Mini-News: Net Neutrality passed, Netflix ends ISP data cap deals

[GoodBytes]

Net Neutrality has passed in the U.S, and now Netflix, which says that they regret striking an except data cap deal with ISP in the states, is ending such deal, as it is no longer needed.

While the battle in the U.S is done, it is not over for around the world. Australia doesn't have net neutrality regulations, and it is another fight. Netflix did strike a deal with ISP over there to be exempted from data caps, and a fight is also elevating there as well on awareness of net neutrality.

 

Data caps inhibit Internet innovation and are bad for consumers. In Australia, we recently sought to protect our new members from data caps by participating in ISP programs that, while common in Australia, effectively condone discrimination among video services (some capped, some not). We should have avoided that and will avoid it going forward. Fortunately, most fixed-line ISPs are raising or eliminating data caps in line with our belief that ISPs should provide great video for all services in a market and let consumers do the choosing.

says Netflix to Ars

In a shareholder letter, Netflix says:

We support strong net neutrality across the globe, allowing all consumers to enjoy the Internet access they pay for, without ISPs blocking, throttling, or influencing content in the last mile or at interconnection points. In the US, we have been vocal advocates for, and are pleased with, recent action by the FCC to assure an open and neutral Internet under its Title II authority. In particular, we applaud the FCC for specifically addressing interconnection points. We hope this action serves as an example to regulators around the world looking to strengthen the innovative force of the Internet.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/04/netflix-will-stop-asking-isps-to-exempt-its-videos-from-data-caps/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+(Ars+Technica+-+All+content)

[N00B_person]

well, yay for that!

[Orblivion]

Unfortunately, the battle is not done in the US.  The ISPs will fight this tooth and nail, hopefully right up to the point that they go out of business.

[CommandMan7]

Unfortunately, the battle is not done in the US.  The ISPs will fight this tooth and nail, hopefully right up to the point that they go out of business.

Although that would be nice, I doubt it considering the amount of money the ISP's have banked. Most ISP's have profit margins in the high 90%'s. 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

 

EDIT: Time Warner spends almost 3X as much money on their completely terrible customer service than the actual internet service. wow.

[FakezZ]

It won't take long before they fuck up again. I guarantee it...

[Orblivion]

Although that would be nice, I doubt it considering the amount of money the ISP's have banked. Most ISP's have profit margins in the high 90%'s. 

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

 

EDIT: Time Warner spends almost 3X as much money on their completely terrible customer service than the actual internet service. wow.

 

The good news is that they are absolutely determined to keep things as they are now.  That leaves an opening for newer companies to carve deep into the existing ISPs markets.  It might not happen, but it would be a beautiful thing.

[CommandMan7]

The good news is that they are absolutely determined to keep things as they are now.  That leaves an opening for newer companies to carve deep into the existing ISPs markets.  It might not happen, but it would be a beautiful thing.

I agree, and all I know for sure is that there will be a fight. I can't wait for that to happen, and knowing the speed of the US legal system it'll probably be 2 years before any major fights start. 

[Toddwjp]

all the US needs now is to introduce a law that makes all current poles and ducts and infrastruture (excluding the data centres) available to any company at the cost of operation of maintenance proportional to the traffic, eg a small isp can use comcasts cables and if there using 20% of the cables then they pay 20% of the cost for maintenance and general care. this would then allow small isps to reach alot more customers with less investment leading to more competition.

[Trik'Stari]

It is far from over, congress has already attempted to inject their special brand of stupidity into the debate, and will likely continue to do so.

 

We have a brief period, right now, for some company (like google) to come in and cut the major ISP's legs out from under them, thus nullifying any motivation congress has to get their filthy hands on this debate.

[The Benjamins]

all the US needs now is to introduce a law that makes all current poles and ducts and infrastruture (excluding the data centres) available to any company at the cost of operation of maintenance proportional to the traffic, eg a small isp can use comcasts cables and if there using 20% of the cables then they pay 20% of the cost for maintenance and general care. this would then allow small isps to reach alot more customers with less investment leading to more competition.

 

That is like saying you build/buy a house, and I have the legal right to move in if you want it or not. so you pay $300 000 for the house and ill just move in and pay $100/m for utilities and maintenance. I dont think that is fair, they have to pay rent. they need a law that makes it were rent can not exceed a certain value of the infrastructure.

[ltguy]

Actually its nothing like that.

[Toddwjp]

That is like saying you build/buy a house, and I have the legal right to move in if you want it or not. so you pay $300 000 for the house and ill just move in and pay $100/m for utilities and maintenance. I dont think that is fair, they have to pay rent. they need a law that makes it were rent can not exceed a certain value of the infrastructure.

 

except that's a terrible analogy,  because the house is the sole piece of property here, what im saying is you make the connecting cables from house house street to street ect essentially the same as the electrical cables overhead, any company can use them but pays a price to cover cost of maintenance and constant improvement. i mean your government has already paid for the companies to lay the cables in most places. (see tax breaks and money given over the last 100 years to these telecoms companies) this would shift competition to data centres and pricing and other things like unlimited data etc. this is how it is in the uk any broadband has a cost of line rental and a cost of the broad band. the line rental is paid to the owner of the lines and is heavily regulated to make sure it makes a tiny if any profit (out side an allocated profit that is meant to be used to upgrade them in places where necessary)

[Albatross]

Can someone please explained to me what Net Neutrality is? The Tek Syndicate video does not explain it well enough. I keep hearing people say if you support it you support socalism or some shtako like that, and if you don't, you are a hard core conservative.

 

Please, someone explain to me.

[mr moose]

Australia NN debate is around the corner.  Probably in the next 5 years.  Right this second only the inner metro areas and people close to Uni enjoy speeds over 25Mb so NN is not major, but when the NBN goes through (which despite all the misconceptions will actually go through) then we'll see players like foxtel (fox/murdoch) try to inject their special blend of consumer control into the internet.  We are already seeing it with TV both cable, satellite and internet steaming like netflix.    Free to air tv has very limited AFL and it is intentionally compressed to worse than SD quality, this is to force people to buy the foxtel sports pack at $50 a month.  

[NateGSR117]

Nice!

[The Benjamins]

except that's a terrible analogy,  because the house is the sole piece of property here, what im saying is you make the connecting cables from house house street to street ect essentially the same as the electrical cables overhead, any company can use them but pays a price to cover cost of maintenance and constant improvement. i mean your government has already paid for the companies to lay the cables in most places. (see tax breaks and money given over the last 100 years to these telecoms companies) this would shift competition to data centres and pricing and other things like unlimited data etc. this is how it is in the uk any broadband has a cost of line rental and a cost of the broad band. the line rental is paid to the owner of the lines and is heavily regulated to make sure it makes a tiny if any profit (out side an allocated profit that is meant to be used to upgrade them in places where necessary)

If the cables are payed for by the government then I don't have a issues, I just think its unfair if a company solo pays for infrastructure and has to give it out for free.

[Brughc]

Can someone please explained to me what Net Neutrality is? The Tek Syndicate video does not explain it well enough. I keep hearing people say if you support it you support socalism or some shtako like that, and if you don't, you are a hard core conservative.

 

Please, someone explain to me.

 

Basically it means that all data on the internet is treated the same. You pay for your internet and the down/up speed determines how much you pay for it. So no mater what you are doing on the internet (watching youtube, browsing the ltt forum etc.) you should be able to do it at the speed you pay for but isp's have violated that in the past by slowing down or giving priority to different services.

 

Without net-neutrality isp's could for example slower down the bandwidth of youtube so you won't be able to watch videos properly and charge you extra if you want the normal bandwidth for youtube. Because in the end it is all about making money. You could go way more in-dept but I wanted to give you an as short answer as I could. 

[TopWargamer]

Neato.

 

@GoodBytes

 

As a side note, use "exempted" instead of "excepted."

[Albatross]

Basically it means that all data on the internet is treated the same. You pay for your internet and the down/up speed determines how much you pay for it. So no mater what you are doing on the internet (watching youtube, browsing the ltt forum etc.) you should be able to do it at the speed you pay for but isp's have violated that in the past by slowing down or giving priority to different services.

 

Without net-neutrality isp's could for example slower down the bandwidth of youtube so you won't be able to watch videos properly and charge you extra if you want the normal bandwidth for youtube. Because in the end it is all about making money. You could go way more in-dept but I wanted to give you an as short answer as I could. 

 

Thank you!

 

People kept telling me it meant taking away capitalism, preventing the ISPs from having packages at different speeds and costs at all. Now I know that's not at all what it means!

[GoodBytes]

Neato.

 

@GoodBytes

 

As a side note, use "exempted" instead of "excepted."

Thanks

[Toddwjp]

If the cables are payed for by the government then I don't have a issues, I just think its unfair if a company solo pays for infrastructure and has to give it out for free.

 

nah not saying that, internet infrastruture should be treated like roads, everyone gets to use them but every ones pays to maintain them. anyway if your wondering how much money the us government has given to the telecoms companies. i mean the usa goverment gave 200 billion dollars to the telecoms to deploy fibre around 20 years ago, plus all the tax breaks they have had since then, as well as negotiated price freezes and other clever ways to get more money