or triple their current rates to keep the same quality of internet service they have today.

 

[New World Explorer]

No plans to introduce such restricting measures in Australia.

I pay $70 per month with fast unlimited cable broadband right now. (Telstra)

Got upgraded to unlimited for free last month.

Also phone line is included in the package.

Lucy said this before: We have a lot of offers to choose from here .. and it seems that Telco competition Down Under is stronger than in US

[cricket246]

I could see Satan using this to maneuver certain things. First they start restricting news sites, only allowing those the government favors. Then perhaps if you use things like streaming video (Netflix, youtube, tv.jw.org streaming videos, etc.) they can charge more or slow your internet to the point you can't watch anything. Then, in the future, they can start blocking sites like JW.org. This world is spiraling downwards at a more rapid degree, especially in the past week...