What Will Net Neutrality mean to internet marketers?

It has NOTHING to do with a bad signal or low power. TCP/IP is a DIGITAL protocol. The standard is generally something like 0-2.5v=0 and 2.6-5.0=1. The problem isn't even the speed of a PACKET, since the packets generally, on a clear line, go at the top speed of the interface. So the signal WILL be clear, and each packet will go as fast as the circumstances allow.

The deal is that the timeslice you have allocated to a cheaper network will be smaller so the wait time between packets may be higher.. THAT means you can have more timeouts, and the total time needed will be longer.

I never bothered to find out what side this favors, but there are TWO methods.....

1. What we currently have where everyone goes at the highest speed circumstances allow.
2. Where people may be charged more for a higher throttle speed and be given longer access to the media, and could force the others to wait.

Google, Facebook, POF, Yahoo, Bing are relatively low bandwidth. I mean the packets likely go fast, and over a day, there will be a LOT, but your query takes one packet, and may yield a couple dozen. With youtube, a query takes like 1 packet, and may yield millions. The ones hurt most, if THEY had their bandwith throttled down, would be ones like youtube. Of course, I think youtube would actually push to get a larger chunk, and THEY would affect the others.

BTW I kept saying that circumstances allow. The current standards basically break most connections into a dozen or more subnets. Each subnet tries to communicate to a device(such as a router) at a given rate. If another computer on that line tries to communicate at the same time, both fail and try again a certain amount of time after that. The timings are random, so it is likely the 2 connections won't conflict again. If one succeeds, it does the same thing with the next subnet. Eventually it reaches its destination. If your query is longer than the packet size, there will be multiple packets for it.

Steve

If the freedom of the Internet is taken, it will allow for the complete control of information, most probably globally. The powers will own all channels and we will not be able to get word out to each other on anything. All voice allowed out will be moot - such as websites for clubs, and political, activist groups will be silenced if they are not active for the chosen party.

Control under fascism (which is the only viable reason for the control of information flow) will include breaking the financial backs of the small guy and rendering work via gov/corp control only. Anything on the net will be power elite controlled. That means, you will pay dearly to be there or you will be doing nothing much but scrolling endless reams of whatever the powers allow you to look at. Much will be pro-power propaganda. You may or may not still be able to sell online, depending on the nature of what you do/sell - but only if approved. What will meet approval will not be subject to any actual law - more or less whim, and laws can be issued for any whim the controllers desire.

At the point of time that speech is silenced (slow process so as not to startle the public into revolt, as was recently accidentally done), military will take over the populations. Whatever happens from there is determined by what the powers "goal" is.

That is the scenario that plays out every time since at least the 20th century when fascism takes over the information channels.

What we need to hope is that there are ways that other channels can be used or built to combat the control of a central power.

This statement is according to the natural flow of fascism. You will find it in Marx's Dialectics. It is in the discussion about how capitalist societies degenerate into Socialism. Our particular brand of socialism includes crony capitalism, which engenders fascism. When corporations become bound to governments via a financial web, you're looking at whatever control over what you do they want to take.

Killing Net Neutrality Kills the Dreams of Young Entrepreneurs - The Daily Beast

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

Beware of the daily beast. There is enough garbage in that article that I would question EVERYTHING it said.

Still, it said the problem would occur with that person's VIDEO feed.

STILL, WATCH OUT! Heysal is right. No matter HOW innocent this is, this is likely the START! They came up with a plan in the US to OBLITERATE the internet, in the US. And they kept trying to pass it. It may be up for a vote TODAY! THAT was not net neutrality, but net neutrality may be a vehicle to get it passed. The OTHER BILL had:

1. FEDERAL requirements and punishments.
2. Licenses for network hubs and admins and make hardware/software.
3. Federal courses that colleges would be required to teach, etc...
4. Requirements to put back doors in hardware and software.
5. A way to implement a master kill switch.
6. etc....

So it is MUCH more overt than the net neutrality.

Steve

I'm afraid the the primary solution for such questions is: BE RICH.

Thanks everyone, it seems like this will hurt all the big business that work B2B with small businesses, that's the weird thing.

I used to really like the whole Info warrior thing, now I prefer the warrior forum, people tend to think we just have to wake everyone up, it's as though a crucial step is missing, also maybe not everyone has to wake up, maybe if just a small handful wake up and actually do something about it, that's all we need. I think getting rich should be a critical part for at least part of that handful of people, also for those people to connect with like minded people.

I hope we have enough time to make that kind of money, find each other and change things by forming liberty lobby groups or what ever. How much time do we have before it comes to that point? I still have some real big dreams and big visions to make happen. I'd probably be willing to partner with like minded people. If your out there you should PM me.

Joe,

The one that seems most common is "all content is equally accessible to all customers of a given bandwidth provider at a given price point."


Paul

Joe,

Yes, and yes.

The cable providers are trying to get a system set up that will (in basic terms) allow them to have two speed lanes. One for general content and one for sites that pay to have their content delivered at higher speeds. The biggest concerns are that this will lock out small providers of high-bandwidth content and that it will mean slower speeds for all non-paying content providers.


Paul

Ah crap. LOL -- I've been talking about the Net being handed to an international group to "manage", not neutrality. They've written that so that they can't block any particular website. Price is the issue. The one that is going to result in my rant is if they hand management off from the US.

Yeah they're pulling whatever little tricks they can, Steve. The neutrality bill doesn't allow for anything real drastic, though - it can, of course, lead to drastic changes just because they are setting the precedent of legislating usage. The bill itself isn't as bad as the scenario I just painted. Giving the net to a third party (the UN) will completely kill it as we know it today, and that's just the tip of the dangers of that one.

George Will: New American "Revolution" is Inevitable

So I have a number of comments, first the UN Domain thing is a little off topic but I did start this forum and so I'm saying it is relevant enough, let's talk about that here as well because that could be just as important or more so to our well being on the internet.

When talking about these political type things there always seems to be two groups and I don't mean left and right, I mean those that get consumed by fear and see the conspiracy in everything; they often see really important critical details but often get too paranoid and make things bigger then they actually are, whereas there are the other types that believe more or less what ever the mainstream media says without question and have trouble accepting when something bad is actually happening. I'm wanting to keep my perspective very in the middle, I want to try to keep a grounded and rational view of everything that is going on.

I'm not an expert of the UN domain thing, but what I heard was that they were creating a more of an internet community that was open to the public's opinion for making rulings on the internet. They had a conference that I believe people could attend and was broadcasted on webinar for those who couldn't physically attend. I heard they broke everything down in to sections and people were very happy about the human rights section, and how it was resolved. So unless I am mixing something up or they wrapped the language up with words that would present the illusion that everything was okay, but I thought I heard that people were the most happy with this section. I don't know what do you think?

Anyways back to net neutrality for a minute, I am fine with Netflix being able to pay for a faster lane, they probably need faster speeds and bandwidth then the kind of sites I am currently creating. I really don't have a problem with a faster lane as long as the slow lane isn't any slower than what we are on now. As long as we still have stepping stones to create gateway businesses that can get us closer to the multimillion dollar income then we could use that money to create billion dollar websites and pay for our own fast lanes.

I will say after last year with Obama trying to restrict the second amendment after he promised not too and everyone who claimed he would try was just a conspiracy theorist, not to mention the history of what happens when dictators take all the citizens weapons away; now with the UN domain agreement and the FCC net neutrality stuff, it now seems like they are trying to restrict our first amendment, our freedom of speech and very possibly our ability to make a profit online. So this is an important issue, one that is important to the warriorforum as well I believe.


I'm not going to say I'm against citizens militias, heck if they were legal here in Canada I'd probably be apart of one, but with all the talk on this thread about militias and revolution, I want to first remind everyone that in the Warrior Forum's new terms of use they do state that they don't want to talk about armed revolutions against the government, that is to say if I wasn't the only one who has read the WF's new Terms of use. So I ask that you not talk about that here, to not have this thread taken down or your accounts by the way. I also want to remind you that as exciting as a revolution such as this may sound, it is not what we should prefer to do or what we should be aiming for. They are very dangerous and perhaps worst of all very hard to predict. What could easily happen is they say "alright, alright, you win, we'll give you a new puppet to oppress you." So it is our job to fight to have it NOT ever get to that point.

Especially since we are internet marketers, we of all people should be talking about how we can use our minds and do things to raise money to fight back. We should make it our aim to make the kind of business that gets a fast lane and to use that money and power to expose them and thwart their evil missions. That's the beauty of internet marketing, just maybe you can make enough money and influence to actually do something to save the world, plus in this scenario you may actually get to be rewarded by getting a nice big house in the end, and if you can find and surround yourself with people who think this way now, you can also be surrounded with some of the best people on the planet to boot.