On December 14 the Federal Communications Commission will almost certainly be voting in favor of doing away with net neutrality. If you’re not familiar with net neutrality, check out this article we wrote earlier this year on the topic. It is the idea of a free and open Internet. As it stands right now, users are able to access the Internet freely, with no speed or data caps regardless of the websites they visit. If the plan the FCC is proposing passes (and it probably will in a three versus two vote), the Internet as we know it may well be on its way out.
For photographers who own a professional photography business (and for any small business for that matter), this is bad news. It means that in the future, small businesses may be forced to pay ISPs (Internet service providers) so that potential clients are able to access our websites or portfolios as efficiently as the websites of our competitors who may have more money to give to ISPs to favor their websites. ISPs will be allowed to create “fast lanes” for those with the deepest pockets. And as any professional knows, website speed matters to consumers and consumers are notorious for having extremely short attention spans.
Beyond website speeds, videographers and photographers who advertise using videos may suffer as well. ISPs could potentially choose to throttle websites like YouTube or Vimeo based on what companies own which websites and who might be willing to pay more for better access. It's all a mess.
This has been an ongoing talk since regulations were put in place in 2015 to protect consumers by having a neutral Internet. What is different now is the FCC has a chairman who has been staunchly opposed to net neutrality. He argues that the regulations put in place in 2015 were flawed and by abolishing net neutrality, the Internet will be a free marketplace for businesses and that all consumers and companies will have different options to choose from based on their needs. He also promises that ISPs will have to be transparent with whom they choose to throttle or give preference to with “fast lanes”. In essence, this is the only rule for ISPs in the new FCC proposal. They can throttle whoever they want so long as they’re transparent about it. Perhaps if consumers had more options to choose from in regards to what ISPs to use to access the Internet, this may be a viable plan, but as it is right now, with so few ISPs to choose from, and that stand with much more money and power than smaller companies, net neutrality is certainly doomed.
If you stand for net neutrality, please visit battleforthenet.com, enter your phone number and call your congressperson. Urge them to do the right thing and oppose the FCC’s new proposal.
Lead image by pixabay.com via Pexels.
Hahaha. Did we suffer before this was enacted? Nope.
It's the "by default " state, we never had a net without net neutrality.
Not true! Visit Danette's site. Then look at the source of her web page. If you look past the Google Analytics, Heatmap IT, Facebook connect, etc. in the combination of JavaScript and CSS, you'll see the site is built on Showit. They use Cloudflare CDN services (the links are in the code, right there to see). What are Content Delivery Network (CDN) services? Oh, its where someone pays an ISP or backbone provider to put caches of content--scripts, GIFs, JPGs, streams, basically all the 'parts' of the web page--on that provider's backbone so that the items are "closer" (in network time) to the end user. It provides for a better web experience, say, than if Danette hosted the page on a server in her studio office.
CDN has been around for years. Akamai, who may be the largest, had $2.3 billion in sales last year. So the free market--really the state before 2015--has already been doing something like this for years. Akamai was founded in 1998. And, no, you as the end user don't pay extra to see those sites that use it and sites that don't only suffer because the chose their sources poorly. I'm thinking Danette is OK with the service she's getting from Showit. And, yes, the author of the piece is complaining about something that, in effect, they already use...
How old are you? That question is not out of disrespect. I'm old enough to remember an Internet where your level of access was based on how much bandwidth you were willing to purchase for your business services. Now, buying a big pipe isn't enough. You have to shell out for priority too. You've got network providers also providing services AND giving their services priority over the competition. That was never done early on. If it was, you got your hand wacked!
25, but france is really specific as internet is really cheap and bandwith has always been unlimited. (of course not the speed).
That comment was spot on! Oh how liberals love for someone else to tell them what to do. Get the government out of everything.
You may just end up with spending more time of your short life to access some services
You'll save 0,5 seconds on netflix, loose 3 on Youtube, etc .. no ISP will have agreements to even all the major websites. That's not even talking about the smaller ones.
the point with net neutrality if to forbid ISP from having private agreements with some services (like subscribe to ISP A and have a quicker access to Youtube for 5$ more / month).
As there are about .. 3/4 ISP / country (average), the oligopoly will probably end up with higher prices in order to surf in decent conditions.
In real life it would be the same if roads owners make you pay more to access Mc Donalds instead of wendy's
As long as we're talking logical fallacies, you might want to check your own:
"This article is patently false and the author simply has no idea what “net neutrality” is really about!"
- Setting up a false dichotomy, no supporting evidence for blanket statement
"I am shocked, simply shock at the ignorance of some our young people today."
- What does age have to do with this? (And besides, I thought it was older people who are thought to have a poorer understanding of the Internet.)
- Ad hominem
- Argument from (age-based) authority
"If you think net neutrality is a good thing, then you would think franchises are a good idea, (don’t know what franchises are when it come to utilities, look it up). If you think net neutrality is a good thing, then you think a “tax” on email is a good thing. If you think net neutrality is a good thing, then you believe in subsidies for Netflix, google, and other high traffic users of ISPs."
- Non-sequitur and what are you even arguing here? You attacked the veracity of this article first, then reshaped your response as an ideological opposition to certain political ideas rather than a question of factual soundness.
Who taxes you for emails ? I don't see the point
I'm not american, but I still don't understand the point with net neutrality.
I meant "the link with net neytrality" sorry. Can't connect the dots of what you were saying about emails
No please, explain to us how net neutrality is a tax your emails.
He has zero ansewr because he doesn't understand what he's talking about.
Why is giving so much power to big media conglomerates – who, without net neutrality will pick and choose the information we all have access to – a good idea? And how does the government now influence web content? Corporate America is not the solution to everything.
Trusting Wells Fargo for your accounts, Bank of America for your mortgages, Uber for your personal data, Lehman Bros for your trades, Enron for your electrical needs, Trump University for your education, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities for your retirement, Lance Armstrong Living for your heath needs, Arthur Anderson for your accounting and Parmalat for your milk, is a strategy I would stick with as well. So it follows letting Verizon look out for you when they decide who they will and will not grant access to your computer and at what price they'll demand you pay, and the provider pay, for that privilege would be the logical next step.
You mean 'corporate fraud'. I'm praising your strategy and suggesting you stick to it. Enjoy your dinner.
"I.T. mishaps" ????? WTF are you smoking?? Those are incredibly huge problems! Corporate America wants to rob you blind.The government also wants to rob you blind and keep you under their boot. Neither corporations or government are good for the internet. Seriously are you sane?
No worries, that's cool. I just think you may be confused. Also thank you for the compliment. You do some pretty good work as well.
Dude. Both government and corporations are terrible. They both own power to fuck us over, and they both do. Except, they have different incentives. Governments can be used to defend everyone's best interests in battles where individuals have little to no power (like in the case of net neutrality). Corporations can provide services and products of good quality. Both need to be kept in check by various means, and both need to be held accountable. Trust me, I hate the government having power over me, and they do take decisions for people that should belong to individuals. But corporations also hold a lot of power, and they also abuse it often. That's what telecoms try to do in this case. If they are allowed to slow down certain services and not others, something that was somewhat decentralized and kind of a digital Wild West becomes more centrally controlled and tamed, but by a few corporations rather than by the government. Almost always, you have to pick which evil you side with. The government had a possibly imperfect but well intended and useful regulation, and that's why big telecoms want to take it away.
Fair. Good thing we don't have to pick a side. I'll be against corporations when they poison people because it's cheaper to dump chemicals in rivers. I'll be against the government when they decide to spy on everyone. I'm a third party with my own bit of power, and I don't like the idea of relinquishing it completely to either side. At best I'll temporarily support one over the other. The world is a nuanced place.
I don't necessarily want to spit on free enterprise, I think that it's essential in many sectors. For the life expectancy boost, I don't think it's entirely related to either free enterprise or government, simply in the advances of medicine and the discovery of hygiene. And Western societies don't hold a monopoly over medicine. The USSR also contributed a lot in research about medicine. So while I think that free enterprise is super beneficial in many instances, sometimes it has to be restrained a little.
I don't know about the 70s, but look at the effects of fracking now. Toxic chemicals are leaking into people's drinking water, and there's places where there regularly are earthquakes from fracking. Shouldn't someone somewhere make sure there's no chemicals leaking into people's water? I'm not saying it has to be the government, but who's going to keep the companies responsible for fracking in check? The companies always deny that they're ruining the environment, and it usually takes investigations to uncover their cover-ups. And how about oil spills? Do those corporations responsible for their spills ever clean it up all by themselves, with their own money, or do they try their best to avoid it and let governments use our money clean it up?
Just saying. There are plenty of examples showing how irresponsible entreprises can be. And like you said, they aren't people. They don't usually care about people, either. Or little else than profitability. By the way, I assume that you're American. Both big parties are financed by corporate donors in favour of which they are biased. It's not a left or right issue, it's an issue across the board when most politicians are bribed and end up taking your money and giving it to the rich.
Again, I'm not in favor of government. I think that whenever enough power is concentrated, it becomes the target of unscrupulous people who are willing to do anything to get their hands on it, and who generally succeed given enough time. But here's the thing. Governments aren't the only entities to hold huge amounts of power. Enterprises also do. And they also are subject to corruption. It's why I'm not in favour of either, really. Actually, I'm in favour of as much decentralization and self-management as possible, in order to reduce corruption and be able to keep more oversight over things.
As I understand net neutrality was a result of public campaign. It just so happen Obama was at the White House when the protest began.
Oh we need to start the education way before net neutrality, many of that generation think socialism is a wonderful system. We're pretty much sunk.
This is out future.
Dude I think you are confused. This is what net neutrality is preventing. It's preventing websites from being packaged. If it goes away you will be charged separately for the websites you visit.
And content providers will have to pay the ISPs to be able to reach their market. So IF ATT has a deal with Netflix, and you want Hulu, good luck getting Hulu if Hulu can't afford to pay ATT to get access to you. Then when AT&T decides they want to bill Netflix more to deliver content to you, and Netflix can't pay, good luck getting Netflix.
Idiots who are pushing to get rid of net neutrality deserve either a slap to the face or be banned from the internet.
Personally, if I ever get to run an ISP, Fox News, Breitbart, and Trump, will ALL be blocked permantely as dangers to the world. And I'll laugh my butt off at all the anti-net neutrality idiots screaming they can't get their glen beck.
Cable isn't governed as utilities boy, and I'm absolutely correct.
Lesser is correct.
You are totally full of yourself. Just like a member of cult45.
that image has nothing to do with net neutrality...
Ahhh, no. To keep it simple, the law currently states that all web traffic be treated equally. This isn't "trusting government instead of corporations", it's simply telling the corporations they can't play favorites with web traffic. On the contrary it keeps politics out of the internet.
It's not because YouTube will take an extra few seconds to load...that won't happen. It will only be between a smaller company vs a larger one. Tiered services is the aim. So to access Facebook or Netflix your speed will be fine. Want to access tier 2 sites? It can be either an extra fee or slower.
It's really either saying "corporations can decide what we have access to and at what speeds" or "everyone has the same access regardless of their size or message"
I work for one of the biggest Telecom of Europe and world, and William you see the tree but not the Woods behind.
They say liberals love government telling them what to do. Well, the alternative group seems to like unelected, unbehoving corporate entities deciding their fate. Two sides of the same coin. If it's only a matter of a few milli- or micro-seconds, why bother interfere with the traffic at all? Yeah, it means something.
Question is, who's doing the buying and paying. Corporate complains about burdensome regulation with one hand then buys favorable legislation with the other. Banks are a perfect example of this. They go to congress and complain about bankruptcy protections. They then get regulation that makes it harder to file with one hand and brings about the worst financial collapse in decades with the other. And who gets the bail out? What government needs to do is make legislation work for the public period. Since the government initiatives developed the IP protocol, they should've hosed anyone trying to coral it the way these guys are tying to do it now. I'm old enough to remember when the guy with the biggest pipe got the most attention because you could reach his/her services faster. That was the value of the Internet then. Now we have entities tagging on extra fees and hot lanes. Me buying a larger pipe than the next guy should be enough.
Honestly, you give me the "tin-foiled hat grumpy old man" vibe. Net Neutrality is to prevent ISP's from throttling your connection to website X unless they pay up (as has happened before), it's also a way to try and prevent the monopolization of ISP's in certain areas and rack up prices simply because they have an arrangement with the competition. You want to keep paying $115 on 100Mbit up/down connections on Comcast? Be my guest. I'll keep enjoying my $34 200/200 connection, unthrottled access and unmonopolized ISP providers. If you don't understand something, don't ruin it for the rest of the good people, old man.
LOL, everyone's passion is on fire on this thread!
People do not realize that Corporate and Government are both one and the same. There is no difference now. But people who just mindlessly believe media without questioning anything are the sheeple that think the two are different. They are not! United States is a corporation in Delaware. Look it up. Your local Cops, Fireman, senate, are all corporations. Look it up!! Don't believe me. Look it up! You live in total fascism and have done so your whole life!! Wake up people. . . .
But there is a difference. We have a choice which corporations we patronize. I also believe that those who think the government is virtuous are inherently naive.
In your area, how many ISP can you chose from?
And that changes things, how? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Someone please tell me that this, if true, is limited to the USA only.
A few nations already have gotten rid of "net neutrality", to see what the end effect will be look at Portugal for one simple example.
Really? Look at Portugal? Please elucidate me as where in Portugal are citizens being harmed in any way?
Do you even know what offers are available in Portugal? The image shared above has nothing to do with net neutrality! Those offers are for mobile phones IN ADDITION of your plan - btw a mobile plan in Portugal costs 10 euros with 3-5 GBs of data... in this case you get your 3-5-10 Gigabytes of data and then if you use a lot of a specific apps, you can pay extra so that the data on those apps don't count towards your balance.
Imagine 10 GBs plan watching 4k videos on Netflix on your cell phone... those 10 gigs would vanish pretty quick.
Or let's say you are photographer and are on the field and using your cell phone to tether data... you choose the cloud plan since that gives you access to GDrive, dropbox etc... you can upload your RAWs easily without using all your data plan...
I think the US should focus more on pricing and competition where they lack, vs comparing to Portugal where it has one of the most advanced technological platforms in regards to data, tv, cell, internet offering - 24 dollars/month for 200/200 Mbps fiber optic internet + cable tv + landphone with free calls worldwide
Dude have you ever traveled outside of the United States? I have, numerous times, I'm pretty sure I understand how things work elsewhere in the world better than your untraveled self.
Go to Japan especially, or pretty much any other western nation, their toilets are much better than ours.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, wanna bet?
21 years in the army, I've seen them in the US.
I understand this is an important issue for net users living in the United States, but I live in South East Asia and unlike Puerto Rico I have fresh water supply here. As a ex medical professional, I know which needs urgent attention and focus.
Since you seem to know so much about what is in my head ......why bother. So predictable. For your biased perception, I was listening to American Teachers Association raising this issue on American television network. Please stay away from grown up conversation if you cannot be mature enough to contribute.
And I will not be replying to you again.