23 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
23 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How do you feel about yesterday's Net Neutrality Verdict?

by yourreviewer
19 replies
I am curious to know your thoughts on yesterday's Net Neutrality verdict. What are the implications of this verdict and how would it affect Internet Marketers in general?
#feel #net #neutrality #verdict #yesterday
  • Profile picture of the author laurencewins
    Maybe you should explain what you are talking about.
    Signature

    Cheers, Laurence.
    Writer/Editor/Proofreader.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8870347].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author onSubie
    Yes, what are you talking about?

    I am in Canada and Canada works to actively undermine Net Neutrality laws.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8870930].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MagicWhisper
    I am curious, too, about how this will impact Internet Marketing.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8870954].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yakim1
    The courts have struck down the Internet neutrality laws. Now ISPs can sensor any content they wish. They ca either slow down or block any websites they want.

    Let's say your ISP also supplied hosting. They could block any website that did not use their hosting. Just an example.

    If an ISP does not like the content on your website for any reason, they can block your website so their customers can't see your website.

    It would be similar to what some countries do. They block websites that they don't want their citizens to see.

    To me it seems like a violation of free speech.

    This may have been going on to some extent already and the courts said the FTC does not have the ability to police this.

    They do have to still be tranparent about what or who they are blocking.

    I hope this helps,
    Steve Yakim
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871040].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Do you think ISP's should be allowed to prioritize traffic to, say, a life alert service for the elderly? Or reserve bandwidth for VOIP carriers to preserve call quality at the expense of gamers or casual surfers? If the answer to either is yes, be glad net neutrality was struck down - because neither would have been possible if it passed.

    It would be one thing if there was a bill discouraging de-prioritization of a competitive nature, which is what the supporters made it out to be, but that's not what it was. As it was written, no traffic or sources could receive preferential handling. Striking it down was a win for all of us, not a loss.

    Freedom won today. If an ISP is caught throttling bandwidth to a competitor or service they don't like, you're free to vote with your dollars and switch service providers. Net neutrality would have done nothing but give government regulators control, and stripped ISP's of the ability to prioritize bandwidth based on service type.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871067].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yakim1
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Freedom won today. If an ISP is caught throttling bandwidth to a competitor or service they don't like, you're free to vote with your dollars and switch service providers. Net neutrality would have done nothing but give government regulators control, and stripped ISP's of the ability to prioritize bandwidth based on service type.
      Free enterprise only works when you have alternative choices in an ISP. In many areas the ISP you use may be the only one available.

      You have always had the opportunity to change ISPs if you did not like, let's say, the price you are paying for their service or the service keeps going down.

      An ISP could slow down my connection because I have an Internet business and don't have a business acount with my ISP.

      Or because my ISP supplies voice and I'm using my own voice router (telephone) using their bandwidth.

      This may have been going on any way but now the FTC has no ability to help when the ISP is blocking or reducing service even though you pay the same as your neighbor and he is not affected.

      Some regulations are needed and this regulation has been in effect for a long time and now it is not.

      Don't get me wrong, I favor less government but it appears that this decission does not favor the user. This law being struck down does allow ISPs to prioritize traffic to anyone they want and discriminate against others.

      I see quality of service going down.

      Best regards,
      Steve Yakim
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871151].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author onSubie
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Freedom won today. If an ISP is caught throttling bandwidth to a competitor or service they don't like, you're free to vote with your dollars and switch service providers. Net neutrality would have done nothing but give government regulators control, and stripped ISP's of the ability to prioritize bandwidth based on service type.
      It isn't just consumers complaining- in fact it is a minority of consumers making actual complaints. Most are being made by consumer protection groups.

      It would be less of a problem if ISPs simply provided access. But more are part of corporations that also produce and broadcast media and own other media brands.

      I know Netflix (in Canada) was really pissed off that their service is throttled and Bell's is not.

      Netflix is upset that customers stop ordering movies because they have used up their ISP bandwidth that month when Bell doesn't charge bandwidth for its own streaming service.

      Rogers owns Rogers Internet, Rogers Wireless, Rogers Home Phone, Rogers Media (70 publications, 51 radio stations, 10 national TV brands like Sportsnet, Outdoor Life Network with dozens of stations), Toronto Maple Leafs, Toronto Blue Jays, the Rogers Centre Stadium (they are kicking the CFL Argos out because they don't own the Argos) and this winter they entered an exclusive $5.23 billion contract for the NHL in Canada.

      The NHL contract is especially bad because Sportsnet broadcast personalities and quality of content is very poor compared to TSN or CBC (imho)....

      Rogers even has a partnership with Yodle offering SEO and marketing services to small business.

      "Yeah we'll SEO you to the top by blocking all your competitors who aren't paying us".

      Rogers' wiki page is nuts:

      Rogers Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      In Canada there is only one other competitor, Bell Canada. In the U.S. there are a few more players. In Canada it is only two.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871160].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author OnlineStoreHelp
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post


      Freedom won today. If an ISP is caught throttling bandwidth to a competitor or service they don't like, you're free to vote with your dollars and switch service providers. Net neutrality would have done nothing but give government regulators control, and stripped ISP's of the ability to prioritize bandwidth based on service type.
      I disagree with this as it is damn near impossible in many areas to "just switch to a different ISP" so its disingenuous at best. Given the natural monopolies most ISP's are they should be common carriers but the former FCC commissioner (who surprise surprise is now a lobbyist for the telco industry) had internet service classified to information service instead of telecommunication which is what internet service is, a telco service.

      What will happen? Most will prioritize traffic, but it won't be for things like "life alert" but for the large companies willing to pay more for preference. What you could see is a small to medium increase to your hosting bill if your data center decides to pay the toll booth.

      What should happen? Any time these ISP's start prioritizing their own traffic, you should see the justice department bringing Sherman Act violations against them for anti-trust but that just won't happen.

      People tend to forget that telco companies are given special dispensation from the government, both locally and federally which means they are given distinct monopoly advantages which they can use to destroy competitors. Don't believe me? Go try digging up the road by you to put a new cable in and see what happens. Go put a telephone pole in your neighborhood, I bet you your local telco will make you remove it if your local government doesn't.

      If we just classified them as common carriers half these issues would go away.
      Signature
      Learn how to set up a powerful, functional yet easy to use e-commerce website at cartprep.com.

      Not sure what ecommerce solution to use? Watch my video walk through of popular shopping carts.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871185].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ddavidlv
    ISP's and the internet should all be equal balanced to allow the user to always have the best user experience.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871157].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    The internet has been mainstream for 20+ years now, if ISP's were going to do that, they would have already. Its been legal all along.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871163].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Raydal
    If history is any indication, nothing will change in the Internet Marketing
    realm. They sky is still in the same place.

    -Ray Edwards
    Signature
    The most powerful and concentrated copywriting training online today bar none! Autoresponder Writing Email SECRETS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RogueOne
    In many areas the ISP you use may be the only one available.
    I can personally attest to this.

    In order to change ISPs I would have to move. I live where I live by choice, (worked my tail off for it) but I only have two choices: slim and none. I have Verizon mobile broadband because it's the only thing that works here.

    It's still the "wild West." Some towns are going to get shot up before peace reins supreme.
    Signature
    Get Off The Warrior Forum Now & Don't Come Back If You Want To Succeed!
    All The Real Marketers Are Gone. There's Nothing Left But Weak, Sniveling Wanna-Bees!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871204].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    My point is that you guys who support this seem to forget that U.S. based ISP's could have been doing the things you're afraid of all along ... Yet they aren't. Why? Because it's bad for business. At the same time, a legal precedent to make all traffic "equal" has negative side effects that those who fear ISP throttling haven't considered, such as the inability to prioritize VOIP traffic which most currently do. We don't need the government telling ISP's what can and cannot be prioritized. And if you know anything about the legislative process, you'll know that laws undergo multiple amendments and exemptions once they are in place.

    Let's say this had passed... Suddenly Vonage cries foul because voice data is no longer given preference and they can't meet their service level guarantee. So they lobby congress and an amendment is made to the bill, allowing VoIP traffic an exemption. Then other industries complain because their services are now being throttled to benefit the telcos, so more exceptions are made. In the end what happens is government decides what traffic and companies are "important" and what isn't. All this would have done is transfer power from the people to the government and the largest ISP's who can afford to hire lobbyists. Competitive network throttling is NOT a problem in the USA, there is no need for preemptive legislation to prevent it.

    "We the people" are the winners. We preserved our rights by not transferring them to government.
    Signature

    -
    Ron Rule
    http://ronrule.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8871244].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yakim1
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      Do you think ISP's should be allowed to prioritize traffic to, say, a life alert service for the elderly? Or reserve bandwidth for VOIP carriers to preserve call quality at the expense of gamers or casual surfers? If the answer to either is yes, be glad net neutrality was struck down - because neither would have been possible if it passed.

      It would be one thing if there was a bill discouraging de-prioritization of a competitive nature, which is what the supporters made it out to be, but that's not what it was. As it was written, no traffic or sources could receive preferential handling. Striking it down was a win for all of us, not a loss.

      Freedom won today. If an ISP is caught throttling bandwidth to a competitor or service they don't like, you're free to vote with your dollars and switch service providers. Net neutrality would have done nothing but give government regulators control, and stripped ISP's of the ability to prioritize bandwidth based on service type.
      Originally Posted by ronrule View Post

      My point is that you guys who support this seem to forget that U.S. based ISP's could have been doing the things you're afraid of all along ... Yet they aren't. Why? Because it's bad for business. At the same time, a legal precedent to make all traffic "equal" has negative side effects that those who fear ISP throttling haven't considered, such as the inability to prioritize VOIP traffic which most currently do. We don't need the government telling ISP's what can and cannot be prioritized. And if you know anything about the legislative process, you'll know that laws undergo multiple amendments and exemptions once they are in place.

      Let's say this had passed... Suddenly Vonage cries foul because voice data is no longer given preference and they can't meet their service level guarantee. So they lobby congress and an amendment is made to the bill, allowing VoIP traffic an exemption. Then other industries complain because their services are now being throttled to benefit the telcos, so more exceptions are made. In the end what happens is government decides what traffic and companies are "important" and what isn't. All this would have done is transfer power from the people to the government and the largest ISP's who can afford to hire lobbyists. Competitive network throttling is NOT a problem in the USA, there is no need for preemptive legislation to prevent it.

      "We the people" are the winners. We preserved our rights by not transferring them to government.
      What you are failing to realize is that this was not a new law that was struck down but an old law that has been there, in effect more many years that has been struck down. Every reference to this law that you have made is that it was going to be a new law and that is not the case.

      It has been the status quo for years and now it is gone.

      Best regards,
      Steve Yakim
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873113].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ronrule
        Originally Posted by yakim1 View Post

        What you are failing to realize is that this was not a new law that was struck down but an old law that has been there, in effect more many years that has been struck down. Every reference to this law that you have made is that it was going to be a new law and that is not the case.

        It has been the status quo for years and now it is gone.

        Best regards,
        Steve Yakim
        It was an FCC regulation created in 2010 that has been in dispute since its inception and was never enforced. There also hasn't been a single incident in the US of an ISP doing any of the things supporters of NN worry about, before or since. It's nothing but unnecessary legislation that, had it been enforced, takes away consumer choice and transfers it to government and the largest providers, who would lobby for exemptions.

        Competition will do a better job of keeping the ISP's in check than government regulation.

        And for those who would say "I live in a rural area and we only have one provider" that doesn't matter - the fact that the provider operates in other areas where there IS competition will still prevent them from implementing policies like that. If a company like Verizon were to say "We're going to throttle Netflix" with the hopes that more people would subscribe to their own streaming service, it would result in a mass exodus of their customers in their largest, most competitive markets, switching away to another provider. Their competitors would jump on the opportunity and spend millions running ads that essentially say "Verizon throttles netflix, we don't, switch to us". Insert any ISP's name in place of Verizon in my example. They can't afford the loss of customers and the negative press they'll receive, they just won't do it.

        BUT ... here's what they CAN do now, because bandwidth throttling works both ways. Now they can openly advertise that they PRIORITIZE certain networks. So an ISP, if they choose to, could allocate dedicated bandwidth to Netflix to ensure the best quality streaming to all customers. I watch Netflix a lot and occasionally have lag during shows, it would be nice to be able to move to an ISP that gave that a little bit of preferential treatment.

        Choice is always a better answer than government.
        Signature

        -
        Ron Rule
        http://ronrule.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873257].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author spearce000
    "We will consider all available options, including those for appeal," said [Tom] Wheeler on the FCC's website.
    We haven't heard the last of this yet.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8873394].message }}

Trending Topics