The end of The Internet (and TMF)?

[kopfhorer]

I don't normally cross-post things (I posted this in the politics forum) and I hope I haven't violated any rules here, but this is a particularly urgent matter.

There's a development brewing in the FCC right now which could conceivably threaten access to if not the very existence of Tickling Media Forum, Fetlife, or any social media forum that isn't Facebook or Twitter.

The FCC is considering rule changes that if adopted would allow ISPs to charge content providers for preferential treatment, much like the way Comcast just charged Netflix a tidy sum for the privilege of being able to have their movies stream over Comcast's network without technical issues related to speed and reliability.

Under such a system, we could end up with a cable-TV-like Internet in which large players, like say, Facebook or CNN get priority treatment, and sites like this one go to the back of the cybernetic bus.

In other words, no more open Internet.

Online content providers that can't afford to pay what Hulu and Google can - like TMF - could conceivably end up just plain going away for lack of access and ad revenue.

The comment period ends soon. Right now, while you're thinking of it, send your comments to the FCC commissioners. Their names and e-mail addresses are listed below.

Don't think that it can't happen. Please do as I've done and register your opinion now.

FCC Chief: [email protected]

Commissioners:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mike.O'[email protected]

The FCC's main telephone line is 1-888-225-5322.

See also: http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/04/24/wake-internet-time-save-yourself

 

[He-Man]

This would really suck. The 'net should stay open, dammit.

 

[Love Tickling]

Didn't we already go through something like this around 1.5 to 2 years ago, something to do with censoring the internet and all that?

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

We sure did.

 

[milagros317]

Yeah, would-be censors never give up.

 

[Flatfoot]

I'm not so sure that this is about censorship, so much as it is for large companies recognizing the potential for a new revenue stream. Many consumers are moving away from cable TV services, as there's a significant amount of streaming services available for cheaper. These companies are realizing that they're going to have to replace lost revenue, so if they get permission from Congress, they're gonna set up tollbooths in front of your favorite, high traffic sites. Sucks for consumers.

 

[Myriads]

It's not about censorship in the least. It's about commerce.

The basis of the argument lies in who gets to have their data prioritized?

Right now the internet allows all information on it, regardless of where it starts to get to you at the same rate. You can download a clip on the TMF as fast as you can from Netflix. That gossip site you like to read? It loads as fast as Facebook does for you.

Now all this data moving happens behind the scenes. At the ISP's which are gate keepers of how data moves are in a position they define like this: "Lots of people are streaming movies from Netflix, and Google+ and Amazon prime, that takes up a HUGE amount of our resources. In fact we've had to build more switching networks and servers and so forth to handle it all. Wouldn't it be fair if we charged these big data senders more to get their stuff to you? Oh and some of them have told us they would PAY us more to prioritize their data. Netfix thinks it's with a bit of cost to make it so customers get their streaming movie in an instant. So how about it government? Can we set up a system where data providers can pay to get top end speed?

This of course implies that the neutrality of data deliver would end. Some data would be more equal then other data and get to your computer faster. Of course the rest of the internet traffic would need to move over and wait for this high speed data to pass. And thus the data providers who don't or cannot pay, will need to settle for whatever data capacity is left after the big boys stuff is sent. It will get there when it gets there. So a site like the TMF might suddenly be loading very very slowly. Like dial up days slowly. Because our data is stuck on the few 'free' lanes left, while the rest of the big companies are on the pay-to-play delivery ones. Which are a priority as they make money.

That's what this proposed change is about. Who gets to have their data get to you first and fastest, and at what price?

Myriads

 

[Fantasy-Play]

Awe boo! Here in the wilds of Canada the internet is already as slow as dial up at times! Oh the horror...

 

[Dussicar]

I pretty much knew this was going to happen eventually. I have always known that this forum's days were numbered.

It was never an aspect of "if." It was an aspect of "when."

For those people on this forum who knew this as well, but chose the bowing and scraping path: The whole purpose of globalized control is to get you to give up what they want without a fight. What the MOTHERFUCK did you THINK was going to happen???

 

[kopfhorer]

... At the ISP's which are gate keepers of how data moves are in a position they define like this: "Lots of people are streaming movies from Netflix, and Google+ and Amazon prime, that takes up a HUGE amount of our resources. In fact we've had to build more switching networks and servers and so forth to handle it all. ...

My heart simply bleeds for these multi-billion dollar regional monopolies.

Europeans get charged less for Internet service that blows ours clean away.

 

[MrMacphisto]

We might save net neutrality. If not, well... it would probably set a horrible precedent globally, which would encourage ISPs in other countries to rape their consumers as well.

Thankfully, there are certain countries where the threat of ISPs extorting online companies and forums is slim to none. In South Korea, for example, competition is fierce between ISPs, and so extortion attempts would kill their own business.

Unfortunately, in America, ISPs are highly oligarchic. Granted, I hear it's even worse in countries like Canada and Australia.

The ironic thing is that many developing countries have more competition in this market than many First World countries. And in other cases, only public ISPs exist, so the threat of extortion is nonexistent.