Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


The World Wild Web has been tamed... or rather "incorporated".


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
8 replies to this topic

#1 Dream Cutter   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 211

Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:49 PM

sad.png  

We have lost Net-Neutrality of ISP. 
The World Wild Web has been tamed... or incorporated should I say. 
The internet will never be the same. 

 

The impact of FCC Net-Neutraility policies being struck down is that ISP may charge users for services and bundle corporate and high demand websites as service bundles.  This will also have the effect of inhibiting independent game publishers, reduce bandwidth to personal and indy game servers and resources.  ISP may get on a power trip and eventually use intelligent service and user mapping techniques to be able to choreograph providers access to user group segments (markets & demographics).  This will ultimately inhibit a publishers ability to control his presentation to the user.

Here is what the FCC Chairman has to say about it: (http://www.fcc.gov/blog/ensuring-open-internet-now-and-future)

 

DO YOU Have faith in this message that freedom and access will be upheld?

Ensuring an Open Internet Now and for the Future

by: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman
January 14, 2014

Now that the Court of Appeals has ruled on the Open Internet (Net Neutrality) Order upholding the Commission’s authority to act under Section 706, I want to provide a further insight into my oft-repeated statement that I am pro-open Internet. This perspective will guide my actions and recommendations going forward.

The government, in the form of the FCC, is not going to take over the Internet. It is not going to dictate the architecture of the Internet. It is not going to do anything that gratuitously interferes with the organic evolution of the Internet in response to developments in technology, business models, and consumer behavior.

But the FCC also is not going to abandon its responsibility to oversee that broadband networks operate in the public interest. It is not going to ignore the historic reality that when a new network transitions to become an economic force that economic incentives begin to affect the public interest. This means that we will not disregard the possibility that exercises of economic power or of ideological preference by dominant network firms will diminish the value of the Internet to some or all segments of our society.

There is nothing about the foregoing that should cause serious anxiety, either to those watching out for the interests of internet users, or of those building and operating the facilities that make up the Internet. The key message is that the FCC has the authority – and has the responsibility – to regulate the activities of broadband networks. We will have ample opportunity to debate ways and means, to consider specifics in specific cases as they arise. But, there is no justification, and no serious basis, for doubt about the fundamentals.

************************

The FCC’s legal ability—its jurisdiction—to oversee developments on the broadband networks on which the Internet depends is critically important. The Court’s decision addressed but one aspect of this authority. In the broad context, however, there is not any serious question about such authority.

Congress gave the FCC plenary authority over interstate and foreign wire and radio communications eighty years ago. The Commission has been exercising that authority with respect to a wide variety of electronic transmission activities ever since.

In a sense, broadband systems, whether fixed or mobile, whether fiber, coax, copper, or radio, are the most significant electronic transmission systems in our history. That is because they facilitated and now sustain convergence of a great many of the previously separate communications activities on which we rely—telephony, video, public safety, data, and so forth. Or to put it more broadly, they facilitated and now sustain the Internet as we have come to know it.

The absolute necessity that there be government oversight of broadband networks stems from two facts. The networks support essential—in fact, increasingly essential—services for our society (and for everyone in the world, for that matter). And, there are not and are not likely to be many such networks. As with many of the communications networks of the past, broadband networks involve very high fixed costs and very large minimum efficient scale. So, to say it a little more abruptly, broadband networks are essential and they are likely in their relative scarcity, especially at the local level, to enable exercises of market power.

The Open Internet principles first espoused by the Commission under Chairman Powell’s leadership and reiterated by the Commission under the leadership of both Chairman Martin and Chairman Genachowski, are not controversial in themselves. Many of the leading network operators, in fact, have pledged to abide by them even if they have been reticent to recognize the FCC’s authority to enforce them. But the principles are very significant in offering assurance that the Internet will remain open and free, something on which the welfare of our society has come to depend for a remarkably broad range of economic, social, cultural, political, and other activities.

Recognizing this reality, as well as that we are participating in a work in progress in which decisions made today will have effects in the decades ahead, the Net Neutrality debate has generated as much emotion as substantive significance. Those concerns stem from two sources. First, that network operators will take measures, mostly for economic reasons but perhaps also for ideological reasons, that will cut off or diminish the value of the Internet. Second, that the FCC will intrude on the activities of network operators in ways that will damage them economically with injury to them and to their ability to offer more and improved service to the public.

We need not now determine the likelihood of these outcomes. Even if it is a matter of low probability, it nevertheless is a matter of high consequence.

My intention is to employ any necessary means among the wide variety of them given to the FCC by the Congress to sustain our jurisdiction. That the jurisdiction exists is not debatable. What path we take to assure it will be a function of circumstance, but whether we secure it should not be a source of doubt.

How jurisdiction is exercised is an important matter. My strong preference is to do it in a common law fashion, taking account of and learning from the particular facts that have given rise to concern. The preference is based on a desire to avoid both Type I (false positives) and Type II (false negatives) errors. It is important not to prohibit or inhibit conduct that is efficiency producing and competition enhancing. It also is important not to permit conduct that reduces efficiency, competition, and utility, including the values that go beyond the material.

The principles provide sufficient guidance to set expectations for both producers and consumers. If something appears to go wrong in a material, not a trivial, way, the FCC will be available to use the totality of its authority for adjudication and enforcement. It will look to the Open Internet Order principles and it will examine the facts in light of the principles.

As I said in a recent speech in Silicon Valley,

I am not advocating intervention unless there is an unmistakable warrant for it. I am not interested in protecting competitors from competition, nor am I interested in presiding over a festival of rent seeking. But I am committed to maintaining our networks as conduits for commerce large and small, as factors of production for innovative services and products, and for channels of all of the forms of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Attached Thumbnails

  • fcc_neteutraility_.JPG

Edited by Dream Cutter, 17 January 2014 - 03:52 PM.

3DSkyDome.com animated sky boxes and instant 3d Android & WebGL publishing.

Sponsor:

#2 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:04 PM

It's not over yet. The FCC can still change how internet providers are viewed under the law (a previous reclassification that treats ISPs as different from telecom companies, as they were previously, is what allowed the legal decision you're referencing to occur). The current issue is that the courts have interpreted the current classification negatively for net neutrality.

 

This would be a great time to contact your national legislators to let them know that this is important to you.



#3 Shippou   Members   -  Reputation: 1471

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:40 PM

This would be a great time to contact your national legislators to let them know that this is important to you.

 They are still trying to pass some variant of SOPA ...


 Reactions To Technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

- Douglas Adams 2002


 


#4 slayemin   Members   -  Reputation: 2440

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:18 PM

I think the biggest problem with striking down net neutrality is that it gives the wealthy, established companies a new weapon they can use to widen their moat against competitors and market disruptors -- this leads towards market monopolies. Free market capitalism depends on everyone having a level playing field. When you give the existing players the advantage to skew the playing field to their advantage, its going to be a lot harder for new comers to play too. Let's take a bad example:

 

Blockbuster was a huge chain of video store rentals. Their business model depended on having a large, distributed chain of stores which rent out videos to people for a limited period of time. If people don't return their videos back within this grace period, they are fined (similar to a library fine). Then, here comes the internet! Some smart people figured out a way to create video files which could be downloaded and viewed on a computer. At first, these files could only be found on piracy sites. The MPAA and video rental retailers fought back because they thought they were losing business. A few years later, came online video services, like Netflix. At first, the netflix service let you order rentals by mail. Then, they expanded their service to let people stream the video files. No late fees, instant access, low costs. This was such a success that video rental companies have pretty much been put out of business. Now, netflix video streaming takes up a significant portion of the bandwidth on the internet. They're currently trying to cozy up to ISP's to create an alliance so that their video streaming service isn't degraded for their customers. ISP's are becoming the content providers, and if an ISP happens to also be a television provider as well, it would not necessarily be in their interests to promote the services and access to their competitors (ie, comcast, AOL time warner, etc). These large media companies may have the legal right to severely throttle network speeds to services like Netflix. Now, netflix is big enough that they can afford to pay ISP's hundreds of millions of dollars annually to ensure that their service is unaffected. However, imagine you are a new content provider who wants to offer a service which directly competes with the ISP's interests. You don't have millions to throw their way, so they cut you off at the knees. Regardless of whether or not you were going to be the next netflix to dethrone the entrenched & stagnant blockbuster, you simply can't play on the field because the existing players have the power to shut you down before you start. There won't be another netflix. Talk about stiffling innovation. Getting rid of net neutrality only promotes market monopolization by those who have power and money.

When most of the US congress is in the pocket of wealthy corporate sponsors, can we really expect some form of legislation to come through which looks out for the best public interests? I personally have lost faith in the system. Instead, I think we need to take the power away from the monopolists through technological innovation. Sure, you can throttle traffic from your competitors... but first you have to know that the traffic is from your competitor. And, you can't really do that if all traffic from all sources is encrypted. The net is now neutral because you have no idea what content is flowing on your ethernet cables, and non-participation is death, so you must treat it all equally. Legislation is powerless and unenforceable. Buy out congress if you want, it's just wasted money.

So, my take: don't call up your local politician to fill their ears with noise they'll just ignore, promote ubiquitous encryption of all web traffic by spreading the word and supporting all efforts to make it happen. (Oh hi, NSA! your job just got harder?!)


Eric Nevala

Indie Developer | Dev blog


#5 Icebone1000   Members   -  Reputation: 1051

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:32 PM

when you think about the internet and the incredible impact its having, its kinda impressive that we still have that freedom with it..

tv have always been a political tool, internet is taking its power away REALLY fast.

not to mention the access and spread of information that would be otherwise impossible...what world leaders would be happy with that?

i sincerely cant see a future with internet as free as now, its just too good to be true, they will try to lock it no matter what, they will start to bend it slowly till it gets as ill as tv

 

..too conspiratorial? 



#6 slayemin   Members   -  Reputation: 2440

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:39 PM

when you think about the internet and the incredible impact its having, its kinda impressive that we still have that freedom with it..

tv have always been a political tool, internet is taking its power away REALLY fast.

not to mention the access and spread of information that would be otherwise impossible...what world leaders would be happy with that?

i sincerely cant see a future with internet as free as now, its just too good to be true, they will try to lock it no matter what, they will start to bend it slowly till it gets as ill as tv

 

..too conspiratorial? 

I think the future of the internet is going to trend heavily towards widespread encryption. The international NSA scandal only helped to jump start that effort. MSFT and GOOG are totally on board and already taking proactive measures. I think once 98% of the internet goes indecipherable, a lot of these man in the middle privacy issues will go away.


Eric Nevala

Indie Developer | Dev blog


#7 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:40 PM


They are still trying to pass some variant of SOPA ...

 

Not everyone, but you are right that that is also a problem. There are always going to be advocacy groups that push for legislation that you are against, and the idea of electing our own representatives is that we too can have our voices heard. It's far from a perfect (or sometimes, even functional) process, but it's one of the only tools available to us as ordinary citizens. Net neutrality is particularly important, and so it's particularly important to let representatives know that failure to act to protect it will prompt a backlash from constituents.



#8 the incredible smoker   Members   -  Reputation: 309

Posted 25 January 2014 - 04:39 AM

Humans dont need to be hooked up to the internet, they was just for testing purposes letting you use the internet.

Now everything else that is controlling you, needs to be hooked up to the internet to send information about your status.

Hitler would be proud.

 

Maybe thats why Microsoft wants to quit making Windows, but instead become a company that sells hardware ?, they know it also.

They will tell you theyr products are not safe so you cannot use Windows any more.

These changes go very slow but are noticable.


Edited by the incredible smoker, 25 January 2014 - 04:49 AM.

S T O P   C R I M E !

Visual Pro 2005 C++ DX9 Cubase VST 3.70  Working on : LevelContainer class & LevelEditor


#9 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2290

Posted 26 January 2014 - 02:45 PM

Humans dont need to be hooked up to the internet, they was just for testing purposes letting you use the internet.

Now everything else that is controlling you, needs to be hooked up to the internet to send information about your status.

Hitler would be proud.

 

Maybe thats why Microsoft wants to quit making Windows, but instead become a company that sells hardware ?, they know it also.

They will tell you theyr products are not safe so you cannot use Windows any more.

These changes go very slow but are noticable.

Wow, it's not even February and already we have a contender for "Tinfoil hat post of the year" biggrin.png

 

As for the question, I think there are valid technological reasons to segregate traffic by priority. For example, email, static web text and images are all perfectly usable at high latencies, whereas streaming video and game data are much more time dependant.

 

The problem is with letting ISPs decide what traffic is prioritized. 


if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS