What does the end of net neutrality mean to sites like DU?

[Botany]

?v=0

[brooklynite]

1. Prediction: nothing

A year from now, nobody will access DU any differently, and won’t experience it any differently.

[Stargazer99]

5. it will cost more to access it so fewer people to use it

a conservative wet dream

[brooklynite]

23. Evidence?

[snooper2]

2. nothing

[Caliman73]

3. Likely not much.

I think that DU is not figuring in the calculus of the ISPs. The worry about the loss of net neutrality is at the consumer end. You want to access sites quickly, then you pay more otherwise your speed is throttled.

Streaming media sites are more likely to be affected than smaller sites like DU.

[Stargazer99]

9. sites can be closed to access according to this destroying of net neutrality

by the isp ....think!!!!

[Caliman73]

13. Yes they can. But why would DU?

If it is a fairly popular site and can maintain a decent traffic, ISPs are not going to kill it just to kill it.


Think ... rationally.

[Stargazer99]

17. You want to bet?

[Caliman73]

19. Sure. If you are right then you can say, "I told you so".

It will just take a long time for me to download it or DU won't exist anymore so I won't get it, but I'll think it.

[MineralMan]

4. Not very much.

DU will load quickly, even at lower speeds. It's mostly text, really. You almost certainly won't notice the difference.

The difference will be felt with heavily graphical sites, streaming sites, and other high-bandwidth sites. DU is none of those things.

[LonePirate]

14. There is much more to Net Neutrality than just speed or throttling concerns.

Some ISPs could easily block sites like DU and the consumer would have no recourse except to find a different ISP. In rural areas, there is only one ISP so there is no choice.

Then there’s a whole array of pricing concerns. It’s not just a matter of paying for fast lanes. It’s the likelihood of internet service bills starting to resemble hospital bills with outrageous pricing for everything from using Netflix to accessing Facebook to browsing Amazon to searching with Google. Portugal is just the tip of the iceberg here when it comes to gouging consumers. We have seen nothing yet.

[MineralMan]

15. I'll wait and see what happens.

One thing is certain: We are not in control right now. I don't have the time or energy to get all exercised about things I can't do anything about, frankly. I'm not someone who engages in hand-waving, etc. before the fact. Wait and see. Sites like DU are not even on the radar, to tell the truth.

[Hortensis]

33. In the short term, you're probably right. Longer term,

if we do not get these people out of office, I refer everyone to clues like

Puerto Rico -- voted heavily Democrat, current evil-level refusal to provide adequate relief.

Blue states -- various punitive and oppressive government measures being imposed.

Black Texans -- denied FEMA hurricane relief at much higher levels than white.

DU -- our nation's largest Democratic forum taken down on election night.

No one appreciates the power of free speech more than those who are behind repealing net neutrality. I'm absolutely certain this move is not merely or even predominately for commercial purposes. It is a form of seizing the radio stations for the purpose of population and information control.

Of course this will be used to suppress liberal, minority and Democratic Party voices over time, just as surely as they engage in voter suppression.

[Stargazer99]

18. How long do you think it will take before they realize it?

[onenote]

25. The Portugal myth

https://www.snopes.com/portugal-net-neutrality/

[kcr]

28. Just another example of Snopes going down the toilet

if they were ever all that great to begin with. That in no way debunks the claims. Those ARE the claims. I guess there are deep-pockets who think add-ons are a nothingburger. But here's Snopes yet again taking advantage of a complicated issue and parsing it away to claim they're debunking something.

[Demit]

29. Thank you for that.

I hadn't heard the Portugal rumor until reading it in this thread, so it's nice that you disposed of it so fast!

[kcr]

30. It didn't dispose of it. Snopes is wrong here.

Here is more detailed and accurate information http://www.euronews.com/2017/11/29/the-truth-about-portugal-s-net-neutrality-told-by-an-expert

"Selecting certain apps to feature in the packages, and not others, is then a problem."

That is correct. It is that selection that breaks net neutrality. This seems to be the company's interpretation of the net neutrality laws and if they indeed allow for this, then Europe's laws are pretty weak. Our laws that are being rolled back do not allow for this. Snopes is wrong and Americans are in for a shock.

[Demit]

31. Well, thanks for another view to consider, but I think Snopes' conclusion isn't wrong.

"Although this means mobile Internet users in the United States may indeed see prepackaged data usage add-ons similar to MEO’s in the future, it is not a foregone conclusion that this is what Internet access as a whole will look like in the absence of net neutrality laws."

Your article poses a lot of what ifs and conjecture as well. Additionally, it acknowledges that Congresswoman Khanna's tweet was a misinterpretation, or at least an overstatement.

We'll see, I guess.

[kcr]

32. I guess I just think the wait and see approach makes no sense.

The telecomms wouldn't push for this for no reason. It's like inviting the person who broke into your house to have some tea and cookies because it's not a forgone conclusion they mean to take anything or harm you. The very act of breaking into the house is evidence that something is about to happen, just as the telecomms successfully roiling back regulation is evidence they mean to screw us over. Snopes is wrong in that they aren't debunking anything. They're just being extraordinarily naive along with anyone else who thinks nothing is going to happen.

And that article does no such thing you suggest. It points out an un-neutral internet. Claiming it's conjecture that we won't get something similar? Well, see my argument above.

[Demit]

38. It's not what I'm suggesting. It's what the article says.

“But, despite the situation in Portugal´s internet offers being more net ´neutral´ than what was originally reported…” —this is the article referring to the claim made by the Congresswoman in her tweet.

…it still is a cause for concern for some.” —and this is where the article begins to quote the expert of the article’s title, wherein he sets out possible scenarios and finishes with:

“from a legal perspective, it's not clear whether this practice should be accepted as legal or not.”

““The EU has created the laws but it's up to the regulators of each country to analyse and interpret specific cases. So it could be that different countries in Europe perceive the situation differently.”

Those are the reasons I saw your article as setting out an argument by one person, and because he uses terms like “it’s not clear” and “it could be” I think the article is not as conclusive as you see it being.

I really don't care if you think I'm being extraordinarily naive. I'm just not as sure as you are.

[bearsfootball516]

6. Almost certainly nothing

[panader0]

7. It seems that many states and orgs are suing to prevent this.

This will be tied up in court for a long time before it can be implemented,
if ever.

[Stargazer99]

11. i hope you are right

[Hoyt]

8. Not much if any at all, but will it impact the free porn sites?

[C_U_L8R]

10. The cablecos sell tiered service. That's what they know.

So it seems this is really their fuck-you to the cord cutters.
It may or may not affect DU - but if you want access to
big popular data-consuming services like Facebook,
Youtube, Netflix, iTunes, etc... they will charge you more.
Or at least they'll try. It's really time for an insurgent provider
to be the People's Internet. With over 80% of the country
already on their side, they could very well put the
cable's out of business, for good.

[fescuerescue]

21. The cost barrier to being an ISP is massive

absolutely massive. It would take a Fortune 10 sized company to attempt this.

It's all in the last mile to house. Dropping fiber or copper to any sizable percentage of households would cost tens of billions.

The odds of finding a company with tens of billions to spend, and not expect a massive return on investment, is basically nill.

Heck even Google, with its Google fiber project has barely scratched the surface.

[C_U_L8R]

24. Potential good guys

Mashable article - The internet companies working to save net neutrality

http://mashable.com/2017/12/15/tech-companies-saving-net-neutrality-internet-service-provider/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. Most likely, nothing.

A small, niche site with little bandwidth. Not on anyone’s radar.

YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, et al... They will be the ones to suffer.

[Bengus81]

16. LOL....If nothing is going to change then why repeal Net Neutrality yesterday?

Last edited Fri Dec 15, 2017, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Bet your arse things are going to change but of course not over night. This could be tied up in court for a good part of 2018. But if it's later repealed the price for HSI will go through the roof,BS surcharges and endless fees. I agree with some others,this is PAYBACK for cutting the cable TV cord and going strictly streaming.

Competition is rare NOW,in a couple of years it will be non-existent in high population areas--the big boys don't care about the few living out in the sticks,hell let someone else blow the money to serve those few,they won't fight it and it lets them claim they don't have a monopoly.

[mythology]

22. Because the change will at least start with high bandwith sites,

particularly those who compete with ISPs as content providers. Comcast would really rather Netflix not exist for example. Realistically, DU isn't even a blip on the radar in that sense.

[onenote]

27. NN regulation didn't keep the companies from raising their prices

If an ISP wanted to do so, the NN rules didn't stop them from raising their retail prices across the board. The repeal of NN won't directly impact consumer prices for ISP service very much. What it will do is give ISPs an opening to begin charging the biggest content providers -- Netflix, Amazon, etc. who use the ISPs' pipes to reach customers. Put another way, ISPs are going to seek a cut of the action from the content companies, which will add to those companies' costs.

That's a win-win for the ISPs. A new revenue stream, and one that makes the big content companies less competitive with content offerings that ISPs have an ownership stake in.

Consumer prices will go up, but that's because consumers will be paying more for Netflix, etc not because the direct retail price charged by ISPs for Internet service will be unleashed.

[fescuerescue]

20. Chat board, even popular ones

Don't require much bandwidth.

Any site that streams video could suffer a significant setback.

Given that this is a chat board, and doesn't stream video, I don't expect any impact.

[samnsara]

26. YUM!! Those are actually made in a town near me...go into the candy store and..

...nearly unlimited free samples.....

[Lee-Lee]

34. Nothing at all

This site consumes a tiny, tiny bit of bandwidth- it’s not even a blip on what causes traffic.

ISPs with all websites were as basic and low-data as DU. It would make providing reliable service much easie because they wouldn’t need as much infrastructure to provide reliable service consumers want.

As for censoring sites like DU- I don’t see it. There is zero gain to be had for them blocking content like this, and only financial loss to be had. If a move will only cost you customers and revenue and gain nothing, why do it? Even in places with near monopolies for one ISP blocking sites and pissing of customers just provides more incentive and viability for competition to emerge, so they would literally be cutting their own throats.

[treestar]

35. Orange Hitler only wants to roll back the Obama era regulation

I don't remember things being so different before Obama's regulation.

The "control of content" at least as a market question should not mean the ISPs will shut down any content, as competitors will allow it. Fortunately, the ISP has no financial incentive to cut off or limit content as the competitor can say - hey, we don't do that.

If it is extremely popular and they think people will pay for it, that is where they will charge for it. Porn?

[Vinca]

36. People seem awfully fast to say nothing will happen.

This is practically a Nazi regime we're dealing with. They might very well target left wing sites by ordering the corporations to get in line or face the wrath of Kim Jong Trump.

[Codeine]

37. Many of our users seem to massively overestimate

the importance and impact of this place. It's a small handful of regular users sitting around arguing about politics. The loss of net neutrality, while a serious issue, will have zero consequences for DU.