Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×

:icontompreston: More from TomPreston


Featured in Collections

Journals n' Literature by LilForgottenAngel

Journal - Literature by Whetsit-Tuya

Other by KZN02


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
May 2, 2014
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
5,912
Favourites
54 (who?)
Comments
62
×
This is a big issue and it’s very complex and confusing, so if I get anything wrong here, I am sorry I am doing the best I can with the available information I have. Provided below are various links to other websites and videos which explain this in more detail, so if I do a shit job of explaining things, please look through the links and educate yourself better so you can make an informed decision. Alright? Alright...

So remember how people were up in arms about SOPA? Yeah... we’re gonna need to lift up those pitchforks again and take to the streets. You can read more about the issues here www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05… and here www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t…

You see, recently the FCC is trying to decide if it’s ok to allow business to regulate their own broadband networks, IE: allowing some websites or pages to load faster or slower depending on how much worth they as a company ascribe to them. What’s brought this all to a head is that Netflix has recently made a deal with service provider Comcast to keep their service from being artificially slowed down by Comcast by paying more money. And Netflix isn’t happy about this.

The reason you and I should be worried is that if the FCC starts regulating what IS or ISN’T “worthy” content for you to view online is that it will introduce an incredibly unfair advantage/disadvantage system into what has been up until now a rather level playing field. There are even some companies suggesting and talking about how to implement “tolls” for people who use P2P networks or services.

Below is a video describing this a lot better than I ever could, so please watch it:



Now I know this matter is confusing, and there are a lot of angles to consider. But as a consumer activist I can’t help but feel that this would allow companies to exploit their customers for obscene amounts of money and make millions off of turning the internet into an unfair place to be. It would benefit companies ten fold, and not benefit us, the consumer, at all.

If you’d like to submit a comment to the FCC directly to tell them you think this is a bad idea, you can do so here: apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/displ… and the filing number is 14-28. Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense. By the way, since this is a public comment for public records... you'll have to include your actual name and address.

Alternatively....

You can also e-mail them here: salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50409/p… I personally prefer this link to the direct FCC link because here you don’t have to put down your full address and the e-mail and message  addressing concerns is already written out for you. Just enter your name, click send, boom! Done!

So yeah guys... Remember how I said the internet was going to change one way or the other? This is kinda what I meant. SOPA has been defeated, but there are just gonna keep being more and more ways people are gonna try to exploit the internet for their own selfish purposes. In this case, allowing companies to determine what you can or can’t watch by arbitrarily regulating the speeds at which certain websites and services download to you.
  • Mood: Depressed
  • Listening to: Atop the 4th Wall
  • Reading: All-New Marvel NOW! Point One
  • Watching: An Idiot Abroad
  • Playing: Burial At Sea part 2
  • Drinking: Hot Coco
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmaulle:
Maulle Featured By Owner May 24, 2014  Student Traditional Artist
Reply
:iconrickf7666:
RickF7666 Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
One of the biggest problems is that in many areas there is only a single service provider, which means no competition and bad, expensive service.  I thankfully live in an area where there are many service providers, so I can get good service at low prices.

Often the reason there isn't more than one provider in any particular area is when a governmental body cuts an exclusive deal and shuts out competition.  This of course is good for the company and the government, but the citizens are screwed.

Competition good, government restrictions bad.
Reply
:iconclovis15:
Clovis15 Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
Thanks for this article, and the associated links.
Reply
:iconcarmenfoolheart:
CarmenFoolHeart Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sucks not to be American right now. People from other parts of the world will be affected but it's not certain how we can address the issue. Ideas? Do those links work for us? :(
Reply
:iconrbl-m1a2tanker:
RBL-M1A2Tanker Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
I've signed a couple petitions, and have been watching this fight since I was in college, almost 7 years ago now.  Petitioned more than once.  They should just make the net a utility.  It's no longer a luxury, it's become a necessity, for everyone, companies and private use.
Reply
:iconjasonmasters:
JasonMasters Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
If I understand the issue correctly, it's exactly the opposite of what you're talking about.

The issue is whether or not to allow internet service providers to throttle back bandwidth, not whether or not to legislate and therefore mandate the throttling of bandwidth.

A good ISP doesn't throttle back bandwidth.  A good ISP purchases more bandwidth, either from a third party or by directly laying more cable to provide it.

If legislation is enacted, it should be to force ISPs to provide the fastest possible speed, client-to-client, with throttling only being legal where it is automatically applied on a temporary basis, based on automated traffic analysis, and for the sole purpose of preventing a particular data stream from hogging all the bandwidth to the detriment of other data streams.

There's my opinion, for whatever it's worth.
Reply
:iconcomputermanmik428:
COMPUTERMANMIK428 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
i wonder if a civil war, break lose??
Reply
:iconslashinthecdsp:
SlashInTheCDSP Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I hope so. Then we can make "The Empire of Canada" a thing.
Reply
:iconxcelsius:
Xcelsius Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
If the USA do it, then the other nations will follow. I cannot wait for it to happen... The EU said they will not touch the Net Neutrality, but everyone with just a bit brain know that is just a lie...
Reply
:icondickywebster:
Dickywebster Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
Internet providers here in the Uk already get into trouble for not always providing the speed they claim they will, if they start picking and choosing which sites get fast or slow speed, that seems like a can of worms they shouldn't be wanting, let alone looking for...
Reply
:iconrookieowl:
RookieOwl Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That seems like a good way to excuse a bad service: "oh your internet is slower than promised? oh no it's just the webpage speed, we totally provide it, your pages just are more slower to load than the speed we give you ahahahahahaaa" 
Reply
:iconmistermistoffelees:
MisterMistoffelees Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I rather suspect that corporations don't own the government of the UK as much as they outright own the government of the US.  And in our "home of the brave," we'll accept, with smiles on our vacant faces, corporate tyranny that would have made Stalin himself blush had he asked for it.  If the Big Bad Gubmint wants us to pee in a cup, we'll scream "Freedom From Tyranny!!1!1!" at the top of our voices, but if our employer wants us to do the same, we'll line up with cups in our hands and beatific smiles on our faces...
Reply
:iconbugeishakyasarin:
BugeishaKyasarin Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
This level of corporate greed no longer surprises me. I think it's time something a la Fight Club went down.
Reply
:iconmistermistoffelees:
MisterMistoffelees Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Mmm yeah, but the corporations own the Fight Club too, so...
Reply
:iconbackflipboy:
Backflipboy Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
I am curious as to how this would affect Australian users - out here, all our internet providers do is give us access to the net and we go off surfing at our leisure.

We are already at the mercy of certain big media companies that do not allow us to view certain content because we aren't in the USA so would we see more of this happening unless we pay premium prices to those companies for example?
Reply
:iconemberguard:
Emberguard Featured By Owner May 2, 2014   General Artist
Considering even the banks in Australia are regulated by law and charged when the government feels they charge unfair prices to their customers (based on the prices of other banks for the exact same service), then perhaps the internet should also have restrictions on what the companies can charge the customers. I'm just wondering though, if we the consumer pay for internet speeds of X, and the websites are slowed down so they can never reach that speed, then aren't they not delivering on their product? So what will they be selling on internet plans in the future? 
Reply
:iconthe-golden-knight:
The-Golden-Knight Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
Yeah, I'd go with the second one as well.
Reply
:iconeggerr:
EggerR Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
And by the way, here's the direct link to the FCC ECFS Express page, already referencing Proceeding number 14-28: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/displ…

Reply
:iconeggerr:
EggerR Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
The richest one-tenth of the 1% is trying to get even more.  Money is the root of all evil, so they say.  If you stay silent on this issue, you will ultimately lose out.  Speak out now and ensure net neutrality remains as it should be.
Reply
:icontimbergray:
timbergray Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
Actually, it's the love of money is the root of all evil.  Money on it's own is just a tool.
Reply
:iconkerrigore:
Kerrigore Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
There's this problem and the Comcast/Time Warner merger...

For those who don't quite understand what's going on, well, the ISPs want to be gatekeepers of the Internet, possibly restricting access to sites that don't pay them extra. For those that do, the costs are passed on to the consumer. Say you want to go on Youtube, or Facebook, or play an online game like World of Warcraft. You're going to be paying the ISPs extra money in order to do that so they don't throttle your service (you're not even going to be getting better internet, by the way). Anyway, to anyone who doesn't see this as an issue -- wake up. People in the United States already pay one of the highest prices in the world for the slowest service.

If you're curious how this may play out, the Huffington Post has a diagram: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01….
Reply
:iconscottieos:
ScottieOs Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks for posting this, especially the links to take action. I plan to spread it along my friends too.
Reply
:icondewolfie:
DeWolfie Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
What I get so annoyed about your polticians is that they almost start to think that only Americans use the internet and that the rest of the world have no saying. (Trying not to say too much)
Reply
:iconwhetsit-tuya:
Whetsit-Tuya Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student Filmographer
Reply
:iconblazingstaro:
BlazingStarO Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Again..? Seriously, why can't these guys learn their lesson already, and leave us and the internet alone? Instead of trying to hinder our internet surfing and control our internet lives, why can't they focus on improving it? I just don't get it! What's with this selfish need to control everything that is meant to be free?! I'm sorry, but if they don't change their focus, they need to be brought down for the sake of the internet.
I am sick of these government chumps and company king pins trying to take dominance over a virtual land of the free.
Reply
:icondewolfie:
DeWolfie Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Internet isn't free, you are still paying for the service. The question here is that they wan't to charge more for different sites than others, meaning that those sites that has a profitble goal, like netflix, get a unequal fotting when it comes to compettion, wich is the basics of a stable economics. Compettion > monopoly...

Why they aren't improving it? Because it's their way of regulating a sort of "supply and demand", if they upgrade it, they have to charge less for the internet, because it can handle more traffic, does lowering the "supply(connection speed)" and with the amount of demand, they can charge a high price. Take New York for example, one of the biggest stock-marketing metroplitan in the world, would benefit sooo much if they got better internet, but the fact is, that there is little to none to even upgrade the net to fiber-optics.
Reply
:iconblazingstaro:
BlazingStarO Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student Digital Artist
I know; I didn't mean "free" by financial standards. I know we have to pay to access it, but we're 'free' to go wherever and do what we please once the internet bill has been payed.
Ugh, there is a law against monopoly... Why isn't anyone seeing that these guys are trying to monopolize? I swear, they need glasses more than I do, and I'm practically blind without them!

Well, that'd be certainly better for us! In fact, if you really think about it, the less they charge for internet, the more people will pay for the service. Their profit would most likely improve rather than decline-- quantity over quality, as it is said. The higher the price, the less amount of people can pay for it; the lesser the price, the more amount of people can pay for it. Y'see where I'm going with this?
Well, somebody better come around soon and upgrade it! Seriously, everyone will benefit from it if they use it properly.
Reply
:icondewolfie:
DeWolfie Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It shouldn't come as a surprise that some companies are looking for loopholes in these laws, especially when the laws haven't quite chought up with the internet. And in many cases, there are no specfic laws reffered to the internet. Here is just one example of someone taking advatage of the lack of laws.

It's strange isn't it? Here in Sweden, there has been a great movement to upgrade so that every household have the capablity of having the speed of wich fiber-optics provide, the tools are already there, all you need to do is to do a little mouse-click. And boom, there you have it. The US are really shooting themselves in the foot here.
Reply
:icondewolfie:
DeWolfie Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
little to no effort*
Reply
:iconerknen:
Erknen Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Excuse me while I rage against the system.
Reply
:icondogman0:
dogman0 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
if this does happen, i will set up an intent provider service for the original price and run them out of business...now i almost what this to happen.Devilish 
Reply
:icondogman0:
dogman0 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Filmographer
sounds like a monopoly about to happen...It also sounds like if they do this than we will get "faster internet", but it might make another site slow down.
also, if internet companies are so concerned about the importance of the content of the sites using their internet, then why are useless sites like pirating sites still up? seems more like they are just trying to make more money off of people who are already customers and giving nothing else in return.
Reply
:iconkidsapiens:
KidSapiens Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
...to be honest, I suspect there's a way they could implement some controls that would benefit us. I don't know what that way would be, but then I'm no businessman. It'd have to be carefully constructed, but frankly, I must ask -

Do we really need to choose between anarchy and tyranny on the Internet? Or can we reach a settlement that benefits consumer and company alike? A settlement that lets the internet police itself, but gives it someone to call in when things pop up that we, the community, just can't handle? Shouldn't there be a way for us to work this out? I don't know what that way is, but I'm just curious.
Reply
:iconpainfulelegy:
PainfulElegy Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
No, because if you give control of things to businesses, they're going to use their massive leverages to abuse this power.

That said, we already have people to 'police the internet'. It's called the FBI and CIA. It's their job to monitor web activity to some extent and put a stop to crimes that occur on the net (this is why sites carrying child pornography and the like are taken down so fast, because they're reported to proper authorities who stop the PERSON providing the content from performing the illegal activity, rather than just letting the net turn off a site, which is the limit of their ability).
Reply
:iconmistermistoffelees:
MisterMistoffelees Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, now we know why all the RWNJs screamed themselves hoarse with ten million lies about Net Neutrality; a corporate takeover of the internet where corporations decide what sites we get to see.  Sweet... /sarc off
Reply
:iconunicornsquest:
unicornsquest Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
If the Internet control is given to the UN we are all screwed!
Reply
:iconmistermistoffelees:
MisterMistoffelees Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah, and we're doing SO much better with corporate telecoms, right?  I hope you don't mind only getting to log on to what your ISP allows you...
Reply
:iconpainfulelegy:
PainfulElegy Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's funny, because not even TV or Radio is run like this. Nothing is preventing you from Receiving those TV or Radio waves, it's just that they're being sent out scrambled so that Cable Providers can change what packages you're ascribing to since you're paying for the content of Stations and not the access to signals in the first place. This is why there are still TV/Radio stations you can access without paying anyone.

With the internet, you're paying for access to the network itself, rather than access to content, so it makes no sense for it to be classified as TV or Radio, unless there is some basic package that everyone can access for free.
Reply
:iconaragorniii:
aragornIII Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I completely agree. Plus, the internet's more "interactive", allowing you to start up your own websites and offering your content instead of only viewing someone else's.
Reply
:iconpainfulelegy:
PainfulElegy Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well, that's really similar to how radio and TV are, just lower cost of entry boosting accessibility. The important thing to note is that the access to the internet should be treated like access to phone lines, rather than the content itself; since you're paying to be able to get the signals at all, and not for the ability to descramble certain signals.
Reply
:iconaragorniii:
aragornIII Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
well exactly, it's pretty expensive to get your own tv station and unlikely to end up hosting a show or something. The internet offers the opportunity for anyone who can afford the connection to share their stuff and give feedback. 
That's what I meant in a way - It's more communicative rather than just passive :)
Reply
:iconpainfulelegy:
PainfulElegy Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
For a full station, yeh; But IIRC Pirate Television/Radio did that as well.

I guess the best comparison is: Creating a site on the internet is like buying airtime on a public access channel. All public access channels are available to people who can afford the tv and a basic receiver, and people who want to have their information reside on the net pay money to pay for server costs.

Which really makes it horrendous what they're trying to do, since it's basically saying that website makers should pay more just to not get stomped out, and that internet viewers should pay more just to see stuff that isn't explicitly supported by the providers.

(It really just boils down to the whole regulated as 'telecom service' [which it is] versus 'information service' [which it currently is not])
Reply
:iconzippydsmlee:
ZippyDSMlee Featured By Owner May 2, 2014
No double dipping, you pay X for X bandwidth from a single point of service, nothing more nothing less.It should be that simple but sadly big biz wants to nickle and dime you thrice.....
Reply
:iconstevengilby:
StevenGilby Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student Writer
Could companies also do this for game systems and exploit people who play games like CoD, Battleffield, WoW, etc?
Reply
:iconrainbowfoenix:
RainbowFoenix Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
yes, that's part of it.
Reply
:iconmaxamillion2009:
Maxamillion2009 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student Writer
It's borderline internet dictatorship what these big brands are doing.
Reply
:iconfuzzyscribbles:
FuzzyScribbles Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ugh, why are they trying so hard to do this when it's just going to cause more issues. It's obvious it's just for more money and control over our lives but this is meant to America, land of the free lol
Reply
:iconmoonbladethebook:
moonbladethebook Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Student General Artist
Wait wait wait.... "You're not a law enforcement agency" but the net has no law enforcement so.... if they made everything faster an agency would probably have to be created for the net.... wouldn't SOPA jump on that? 
or do I not understand what's happening?
Reply
:iconpainfulelegy:
PainfulElegy Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The internet itself is technically not allowed to be policed. Personal activity can be monitored and policed. Further net neutrality demands that ISPs can not interfere with how internet is distributed.

By these two things, ISPs have no right denying access or slowing down access to sites, since they are not legally responsible for the content their users access.
Reply
:iconmoonbladethebook:
moonbladethebook Featured By Owner May 3, 2014  Student General Artist
Ohhhh ok.... Now I have no opinion at all XD
Reply
Add a Comment: