So net neutrality was overturned today

Music posts are a bannable offense.
Hypnagogia
How's them beans, ma?
Posts: 3425
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: ~Seattle

Re: So net neutrality was overturned today

Post by Hypnagogia »

Charles Schulzerie wrote:
Hypnagogia wrote:Also, consider that some websites are already starting to charge ISPs to access their content, such as ESPN360. Comcast gets it; Qwest doesn't.
Would net neutrality have forced ISPs pay up, so as to not block any content from their users?
Maybe this was is a good decision after-all...had they won, web content owners could've started charging ISPs retarded fees to access their sites, and of course the ISPs would just pass that cost on to the consumer.
Actually the FCC is trying to make sure ISPs CAN'T charge us extra for premium content.
That's precisely what my point was; it would have put the ISPs at risk to having to pay ever increasing premiums to web content owners.
Charles Schulzerie wrote: What ESPN would start doing is just making a monthly payment plan to ESPN3 and skip out the middle man. It'd go out to a much wider audience and they'd end up making a lot more money.
I agree, this makes the most sense, and is probably the future model for online content, especially given this new ruling. But, had the FCC won...previous scenario might prevail.

I guess the biggest concern here is if ISPs decide to start filter types of content; like, say, Bit Torrent. But until a copyright owner complains, they generally don't care about content.
They put limits on total bandwidth, but even Comcast's "unlimited" bandwidth limit is so high, it will only effect the top 1% of basement dwellers.

So long as the ISPs are not held legally responsible for the content of their users, they should have zero incentive to put limits on types of content.
SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW
Mallard's a workin
User avatar
father of lies
Sir Posts-A-Lot
Posts: 10421
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: MKE WI

Re: So net neutrality was overturned today

Post by father of lies »

Krieg wrote:But ... your freedoms?
Haha a+ post, would read again!
fvkk
User avatar
Gookstorm
Freakin Insane & Stuff..
Posts: 2837
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: pol(1,pi/e)
Contact:

Re: So net neutrality was overturned today

Post by Gookstorm »

Next up, Supreme Court declares that the President does not have the authority to take troops out of war, only the house minority.

Edit: looked around for a while and couldn't find the docs. Too much shit to look up on Google past the news stories and I don't know a single daily updated legal reference.
ThE GodDamN BattletweeteR wrote:
Gookstorm wrote:Koreans hate Americans too much to ever fuck them, silly roundeyes.
obviously you never been to kunsan, osan, or seoul.
User avatar
Charles Schulzerie
Amongst the Catacombs of Nephren-ka
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 9:55 pm
Location: Dearborn, MI

Re: So net neutrality was overturned today

Post by Charles Schulzerie »

Hypnagogia wrote:
Charles Schulzerie wrote:
Hypnagogia wrote:Also, consider that some websites are already starting to charge ISPs to access their content, such as ESPN360. Comcast gets it; Qwest doesn't.
Would net neutrality have forced ISPs pay up, so as to not block any content from their users?
Maybe this was is a good decision after-all...had they won, web content owners could've started charging ISPs retarded fees to access their sites, and of course the ISPs would just pass that cost on to the consumer.
Actually the FCC is trying to make sure ISPs CAN'T charge us extra for premium content.
That's precisely what my point was; it would have put the ISPs at risk to having to pay ever increasing premiums to web content owners.
Why is this a problem? They're practically fucking hemorrhaging money from over charging people for YEARS now. Not one of us would bitch if the oil companies got a $2.00/gallon of gas cap even if the price of oil kept rising.
Hypnagogia wrote:
Charles Schulzerie wrote: What ESPN would start doing is just making a monthly payment plan to ESPN3 and skip out the middle man. It'd go out to a much wider audience and they'd end up making a lot more money.
I agree, this makes the most sense, and is probably the future model for online content, especially given this new ruling. But, had the FCC won...previous scenario might prevail.

I guess the biggest concern here is if ISPs decide to start filter types of content; like, say, Bit Torrent. But until a copyright owner complains, they generally don't care about content.
They put limits on total bandwidth, but even Comcast's "unlimited" bandwidth limit is so high, it will only effect the top 1% of basement dwellers.

So long as the ISPs are not held legally responsible for the content of their users, they should have zero incentive to put limits on types of content.
First of all, all copyright owners DO is complain about how their shit is getting stolen. Plus, they've already gotten caught doing it, said they couldn't, now they can again. What's stopping them? I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA is probably paying them to do it.

and they actually have HUGE incentives. What happens if someone has Vonage for their phone but comcast for their internet? Comcast will start limiting Vonage's VoIP traffic in order to make people switch over to their phone service.
noah thirteen wrote:
Friendly Goatus wrote:I didn't have any tortillas before I took the ambien, Noah. I'm a sharp cookie. I know things.
Just imagine a giant cookie buying tortillas on a shit load of ambien.....
Post Reply