Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I'm wondering where people are coming in on the net neutrality debate. Myself, I worry that if it's overturned it will spell bad news for sites like Homestar. I don't see how small internet businesses and startups could possibly benefit from paying extra for the better connection speeds.

All in all, I think a non-net neutral environment will leave us with this sort of situation: your ISP will offer you premiere connection speeds for a few extra bucks, but only sites like mcdonalds.com and walmart.com will load at those speeds.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

Well, you DO get what you pay for... I see nothing wrong with "if you want a better connection, pay for it".. Makes sense. I mean, if you want a Chevy, you buy a Chevy and pay for a Chevy. If you want a BMW, you pay for a BMW. Why it shouldn't be the same way on the internet is beyond me.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

What about TV? Are you for different stations having to pay to get better quality picture broadcast to their viewers, too? Seems like a better comparison than your car one.

_________________

I'm afraid I don't know much about the issue of TV stations having to pay for better broadcast quality. I guess I could go in support of that. They have advertisers for a reason.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The way counter-neutrality works is like this: you pay money for a nice BMW, but to get to certain locations you have to take a dirt road full of potholes*. As a consumer, you're paying the same or more for high speed access, but you're getting less for your money because the telecoms are controlling the market at both ends.

Back to Homestar: I don't know what the telecoms are going to start charging websites if net neutrality is defeated, but there's a chance that it could cut significantly into the Chapman's profit margin. In order to survive they would either have to jack up prices, accept advertising, or sell memberships. Pay Plus could become a reality. Any of these options would potentially alienate their fanbase.

Over the years certain working models have developed for internet businesses. What the telecoms are proposing will change the ground rules and significantly alter the market. Businesses that were previously doing well, providing livelihoods for people, will have the rug ripped from under them. Again, these changes are very likely to hurt small businesses, the startups, the indepedents...and in the end, of course, the consumer.

Mike

* Some may say, "Well, life is like that." Sure it is, but the internet is not like that and there's no reason why that should change.

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

What do you mean 'sites like Homestar'? Homestarrunner.com is not a small site anymore -- it's traffic rank is in or near the top 3,000 in the world... Walmart is much bigger, but Mcdonalds.com is smaller.

_________________

Well, Homestar gets its money from the sales they make from the internet, unlike Walmart, which can afford to do those kinds of things because they're a multi-billion dollar company. If TBC was suddenly charged to get a faster connection for their servers, then they might not make enough money to get by.

_________________

Sadly, that's the way capitalism works. Survival of the fittest, my friends.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

To add to what Jello B (Biafra?) said, let's bear in mind that on the web, higher traffic equals higher overhead. Homestarrunner.com's popularity is actually a point against it if the COPE act goes through.

Survival of the fittest is a tenet of capitalism, but so are fair competition and consumer protection, and COPE contains provisions for neither. Again, for the consumer all this will mean are higher prices and less service.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

B. != Biafra. Sorry.

_________________

What...?

This is just dumb. Large corporations shouldn't have the right to put small corporations and internet users at a disadvantage just because they have lots of money.

_________________

Large corporations were once small corporations themselves... Why do people think companies like WalMart suddenly just appeared on the planet as multi-billion dollar companies? WalMart had to fight companies like Sears on their way up.. I'm not saying small companies have no right to exist, but it IS survival of the fittest.
If natural selection is good enough to be taught in classrooms, then it's good enough to apply to life.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Shouldn't they be focusing on fighting the OTHER huge corporations, though? Those are the real threats. This'll only kick the others down before they get to stand.

_________________

Believe me, they are. WalMart is more worried about putting K-Mart down than they are of the Mom and Pop's... If they weren't there's a lot of things they could/do differently to target the Ma and Pa stores that they aren't doing..
That's a different thing for a different thread, so

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Best I can tell, K-Mart is pretty much dead anyway. Now TARGET, on the other hand...

_________________

because it doesn't work like that with network neutrality. it has little to do with consumers using sites at speeds and much more to do with a very few companies extorting money. i am fine with paying for a quality connection on the consumer to ISP side, but there is no reason a proprietor of a website should have to give money to the network to ensure a DECENT connection. sadly, it isn't an issue of regular and high quality connections. if the network loses neutrality, every website that doesn't pay up will run slower than what the consumer pays for. i buy cable internet at quite a premium, therefore i expect sites with video and other high bandwidth data to load quickly because i pay the owners of the networks for that. now if i continue to pay my price but lose what i am paying for speed because the website doesn't pay the ISP? that flies in the face of everything the World Wide Web was created to do. the internet is a place of communication and information freely available along with social and commercial opportunities, but this could rip each and every one of us off without anything we can do about it.

what exactly is net neutrality?

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

Have you tried asking a ninja?

_________________

WHAT!!!!! I just got it! HOW DARE THEY EVEN TRY THAT. THE INTERNET SHOULD BE A PLACE WHERE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE INFO YOU WANT, WITHOUT HAVEING TO BE FORCED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE CORPERATIONS WANT YOU TO SEE! YOU MIGHT AS WELL PUT THE 1ST AMMENDMENT THROUGH A PAPER SHREDDER AND BURN THE REMAINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
Wow, It's been like three or 4 years since I've last been here

This is absolutely absurd. Such limiting legislation serves no purpose other than to fill the malicious greed of a select few CEOs. For example, consider that so many children anymore are extremely reliant on the Internet as a source for information and research concerning their scholastic studies. Imagine a child trying to research critiques on Lewis Carroll and being limited to what they can find because only certain sites that provide the information needed were able to pay the fees to the ISP of the child's school and/or home. Our educational system is already strained, and in an era where teachers require more and more Internet sources for research and less and less of any other source, this would be heavily taxing on the child's chance for learning and growth.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

i suppose what i am most worried about is that ISPs will grow to control content through this avenue. say one of the ISPs really hates "immoral" things like disco, good authors, broccoli, and homestar runner (kind of kidding, but people are pretty willing to attack the morality of anything sometimes...) that ISP can then essentially ruin everybody's connection to those websites...no mailorder broccoli for YOU, mister sinner.

And to choose an ISP you'll have to find some way of figuring out what's in their fast lane, what's in their slow lane, and what's on their black list. This could turn out to be an enormous chore, and you still wouldn't find out the whole story until you started surfing.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

While we're at it, I've found this essay which outlines net-neutrality and its implications very well.

_________________
My Last.fm Weekly Top Tracks:

this has to be the funniest portrayal of net neutrality ever.http://thisspartanlife.com/blog05.shtml ah, Damian. What a comedian.

_________________


I lost the state spelling bee in FIFTH PLACE!!

The misconception about Net Neutrality that telecom companies are trying hard to spread is that big internet companies like Google are using an unfair amount of bandwidth. They're saying "Ooh, Google is using sooo much bandwidth, it's only fair that we should be allowed to charge for it." The fact that they're actively trying to hide from consumers is that Google is already paying out the ear for that bandwidth. Google pays for every single byte of bandwidth it uses, and then we, the consumers, pay for it again on our end. What the telecom companies want is way to charge us more without actually giving us more.

They also want a way to squeeze their competitors out of the market. Have you ever used Skype, or Vonage? Enjoy it while it lasts. The companies that are against Net Neutrality, like Comcast and AT&T, have been busy rolling out their own VoIP products, and will soon begin blocking, or severely hampering, competitors' (cheaper and superior) services. Net Neutrality legislation aims to prevent that.

What if Verizon decides to start running its own game servers that players can use for a fee? Of course nobody would use it because free game servers that are just as good are all over the internet. But without Net Neutrality, Verizon can decide they don't like the competition and block or throttle those servers unless you upgrade your service for a tidy fee.

What if Time Warner Cable launches its own social networking site and wants a piece of MySpace's pie? They can claim MySpace is using too much of its bandwidth (even though MySpace is paying for every byte, and so are you) and knock it down to 2kbps unless you're willing to pay extra, in the hopes that you'll use their MySpace clone instead.

What if Comcast notices people are cancelling their TV service because you can now buy a lot of great shows on iTunes, or stream them for free from ABC/NBC/SciFi's web site? There's an easy solution to that: Just make you look at a Buffering...... screen until you get sick of it and subscribe to their TV service again.

Are all of these things legal right now? Yes they are. Should they be? In my opinion, no. Would the telecom companies really do stuff like that? Of course they would, and they will. It's already in the works.

I'll take my Net Neutrality, thanks.

_________________

Ok wait. Why can't ISPs choose what to do with their own infrastructure? Can McDonald's say you can't bring Wendy's food into their resturaunts? Yes. If they did, would you get upset? Maybe, but in the end, it's McDonald's property, they can do what they want with it.

Same with Verizon or Sprint or Cox or whoever.

It's all about capitalism, folks. If the Net Neutrality thing doesn't happen and the big evil ISPs start "throttling the competition" in areas like VOIP or e-mail or whatever, cancel and go with someone else. That's how a free market works. If one producer of a commodity is pissing you off, you go to someone else. That hits your first producer where it hurts, and communicates to them in the only language they speak... money.

There is no single "internet provider" we're fighting against here.

_________________

Blagh Ted Stevens can go jump off a cliff.
I'm with Moby on this one, the net is neutral it is the last free place in this world. The Wild West of the 21st century. Dial-up users will wait HOURS for YTMND and any non-huge business flash content.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

Except that in some places, there is no choice of ISP. For example, in the apartment complex where I live. If I want dial-up, I'd have to spend arms and legs to get Bellsouth (which I don't). And if I want high-speed, I have to settle for Cox Cable (now renamed, but basically the same service - actually, I'm quite pleased with them).

But at least I have better options than my mother. She has a choice between crappy dial-up (26k AT BEST) for $30/month (not worth it in my book) or Satellite for nearly $60/month (not counting hook-up fees and whatnot).

And why don't you ask StrongRad how he enjoys HIS ISP!

Free Enterprise works when there are multiple choices. When those choices are severely limited, it does nothing to help customers except to create very expensive headaches for us.

_________________

TY SMASH! GRAAAAGH!

Ok..

I agree with Lahi, sort of. The owners of infrastructure should be able to use it as they want, and if the users don't like that, they should go to someone else. Unfortunately, there isn't competition. I remember when people first started getting the internet into their homes (28.8 modems were all the rage). It seemed like every 4th person ran an ISP. Back then, changing ISPs wouldn't be a problem.

Now, I'm not so sure. I would like to let companies do whatever they want with the services they provide, so long as they inform their customers what they're doing, but the problem is, there's no option for people who are unhappy with unequal access.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

unfortunately, there is almost no competition in most regions for any of the "utilities". internet is not strictly a utility, but it's a pretty basic bill for most houses, and like electricity, gas, cable, etc. there isn't really much opportunity for competition anymore, and the phone/cable/internet companies keep moving closer to monopoly (think comcast or time warner, or those ads that offer to put those services all under one bill...)

the entire situation would be much easier to sort out if there were real competition in the market.