Jump to content
professa X

Emergency Protest! Stop FCC Hybrid "Net Neutrality"!

Recommended Posts

Unbelievable.  I wish these idiots would stop trying to move everything backwards.  Thanks for the heads up...you really have to keep an eye on what's going on these days or you're completely screwed before you even know what happened.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still not understanding what's going on; too much reading for me; one article linking to several others; rather spend time doing something else; not exactly idle; 

in a nut shell. isp will have control over your internet. they will decide what fair consumption is and they will be easily pressured by those copyright holders to control ur content. plus some other BS. If you care you will keep an i on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

in a nut shell. isp will have control over your internet. they will decide what fair consumption is and they will be easily pressured by those copyright holders to control ur content. plus some other BS. If you care you will keep an i on it.

 

I thought thats what they do already??. Well put it this way, my ISP in NZ has a fair use policy for their customers on their uncapped plans, where if they determine you are going to hamper the network and affect other users on it, they will restrict you until 1) your usage decreases, or 2) there is spare bandwidth being available. That said, last months total useage came to 1.7TB . . .

 

By law, I also assume that if any ISP got presented with an DMCA (copyright breach) due to content that you as their customer posted, the ISP would have to take some form of action against you.

What am I getting at? Just going from your "in a nutshell" description, all the talk of these things that are going to implemented, are already here. But like ounce mentioned, I haven't been following it that closely so might be missing the whole point all together. Feel free to correct me/argue.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

in a nut shell. isp will have control over your internet. they will decide what fair consumption is and they will be easily pressured by those copyright holders to control ur content. plus some other BS. If you care you will keep an i on it.

 

I thought thats what they do already??. Well put it this way, my ISP in NZ has a fair use policy for their customers on their uncapped plans, where if they determine you are going to hamper the network and affect other users on it, they will restrict you until 1) your usage decreases, or 2) there is spare bandwidth being available. That said, last months total useage came to 1.7TB . . .

 

By law, I also assume that if any ISP got presented with an DMCA (copyright breach) due to content that you as their customer posted, the ISP would have to take some form of action against you.

What am I getting at? Just going from your "in a nutshell" description, all the talk of these things that are going to implemented, are already here. But like ounce mentioned, I haven't been following it that closely so might be missing the whole point all together. Feel free to correct me/argue.   

 

 

I am bad at explaining things but here i go. Now i dont expect anyone out of the US to care about this since FCC is US and this a US problem. Yea to be sure ISP have always had that control but not like the way you describe. Here in the US we promised bandwidth. I am paying for a certain bandwidth that was allocated to me regardless of how i use it or if i use it at all. Now the hybrid policy is supposed to be fair with the Big web companies but provides no protection to users. So this was the original idea: ISP will charge websites if they want to provide their services faster.SO my ISP will charge FaceBook if FaceBook needs to send me information. So on the front that seems nice right. But what if a site like NetFlix (which you have to pay for) is charged? Well my monthly subscription price will increase. But what if they dont pay for the faster internet. Then my video's will take along time to buffer. So how does this affect me? Think about if sites like MEGA/TusFiles/etc had to go through this BS (assuing they are US based but not likely). Of course they have a free and premium plan. And the free plans are some times decent. But with this those free plans speeds will suck so bad with the FCC policy. Also any site with the potential of being the next FaceBook or Twitter or NetFlix will have a hard time getting a 'fanbase" when they have horrible speeds. So the future of innovation is slaughtered. So how does copyright affect this? Well my guess is that usually sites with copyright infringement have high traffic so in a sense i loose speed not because of me or the content but because the site is so popular.

 

So how does my paying a monthly price for internet suffer?

 

We have ISP's charging Me for accessing it (the site) and then the site gets charged for being accessed. And  for me to get my 10mbps DL i have to pay and then they have to pay and if they have to pay then guess what i'm probably gunna end up paying more!

 

-end professa X ramblings!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

in a nut shell. isp will have control over your internet. they will decide what fair consumption is and they will be easily pressured by those copyright holders to control ur content. plus some other BS. If you care you will keep an i on it.

 

I thought thats what they do already??. Well put it this way, my ISP in NZ has a fair use policy for their customers on their uncapped plans, where if they determine you are going to hamper the network and affect other users on it, they will restrict you until 1) your usage decreases, or 2) there is spare bandwidth being available. That said, last months total useage came to 1.7TB . . .

 

By law, I also assume that if any ISP got presented with an DMCA (copyright breach) due to content that you as their customer posted, the ISP would have to take some form of action against you.

What am I getting at? Just going from your "in a nutshell" description, all the talk of these things that are going to implemented, are already here. But like ounce mentioned, I haven't been following it that closely so might be missing the whole point all together. Feel free to correct me/argue.   

 

 

I am bad at explaining things but here i go. Now i dont expect anyone out of the US to care about this since FCC is US and this a US problem. Yea to be sure ISP have always had that control but not like the way you describe. Here in the US we promised bandwidth. I am paying for a certain bandwidth that was allocated to me regardless of how i use it or if i use it at all. Now the hybrid policy is supposed to be fair with the Big web companies but provides no protection to users. So this was the original idea: ISP will charge websites if they want to provide their services faster.SO my ISP will charge FaceBook if FaceBook needs to send me information. So on the front that seems nice right. But what if a site like NetFlix (which you have to pay for) is charged? Well my monthly subscription price will increase. But what if they dont pay for the faster internet. Then my video's will take along time to buffer. So how does this affect me? Think about if sites like MEGA/TusFiles/etc had to go through this BS (assuing they are US based but not likely). Of course they have a free and premium plan. And the free plans are some times decent. But with this those free plans speeds will suck so bad with the FCC policy. Also any site with the potential of being the next FaceBook or Twitter or NetFlix will have a hard time getting a 'fanbase" when they have horrible speeds. So the future of innovation is slaughtered. So how does copyright affect this? Well my guess is that usually sites with copyright infringement have high traffic so in a sense i loose speed not because of me or the content but because the site is so popular.

 

So how does my paying a monthly price for internet suffer?

 

We have ISP's charging Me for accessing it (the site) and then the site gets charged for being accessed. And  for me to get my 10mbps DL i have to pay and then they have to pay and if they have to pay then guess what i'm probably gunna end up paying more!

 

-end professa X ramblings!

 

 

Ahh right I see... America! In the end it sounds like a huge big money making racket that everyone has to falling in line with. Assuming this happens of course. Personally I don't see it ever happening :). The fact that ISP's charge us already to use their service and access free websites but limit us with a capped browsing amount (i.e caps of 30GB, 80GB etc) is beyond me. Though this dose seem to be phasing out now. 

 

That reaaaallly sux for the US.

 

Sorry to all who live there :P

 

Haha this was my thinking after I read the first line of Professa X's post xD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...