General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Summer That Will Change the Internet Forever
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/8/5694826/this-summer-will-change-the-internet-and-media-forever"It's impossible to overstate how massive Comcast will become if it's allowed to buy Time Warner Cable. The combined company will have 31 million TV customers and 32 million broadband subscribers, dwarfing every other company in the United States. It will be the only major service provider in 19 of 20 major American cities. And it will also own NBC Universal, which means it will control a massive number of cable channels, film studios, production companies, MSNBC, and NBC itself...."
"At this point it's fair to call the furor over the FCC's Open Internet rulemaking process a full-on crisis. The short version is that the FCC's old net neutrality rules preventing ISPs like Comcast from throttling services like Netflix were thrown out by a federal court in February, and new FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded with a new set of rules that basically everyone hates... except ISPs like Comcast. (This is where a cynical person points out that Wheeler used to be a prominent cable industry lobbyist
Wheeler's new rules would allow ISPs to create "fast lanes" on their services that a company like Apple could pay to use, so (for example) iTunes movies would stream better than Google Play movies. That would fundamentally change the entire way American businesses and consumers have experienced so far, and as more and more media moves to the internet (see the Aereo decision below) it could change the fundamental costs of publishing..."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)subscribing internet company? And it could be taxed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The US already has worse service than many countries because we don't make a public investment in the infrastructure.
And as the Internet is used more and more for basic information, communication and commerce, there will be a need for more bandwidth, or service will slow down because of the traffic.
And if there is a higher price tag to be able to 1)get your website to operate at a functional level and 2) If usrs have to pay exorbatant fees to get access to faster websites , then the whole purpose of the Internet as an open form of electronic democracy and information infrastructure and backbone of commerce goes down the tubes.
Read about what the ISPs -- who are also forming a monopoly under Comcast -- have in mind and think about if that's what you think would be best of the majority and the economy.
Suppose the telephone companies had the right to drop every other word from your conversation unless you paid exorbitant fees. i dont think you'd like that very much.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lanes, they will give fast lane to their political friends and slow lanes to those of us that are fighting the oligarchy. Duh!
moondust
(19,981 posts)could conceivably end up being very, very slow if Comcast finds it can keep increasing profits by stealing more and more bandwidth from the slow lanes to create faster and faster fast lanes and then selling them at higher and higher prices: reverse Robin Hood principle in the age of oligarchy.
Don't like the slow speed/high prices? You're welcome to switch providers if you can find one.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,312 posts)with a service that might be popular if people can try it, whereas the cash-rich existing companies will be able to use the fast lane at once.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)seriously the veracity of Ezra Klein's Vox.com.
msongs
(67,405 posts)
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)I never ask rapists what they think about rape, either.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)fiber network, the fiber optic lines that are currently unused (search it on Google), to companies like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video to provide a direct, dedicated fast lane from those companies datacenters to ISPs like Comcast or Charter and from those ISP the data will be routed to you, the end user.
My web host says the rest of the Internet will not be affected and will continue to operate as it does today and they stake their entire business on this fact. I have had a close B2B relationship with this company for a long time and they have never let me down and their reputation and their business depends on providing exemplary service and support to their clients. I think I'll trust them than the probable hysteria of people on an Internet message board where many such things as this hysteria have proven to be unfounded.
But you are welcome to continue as you were, of course...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There are many disputable points in your snide condescending little post. The point is much bigger than opening up previously unused capabilities to provide better service.
Perhaps the ISP who reassures you has a lot of integrity, and is giving you an honest assessment. But taking that on blind faith is like going to your car dealer and taking his word at face value that the brand of car he sells is a reliable brand.
But why bother trying to explain what is truly dangerous about this? You appear to be a condescending "don't worry, be happy" kind of person. The kind who doesn't want to shut the barn door until after the horse is well out of it. And who insults those people who warned "Maybe we should close the barn door before the horse gets out."
The same shortsighted myopic attitude that back in the 90's said "Why are you spreading alarmist crap about Deregulation of the Broadcast Media? It's just allowing the broadcasters to utilize technological change to create a more competitive environment." ..... Now, 15 years later. a tiny handful of Media Monopolies have swallowed up almost every radio and TV station in the country and have almost no responsibility to serve the public interest.
You are expressing the same stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality as those who said in the 90's: "Don't worry about deregulation of the financial sector. Those nice banks and Wall St. investment houses just want a little more freedom from outdated regulations to adapt to modern economic realities. Trust them. They promise they'll behave themselves. And the Markets will ensure that banking remains competitive and no bank will get too big or powerful."
We all know how that one worked out.
pretty much....
Response to Armstead (Reply #10)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)
Needs one of these...
Is that snide and condescending enough for you?
All I did was report what I was told by a company that provides web hosting services to my company.
I am sure we will all see how it works out.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"I think I'll trust them than the probable hysteria of people on an Internet message board where many such things as this hysteria have proven to be unfounded."
And your response proved my point.
I'd rather have my hair on fire then my head in the sand.
Check back with me in a few years and let me know how giving the Internet over to a Corporate Monopoly is working out for ya.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)There is not an oligarch under every bed.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)The trade of a joint stock company is always managed by a court of directors. This court, indeed, is frequently subject, in many respects, to the control of a general court of proprietors. But the greater part of those proprietors seldom pretend to understand anything of the business of the company, and when the spirit of faction happens not to prevail among them, give themselves no trouble about it, but receive contentedly such half-yearly or yearly dividend as the directors think proper to make to them. This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies, who would, upon no account, hazard their fortunes in any private copartnery. Such companies, therefore, commonly draw to themselves much greater stocks than any private copartnery can boast of. The trading stock of the South Sea Company, at one time, amounted to upwards of thirty-three millions eight hundred thousand pounds. The divided capital of the Bank of England amounts, at present, to ten millions seven hundred and eighty thousand pounds. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people's money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master's honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account that joint stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege, and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege they have both mismanaged and confined it.
Book V, I, iii, 1 The Wealth of Nations
Emphases added.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There's not an oligarch under every bed.
I am not against capitalism or corporations -- I'm not even against big corporations.
But I also believe that there needs to be restraints placed on them, and that NO company or small group of individuals should swallow up everything at the expense of everyone else.
I'm sorry if you disagree with that premise. If if you think that is a wonderful direction. then the GOP would be happy to have you aboard.
If you can possibly believe it is a good thing to hand over our basic electronic information infrastructure completely to Monopolist Corporations who have already proven what bastards they are ....Well, I've got several bridges I'll be happy to sell you.
Your kind of attitude is what brought us financial deregulation and the Crash of 08, and all of the other problems your benevolent Corporations and Wall St. Oligarchs -- and yes they are oligarchs -- have inflicted on us while you were sleeping.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)what has been said is that maybe it's not as bad as some are making it out to be.
I was told the Internet as you and I have known it won't change. By someone I trust and with whom I have done business for years. I am, however, in stand-by, wait-and-see mode as my livelihood depends on being competitive with a deliverable website to my costumers. And I am only one online business amongst a million online businesses who, I am sure, are all checking with their web host companies just as I am. If it's that bad, where is the outrage from that million businesses and the millions of people that work for them?
Is there any chance the issue has reached an hysteria that is confined to the online world of hysteria- and controversy-driven discussion - as many other such issues have borne out?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)you may on the verge of getting screwed. If you rely on reaching your customers online, you face the very real possibility that your rates going to get jacked up big time.
If you don't want to believe me, I'd suggest you look at reputable sources from sources that are not in the industry.
I know nothing about your ISP, if it's a big company or some local guy. Maybe your ISP is a saint. But his opinions are not taking the larger implications into account.. It's also possible at some point he too is going to get blindsided by the Big Boys.
The more people use the Internet, the more bandwidth it will require to maintain status-quo levels of service. It is possible to add bandwidth, but that requires the providers to be willing to make the investment.
If instead the ISPs (with Comcast as a defacto monopoly) decide to use that investment to offer fast-lane service for higher prices, then service for everyone who is not in the fast lane will get bogged down over time. The ISPs could -- if there is no regulation -- also decide to deliberately slow down service too, as an "incentive" for us to all pay more.
Maybe -- once we have allowed a non-regulated monopoly to control the Internet infrastructure -- your ISP will have to start paying more for access, and have to pass it along to you.
The amounts could be substantial. And if you are competing against big companies with deep pockets, you may find your ability to reach your customers at usable speed deteriorates unless you dig deep.
Before you poo poo those who are fighting to maintain an open Internet, I'd sugest you do some additional research. And think hard about what it means to turn over the majority of a public resource over to one huge monopoly that does not have the public interests at heart.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)ecommerce sites through their shopping cart hosting services. They are substantial enough that this matters and they are HUGE contributors to online support forums in their industry. So, they are plugged-in and I would suspect that this is an important topic in their circles.
If the propagation of services to the fast lane is to run its logical alleged course, then I should have nothing to worry about because if my competitors seek an advantage, I will simply follow. We will all follow the leaders or be the leaders and eventually the entire Internet will have moved to what is currently the dark fiber net. N'est-ce pas? Those who don't adapt fall by the wayside? Isn't that the capitalism you admit to having no issue with?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am simply suggest that you get a range of opinions, not just go with what one business tells you.
I dont know what business you're in, but I do know this. Unless are are a big business with deep pockets, you are in the same straits as the small and medium sized businesses that have been crushed by monopolies in the overall economy.
The Internet was supposed to level the paying field. But if, say a small book dealer's site takes five minutes to load, while Amazon pops up instantly, that book dealer will be out of business. And multiply tat by all of the small businesses struggling to make it, and the principle of free and open competition online is going to be destroyed.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)I have challenged the DU status quo in order to drive the conversation forward for purposes that do not comport with "you dont choose to look into it any further." It is quite the opposite. If I were not willing to look into it further, I would not have shared the information that I have gotten from within the industry in order to generate a response. The very fact that I have queried my web host on the matter demonstrates my interest in getting to the bottom of things.
If I am to allow myself to panic over this, then I am going to have to begin to accept that maybe my web host is deceiving me or is ignorant of the impending consequences. That is either disappointing or frightening, considering my position.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)(although if you think there is a status quo here you haven't been paying attention, as evidenced by the disagreements.)
If you honestly want to believe that allowing Net Neutrality to be destroyed is AOK, based on what one company within the industry tells you, you are certainly entitled to do that.
But when in a few years that rosy scenario isn't quite as rosy s you thought it would be, and you're finding yourself paying more to get the same results, don't complain.
Especially when it did NOT have to happen.
The hair on fire brigade has been proven correct on these things before,. And alas, I predict the warnings this time will be proven correct again if this is allowed to go through. We will have an Internet Monopoly with a stranglehold, and will be "too big to fail" and will be so entrenched we wont be able to dig out from under them.
History does unfortunately repeat itself.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Thank you.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Armstead, whose general contribution I respect and enjoy. I just wanted you to know that I am reading what you're taking the time to write and wanted to thank you for your input.
So, thanks to you, too! 
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Economically, the reason those lines are unused is because the owners do not feel that what they can charge for them is worth it, that is, there's a surplus on the market depressing prices.
The only way to bring more onto the market is when the price rises enough to make it worth the owner's while (in the owner's view).
That means that the action being taken will lead to higher prices to get this additional capacity online - the reason prices are lower now is because it is illegal for companies to differentiate their product - sell you something so-so and offer to upgrade it for more money. This new action will allow just that - what you have now may not be quite as reliable, quite as fast, just not quite as good as it is now, but for JUST A BIT MORE MONEY, you can have the new and bright shiny fast and oh-so-reliable new thing!
That's just straight microeconomics, which I've been teaching for some time now. My training was at Texas A&M during the early 70s, and my advisor was Robert Ekelund, now the department chair at Auburn and author of a couple of dozen books, including the best selling one on money and banking. I'm just trying to establish a bit of credibility here, not trying to beat up on anyone - I'm not a chicken little; this is a game changer.
But as you say, we'll find out, and it won't take more than 6 months, unless I miss my guess.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)So I'm selling widgets on my website and I have competitors selling the same widget.
How does getting into the fast lane benefit myself or my competitor? The page loads a split second faster? What happens when a potential customer looks at both sites, the one without the fast lane and the one with?
Also, let's say it's my competitor that gets the fast lane service. Does my website then get a penalty where it loads slower or does it load then the same as it does today?
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)1. Loading pages speed will be more important to some than others. Compare old dial-up pics with broadband downloading pics, and my understanding is that fiber optic is just that much faster than regular broadband.
2. There is nothing in the proposed operation that would forbid slowing your current speed down, enough to where a faster lane looks attractive, even at a higher price.
These are unknowns, but generally, people prefer sites that load quickly over those who load slowly, and will providers degrade current service to make the new stuff look even better?
A fine example of 1 are the self-checkout lanes at different retailers. They actually hire someone to scout the long lines of manned checkouts and tell people that there are empty self-checkout lanes available. They can control this even more by manning fewer and fewer live lanes, and there is no discount given for checking yourself out in dollars, just the touted time savings.
Good examples of 2 are the appliance folks. Advertise a large combo refrigerator-freezer for a great price - $600, say. But when you get to the store, it's sitting next to another one, identical in size that is frost-free (turns out they brought back the old defrostable models just for advertising, and this is just $800, while next to that one is another that has the in-door water and ice dispenser, plus is frost-free for just $1000 total, and next to that one is another frost-free with the dispenser and zonal controls for coldness inside for just $1300 total. All of these are in white, so there's another in black for $1500, black/stainless steel combo for $1900, solid stainless for $2300, and another ready to be built in for cabinets for $3000. So you go middle of the road sensible, pay $1300, and pat yourself on the back for being a great shopper.
These are existing behaviors from other companies, so we'll have to wait and see how many of these tactics are adopted by this new group. Sorry to be so wordy, but I hope these examples make sense.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...using in-house content, you aren't likely to see much of a difference. You're not the big target.
If, OTOH, your selling of your widget has prime ordering services (handled through a third party like Paypal or bank transfers a la Paypal, as well as credit processing), is content-rich (particularly involving streaming content or other high-utilization on-demand content), perhaps offers other non-physical services (like using a site for telecommunications intra-business across disparate physical locations) and so on, then you may see a significant downgrade in performance. Furthermore, performance that is based on other companies (like Visa.com, for instance) relies on -them- being in the faster lane as well, which means that the costs will most likely be passed on to you as a consumer of -their- product.
The real danger isn't to every individual, basic site; its that every quality basic site has two to five (to, in the cases of 'big' sites like Comedy Central or CNN, 20+) sites up-chain it relies on, and the cascading effect of slow lanes and/or price increases gets worse with each successive tier of stacked services. This is before you get into things like social media, too.
For a good look at what you're actually interacting with, load NoScript into Firefox for a short amount of time. ON each page you'll get the option of allowing each successive third-party page's scripts. See just how many each one uses. For instance, DU alone uses...3, not counting ads (which also come from separate servers from most sites, although I'm not sure about DU).
Armstead
(47,803 posts)As usage grows -- which it will -- the system will become more congested and sloer over time. It's like any infrastructure.It requires updating and increase of capacity the noe it is used.
Therefore it is not likely to be split second difference. More like enough seconds so that someone visiting your widget website will grow impatient and move on. And tat is going to benefit the Big Chain widget company exponentially.
One of the beauties of the Intrnet is tat it levels the playing field. Companies may have other resources to use too, but in terms of ability to send content and reach an audience (customers) all companies are created equal. Which is in theory what capitalism is supposed to be about.
That wont be the case if the ISPs are allowed to pick winners and losers.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)(I think I agree with you on rereading your post. But I'll make my point in another way.)
I am not spouting off utopian idealism or knee-jerk alarmist.
Just trying to avoid yet another economic-political-policy trainwreck tat is totally avoidable.
We are witnessing yet another repeat of a pattern that has become all-too-familiar over the last 35 years. The attitude of "Let's just give the Wealthy and Powerful all the unregulated power they want, and hope for the best"
That approach has been eroding the economy and social values and well being of the majority of the United States.
That's how we ended up with a handful of Media Monopolies controlling all of broadcasting and much of print. And now they have their eyes on the Internet.
That's also how we ended up with the Pirate Corporate Capitalism that led to the crash of 2008, and continues to decimate the middle class.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)massive it would takes decades to use up, but that was wrong. Now this excess capacity can be made profitable, Nortel went bankrupt doing the build up for too cheap.
Why are the telco's not revealing that May have to do with proprietary interest, but it is there....I may try to find a link if there is interest.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303863404577285260615058538
Old link, but makes the point, sorry about the paywall, not trying to get anyone to sign up.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)an Obama appointee.
I voted for Obama twice, as I have voted democratic in every election since I turned 18. I know that repugs would have been much worse, but I'm very disappointed in Obama and most of his appointees. JMO
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)The "Slow lanes" will become a traffic jam and the "fast lanes" will be dominated by the wealthy.