You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Well, it's not as if it really ever worked like " end users should be able to connect to any site or service attached to the network, not just those that their broadband service provider approves". I mean, I'm pretty goshadarn sure that the search engine Bing was slower on Google Chrome..
As for "There's also long been a generally understood principle that all Internet providers should treat the bits that pass through their networks more or less the same; that you should be able to access video from Netflix as easily as video from Comcast -- or even video on your Aunt Edna's website.", I'm pretty sure the providers have always been doing this "deliberately slow certain things down" thing.
And, well, they were slowing down file-sharing sites. Aren't those illegal?
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
Me too.
It occurs to me that CenturyLink is probably one of the better ISPs out there. I hope they don't get gobbled up (indeed, prior to 2011, my ISP was Qwest, which was bought out by CenturyLink that year).
what seems most likely to me is that the only companies that will be affected directly will be streaming services, search engines and other page-loading-time-dependant/bandwidth-hogging companies
because people will become really pissed off at the telecom companies if most webpages take like 4-5 seconds to load, so making something like that happen would be incredibly stupid from a PR standpoint
Based on the chart at the bottom of this page, it seems that the most likely targets are several of the big bandwidth usage categories: Netflix/Youtube/Hulu/other video streaming (which together accounts for almost half of bandwidth usage overall it seems) and BitTorrent.
I would expect streaming sites to do some pushback. A better question is what happens to torrenting. On one hand, it's got a lot less legal ground to stand on than streaming video. On the other hand, depending on technical details, it may be able to continue to get away with some amount of dodging new constraints, or it's possible that people will just instead turn increasingly to file-sharing sites of varying...um, sketchiness, for lack of a better term, all the way from DropBox to Mega.
Plus i'm willing to bet that telecom companies are chock-full of tech-savvy people who use torrents on a fairly regular basis for legit purposes, soooooo
Comments
connect to any site or service attached to the network, not just those
that their broadband service provider approves". I mean, I'm pretty goshadarn sure that the search engine Bing was slower on Google Chrome..
As for "There's also long been a
generally understood principle that all Internet providers should treat
the bits that pass through their networks more or less the same; that
you should be able to access video from Netflix as easily as video from
Comcast -- or even video on your Aunt Edna's website.", I'm pretty sure the providers have always been doing this "deliberately slow certain things down" thing.
And, well, they were slowing down file-sharing sites. Aren't those illegal?
Centie and I are stuck with Time Warner. Not ideal, but I guess I should be happy it's not Xfinity.
This ruling scares me a lot, honestly.
The good prospect seems to be that the FCC has the authority to do something favoring net neutrality.
The bad prospect seems to be that the regulators are somewhat pro-telecom and unlikely to do it.
I would expect streaming sites to do some pushback. A better question is what happens to torrenting. On one hand, it's got a lot less legal ground to stand on than streaming video. On the other hand, depending on technical details, it may be able to continue to get away with some amount of dodging new constraints, or it's possible that people will just instead turn increasingly to file-sharing sites of varying...um, sketchiness, for lack of a better term, all the way from DropBox to Mega.