Posted on 12/20/2017 7:53:22 PM PST by Olog-hai
Now that federal telecom regulators have repealed net neutrality, it may be time to brace for the arrival of internet “fast lanes” and “slow lanes.”
The net neutrality rules just voted down by the Federal Communications Commission prohibited such “paid prioritization,” as it’s technically known. That’s when an internet provider such as Verizon or Comcast decides to charge services like YouTube or Amazon for faster access to users. Firms that decline to pay up could wind up in bumper-to-bumper slow lanes.
The Associated Press queried seven major internet providers about their post-net-neutrality plans, and all of them equivocated when asked if they might establish fast and slow lanes. None of the seven companies — Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Sprint and T-Mobile — would rule out the possibility. Three said they had “no plans” for paid prioritization, and a few declined to answer the question at all.
By contrast, several of these firms promised not to block or slow down specific internet sites and services, two other practices prohibited by the expiring net-neutrality rules. (Those rules won’t formally end until sometime in early 2018.) Any such move could set off a public uproar and might even trigger an antitrust investigation. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The internet was just fine before the government got involved, and it will continue to be fine once the government is no longer involved. F the Dems!
Didn’t happen in the history since time beginning before obama imposed neuternet for twitter, youtube, and facebook.
But hey, twitter, facebook, et al are free to down throttle your visibility to those who’ve already subscribed to your page/profile.
Just a bunch of bullstalin
Some people do, in fact, need “fast lanes”. Those willing to pay the premium should have the option; those wanting a “good enough” flat rate (even free!) should have that option as well.
Think about it a moment: those paying premium rates can easily subsidize cheap/free for those needing _something_ but can afford little. Under “net neutrality”, if you need premium you can’t get it, and if you can’t afford enough you get nothing. Yes, it’s in capitalist interest to make _something_ available to _everyone_ - because it creates customers who will pay more when they can.
Good point. Pre-NN, major social media sites were starting to censor* legitimate users. What good is “equal access” if you get your mouth taped shut?
I’m starting to look at pulling out of Facebook, Twitter, and other such sites. Over decades I’ve seen the “inflection points” occur on other social media juggernauts, leading to them disappearing almost overnight not long after. The censor-the-Right attitudes being implemented will lead to the same, once another couple major high-signal-to-noise sites get established. And yes, post-NN costs will facilitate the better world.
If facebook thinks it is too big to fail, look at myspace and friendster each of which once dominated in this same area.
Myspace tanked cause libs hated Newscorpbwhich briefly owned Myspace.
They already charge extra for faster access.
Unless you live in San Diego...where they charge extra for DSL speed and then the installers brag about how fast it is.
Fort Collins, CO and Rochester, MN have faster internet than San Diego.
The government should not be involved in any way shape of form when it comes to the internet and ‘rules’.
No wonder then that many of the websites seem to have no limit to the video adverts, music, pop-ups, etc... they assault me with daily.
Make them pay more for it, and this crap will go away.
They already have higher speeds that you can get if you pay for it. For example I have 75 speed on my internet through Comcast and two days ago they made it 100 so this net neutrality thing is working very well for Comcast customers throughout the country. Everyone got a 25 bump for the same price.
How much would it cost to have advertising-free surfing like we do here on Freerepublic?
Amazon, Disney, and other content providers may buy ISPs.
PolitiFact is liberal.
Facebook 2018 is MySpace 2003.
Even now, premium customers are paying for new architecture to be put in place. Once it is developed, it’s much cheaper for others to be added on a business as usual basis.
The explosion of Business Ethernet has been amazing.
At the risk of being called a Soros stooge or Obama supporter, net neutrality did offer some consumer protections by treating the internet as a regulated public utility. This was important to us old folks who had no choices in ISP’s and cannot afford to pay for life in the internet fast lane or provider designated premium content. Then again I understand economic freedom and freedom of speech which getting rid of net neutrality was all about.
Facebook has harnessed the advertiser dollars that MySpace never could.
That’s true, and Facebook is currently still the default, but so was MySpace in 2003, and like MySpace was in 2003, Facebook is vulnerable to a mass exodus by users who find an alternative that they like better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.