Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Age Old Battle Cry for Net Neutrality

  1. #1

    The Age Old Battle Cry for Net Neutrality

    I want to begin by saying that the several hours of research put into this post was (for lack of a better word) inspired by this post by user_x. In it, user_x states their disbelief towards the idea that certain services will be put into pay-zones. Using the above example as well as Wikipedia and Facebook, they explain the nonsensical idea that an internet rid of Net Neutrality would be split up into pay-zones. user_x goes on to call this a "doomsday scenario." But it's not a fiction or a far-out concept. This threat is real, and it could be not far in the future. Please, user_x (and all of you who are still doubting the significance of net neutrality), hear me out.

  2. #2
    I don't know if user_x did any research or anything (they did not site anything in the post), but there are a few points that are already in place that mean that internet providers could, and would, begin implementing some version of this type of internet segregation within days or even hours of net neutrality's (henceforth NN) revoking.

  3. #3
    At least, the total bandwidth isn't going up nearly as fast as it was in, say, the early noughties (2000's). They're still rising, but not as fast and not as steadily as the the amount of people (or devices, really) that are joining the WWW. See:

  4. #4
    The traffic growth is pretty steady, but the bandwidth is not. It's highly volatile, sure, but there is no question that it's trending downward. Whether this is due to the proportional decrease in growth of access rates or a limitation of technology is debatable, but one thing is for certain; we're getting less new bandwidth every year, and the internet is only growing. Even virtual data needs virtual storage space (servers), virtual filing systems (URLs, among other kinds), and paths to access the consumers (bandwidth). With the current rates and without a huge technological intervention, the internet will run out of space for new things to access it and be put onto it. With NN in place, that forces providers to investigate not only how to increase speeds, but also increase the bandwidth so that more people can access their internet. But revoking NN will turn providers to the much easier solution; limit most of the existing bandwidth to a limited number of sites, probably those that they sponsor, own, or profit from, and save a small sliver of the bandwidth for those who are willing to pay extra for the services that the provider chooses. And for those restricted sites, more traffic to them means slower service overall, which will take more data to use, and will convince people to use the default services instead of the extras at a premium. Or they'll just pay the premium and deal with slower speeds and less content. All three of these options are profitable for the provider, and suck for the user.

  5. #5
    Let's look at ads for a second. A single view on an ad on a site like, say, YouTube, makes (on average) less than a penny. Less than a penny. Ads do not make any of money just playing and showing, and they cost companies quite a bit to put onto big services. The reason ads make money is because so many people view them that the minuscule amount of money a single ad view gets is multiplied over millions and millions of views, and it adds up. We'll ignore for the moment that the ad revenue is usually just an average of the views vs. clicks vs. purchases, and just treat ads as if they have a steady revenue. We'll estimate that it's a penny per 2 views on YouTube, just for argument's sake.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts