Streaming live at 10am (PST)

Net Neutrality | Bad news for web designers

I seriously hope that Net Neutrality is maintained. The government doesn’t “control” the internet with it in place. They don’t have that ability. The USA will be penalized in the world market if internet providers can throttle or deny whatever they want.

1 Like

Like before NN was enacted in the first place in 2015?

Exactly. Comcast throttled Netflix and torrents. Many of the major providers throttled content providers.

1 Like

Correct. They throttled Netflix and torrents so the rest of their paying customers could also use the internet for useful things while others had slight inconveniences while bingeing nonsense.

And there were no worldwide penalties.

Guess you’re a fan of paywalls. Who put you in charge of deciding what is “nonsense”? That’s exactly the essence of Net Neutrality, no one should get to decide.

1 Like

Tell me what paywalls don’t exist now, that DID exist in 2015 before NN. Tell me what paywalls will begin to exist, that don’t already exist now.

I’m speaking of the ability for Comcast to charge Facebook to allow packets to travel through the network. Or charging Netflix customers to receive incoming packets.

Again - why do you get to decide what is “nonsense”?

1 Like

Like they did in 2015?

These doomsday scenarios are ridiculous because you can literally look back in your memory two years and see that NN was about nothing more than Netflix buffering.

I get to decide what is nonsense because kids bingeing Netflix on a snow day has the ability to slow MY internet access to a crawl, thus inhibiting my ability to feed my family. Feeding my family is more important than bingeing Netflix, and if my ISP has the ability to protect me from people bingeing Netflix and they DON’T, I’m going to a new ISP.

Another thing to remember is that because of mergers and acquisitions, the marketplace has become less competitive for broadband. Many people have little to no choice of their provider. And now the isp’s can exploit this.

1 Like

@Cricitem Honestly this amazes me. Instead of pushing your isp’s to give you a decent broadband (if Romania could pull this off, USA has way more resources if not desire to do so) you’d rather has other people penalized for using internet the way they see fit? This just doesn’t make any sense.

1 Like

I wonder if there could be any possible PHYSICAL reason it would be more difficult to deliver high speed internet to the entire USA…

usa-europe-size-comparison

I mean, hey, Romania delivers high speed internet service to a whopping 22% of their populace. I guess we should just do exactly what they’re doing!

Oh, US cables are indeed horribly outdated and replacing them requires money, no surprises here. But your telecom giants are not going to do that unless they are forced to, and net neutrality was that force preventing them from throttling the speeds for some traffic or another (even though they were still doing it as far as I can tell form the outcries online). Kids watching netflix will be the the thing that will make infrastructure upgrade a necessity which is good, is it not?

1 Like

They won’t do it, even if they are forced to. They didn’t do it when they were both forced and PAID to.

There are only two ways it will ever happen in the USA. 1) Capitalism over a somewhat-long period of time or, 2) Socialism over an infinite amount of time, because it would only actually get done for the major cities.

The “forced to” option that would “work” would be total government takeover of the ISP business. Nobody wants the whole enchilada of that option.

Personally, I think the best compromise would be for Net Neutrality rules to stay in place, and create some sort of super-fund that big players(Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, etc.) have to pay into to offset the build-out of new higher-capacity infrastructure.

1 Like

Don’t you see that all that accomplishes is to insert a middle-man who has shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to hold onto a single dollar that is earmarked for a specific purpose?

If Comcast et al instead just charge Netflix/YT/Hulu, etc. for their bandwidth, those same exact dollars would be going directly to a company in whose interest it is to build higher-capacity infrastructure. The government not only does not share that same interest, but it has very deep pockets that need filling. You also end up losing money just in the process of performing the transaction of taking money from Netflix (who would, in turn, simply raise prices), and giving it to an entity that will then proceed to simply waste it or divert it to the highest bidding lobbyist in one way or another.

You know, it’s annoying because the government is so involved with issuing licenses and franchises for broadband and cable tv, selling of radio spectrum frequencies for wireless, etc.

Then, when it comes to the consumer side suddenly we don’t want any government involvement? The government is already deeply involved.

My main concern is that we need to find a way to let providers get paid, without them policing the content of the web.

Government control sucks, but corporate control sucks x 1,000

2 Likes

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread regarding the FCC’s net neutrality vote… Before commenting on this issue please take the time to understand the vote, why there was a vote, and history of the rules & regulations in the United States regarding communications.

First of all, this is not a “regulation = bad” , “non-regulation = good” argument as @Revolution has said… To actually understand this issue, it’s important to know the history and how we got here.

In the USA, monopolies are illegal. However, there are times when it actually makes sense to have monopolies. Generally this is found in companies that provide public services. These monopolies are in turn called, Public Utilities. The reason is makes sense here is that you can’t have a free-for-all of different companies tearing up the earth to lay different types of infrastructure (phone wires, fiber, plumbing, gas pipes, water etc). This NEEDS to be regulated if we are to live in a functional society. Further, since these companies provide a necessary public utility someone absolutely has to make sure these monopolies are regulated. The issue with “free market” champions is that:

1.) There is just about NO COMPETITION. There are arguments in here saying an “ISP would never do ____” since customers would leave. However in many parts in the USA you do NOT have a choice. If you are able to choose between 2 ISPs you are very lucky. For the majority of the population, this is not the case.

2.) Comcast and the other ISPs have spent decades in the government’s pocket to ensure no competition arises. They try to fight and make it illegal for cities to even entertain the idea of building their own broadband network. If you are a free market champion then THIS should get you riled up

3.) The argument about how the internet was ‘fine’ before 2015 is also moot. We DID have net neutrality before 2015 . Before 2015 the FCC enforced net neutrality, however Verizon challenged this in court since ISPs were considered title 1. Verizon won. However, the judges even went so far as to say “These rules would be OK if it were title 2”. So, the FCC then placed ISPs as title 2 which is a common carrier

The crux of the issue is that in the year 2017 having access to high speed internet is necessary to be a part of society in a developed nation. Net neutrality ensures that the big ISPs do not screw over the middle folk and do whatever they want, since there is no accountability. In the majority of the USA there is no competition. None. Zero. Zilch. So if your ISP wants to raise prices, change your traffic, charge you more for certain content - you have no alternative but to pay. Net neutrality prevents this.

Have a great day everyone and please be sure to research this issue yourself before making up your mind.

2 Likes

I didn’t say regulation = bad - non-regulation = good.

What I said or was trying to say was to much regulation is bad.
I actually agree with some level of regulation.

With that said… I have experience with “to much government regulation”.

I also don’t agree with giving any government to much power.
Because they will abuse it. And it’s not just government… it’s people in general.
But with government… they can create rules that if broken - can land up a creek.

As for ISP forcing you to pay for content… you can always leave and choose a different provider.

If the need is there… there is always someone who will give you exactly what you want.

Oh - and I notice your last response is marked “as the solution”.

I don’t agree with that. In fact - it’s border line disrespectful. I’m guessing OP did it.

Mate, US government already has all the power it needs. If they want to they will abuse it alright. But this particular regulation is not about giving the government more power it is about limiting what corporations can do to you as a customer. The anti-monopoly policies exist in many countries for a number of reasons. The main being that government is the only thing that can compete with corporations in power (and sometimes is really bad at that) and it is the only thing that can force them to adhere to the ideals of humanism, no matter how cliche that sounds, because in a perfect world government supposed to care for its citizens. Corps on the other hand are not supposed to be good. The only thing large corporations crave is profit. They can and will take your money because they can get away with that.

As for the you can always leave and choose a different provider - did you actually read some of the comments above? The fact is sometimes you can’t. There is no competition in many places in the US. What you said may be true in other countries, for example my mobile provider (Vodafone) uses “net inequality”, so to say, to actually do good things, like making access to some popular web resources and services free and not counting against monthly data quota, competing with other providers using this tactics.

I do understand what you are saying.
What appears to be the mis-alignment here is…

quite a few people here don’t agree that the government can and will abuse “this protection”.

I’m not oppose to some what of net neutrality creates.

Instead I’m opposed to a potential can of worms that net neutrality can create.

As for switch not being an option. I understand that as well.

I own a cabin in the mountains of Montana. And there ain’t crap there for wired internet.
You only option is via the air. And that’s exactly what people do.

I think the last estimate I saw was 15 million people didn’t have access to a decent line… due to the lack of wires or a lack competition. Don’t quote me on that number. It’s been a while since I looked at the number. I do understand that situation. I just don’t agree with the so-called fix.

But 15 million people in country of 300 million is nothing when you have little kids going hungry in Vietnam. And it seems people are more interested in Netflix.

And trust me when I say monopolies are not a good thing.

People seem willing to give up control to support net neutrality.
They seem to be willing to “trust” an organization has proven to be deceptive.
Again, I’m looking for a “better fix”.

And honestly. This is not the correct forum to be discussing this.

I’m actually sorry I responded to the original post. It appears OP just want create a firestorm and didn’t really care about various opinions.

Well - here’s my opinion. This is a forum about Webflow. Not Net Neutrality. Nor politics.

I’m done with this conversation. And I think Webflow should lock this thread.

It doesn’t belong here.