Anyone concern about this?
No one really knows how this will change things, but I can’t believe it will lead to anything good.
as someone who streams/games very little, no concerns whatsoever.
^Even if one doesn’t game or stream right now I would still be concerned to see the full repercussions of the change.
It’s not just streaming and gaming that you should be concerned about.
Yes, I’m quite worried. I’ve dealt with internet companies long enough to not want to give them more power and control than they already had.
Plus, we already know that sites have been blocked by certain providers for political reasons. The courts have pushed back at them. They just lost some of their push back power.
IMO, it will hurt small businesses the most who won’t be able to compete with the “big boys” whose sites will load faster, because they will be able to afford to pay more for service. It’s also going to hurt individuals who don’t want to or cannot afford the faster “highway.”
My Guv has signed an EO to require ISP’s operate under Net Neutrality in NYS and other states have begun to do the same or try to pass legislation. I believe Washington State has already passed legislation, but the Georgia’s legislature voted their bill down. So, it’s likely going to depend on what actions (or inaction) one’s state does how it will affect everyone.
Perhaps I’m naive, but rules that were in place for 20+ years worked out ok. But more importantly, with the incoming 5G, which is up to 50 times faster than 4g, many of y’all will be able to cut the cable cord.
Help me out here, what am I missing? (yeah, I understand Netflix and Amazon’s concerns – streaming – but for just a regular folk like me?)
ok, that makes some sense, but to me, the Big Boys should pay more since they/their customers use more bandwidth.
As time goes on, the sad implications of this loss will become abundantly clear to everyone, even those who “don’t stream.” Just like the Citizens United ruling, this marks a win for the most connected and powerful, and a loss for fairness and Democracy. I contributed money to the fight to maintain net neutrality, but I knew it was an uphill fight. It’s a wonder we held on for as long as we did. Doesn’t make it hurt any less, though… 
“ok, that makes some sense, but to me, the Big Boys should pay more since they/their customers use more bandwidth.”
The big boys websites will load much faster for the customer than a small businesses will, unless they pay more (which will hurt their bottom line,) so customers will likely chose to purchase from sites that load faster. The end of net neutrality will hurt small businesses either by them having to spend more on internet service or losing customers to faster websites.
With all due respect, emily, the Big Boys already load faster today under NN. Their volume is so large that their servers are directly connected to the ISP’s.
[quote]
Because these companies are moving so much traffic on their own, they’ve been forced to make special arrangements with the country’s internet service providers that can facilitate the delivery of their sites and applications. Basically, they’re bypassing the internet backbone, plugging straight into the ISPs. Today, a typical webpage request can involve dozens of back-and-forth communications between the browser and the web server, and even though internet packets move at the speed of light, all of that chatter can noticeably slow things down. But by getting inside the ISPs, the big web companies can significantly cut back on the delay. Over the last six years, they’ve essentially rewired the internet.
Google was the first. As it expanded its online operation to a network of private data centers across the globe, the web giant also set up routers inside many of the same data centers used by big-name ISPs so that traffic could move more directly from Google’s data centers to web surfers. This type of direct connection is called “peering.” Plus, the company set up servers inside many ISPs so that it could more quickly deliver popular YouTube videos, webpages, and images. This is called a “content delivery network,” or CDN (see glossary, right).
The “past 20 years” are filled with abuses by Verizon, Comcast and ATT in particular, before net neutrality laws were put into effect. Netflix was their most common focus of attack, but there were others. Ever hear of “throttling”? It’s service that is slowed down at certain times of high demand or service by certain providers (usually netflix) that becomes spotty or slow. Funny, how Big Company’s own netflix-wannabe channel won’t slow down…hmmmm, maybe we should all switch to that?
Net neutrality is basically against bullying. You can still pay more to your cable provider for faster service. You should get that faster service, and you should get it equally for all channels. That’s what is ending today.
This reflects a misunderstanding of what net neutrality was and did. Net neutrality never guaranteed you would get the same speed for all channels. It never prevented Netflix throttling. There seem to be a lot of myths about net neutrality from people who don’t understand tech and ISP peering agreements.
What are those myths, @roethlisburger ?
The largest myth is that under net neutrality a cable provider couldn’t throttle the speed of major streaming services, ex. Netflix, at speeds slower than their own programming. They were completely free to do that under net neutrality, subject of course to any contractual arrangements with Netflix or other streaming services.
Yes, it’s concerning. But probably not in my top 5 concerns in the current world and national climate.
The key parts from FCC 15-24 is here.
Wikipedia on Net neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Actually roethlisburger that seems exactly like what net neutrality helps to prevent. The Wikipedia article even cites some examples.
Instead of relying on Wikipedia, read the FCC 15-24 record. I cited some relevant quotes in #17.