Will HP be Negatively Affected if we Lose Net Neutrality?

1. 81

   Kain 360posted 7 years ago

   I really hope the FCC does not take away net neutrality. Could content sites like HubPages be negatively affected if the FCC repeals net neutrality regulations? From what I fathom so far, having no net neutrality could effect independent media, applications like Netflixe, and ISPs like Verizon could charge a person for using websites that are in competition with them.
   
   Give me liberty or give me death!

   replyreport
2. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

   Don't know about HP, but it has already started. Got sent a new contract from my ISP this morning clearly implying they could/might start charging me 10 cents a minute to watch Netflix, Youtube, etc.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Chriswillman90posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Are you serious? I really hope not or there's going to be hell to pay. The repeal of these rules is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with your political background, it's just a corporate scandal on the highest order. The chairman of the FCC is a complete scumbag, and I'm afraid of how damaging this repeal will really be.
      
      This will definitely affect smaller creators like us.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         paradigmsearchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         About that new contract from my ISP? Yep, deadly serious. And apparently they can do it without warning, once the 30-day notice from this contract runs out.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kain 360posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That is a complete injustice! What ISP is it?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               paradigmsearchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not going to rat them out until and unless they actually perpetrate something against me. Meanwhile, I bought a kit and built these last weekend just in case.
               
               

               replyreport
         2. 77

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Paradigm, is the fee for watching movies (using a lot of bandwidth and time) or for watching movies from specific locations?  Would Prime be free, while Netflix carry a charge?
            
            My son was charged a year or so ago because he used too many resources watching too many movies - he was forced to upgrade to a different contract costing more but allowing more downloads.  He tried refusing any HD movies, but still ran over his limit and ended up paying the extra.  I was warned once about the same thing - downloading too many GB, but no problem since. 
            
            Still don't like it, but CAN understand and accept that more than charging for specific locations.  One seems a legitimate business practice, the other is way out of line.

            replyreport
3. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

   I believe it is any high-bandwidth usage, including Windows updates I would imagine. It also says they can close your account without notice and at any time and for any reason.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Then it doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality then.  You either buy a "larger" product (more bandwidth) or do without high bandwidth downloads.  And although it is a departure from the past, so is the growing propensity to use tremendous amounts of data, such as frequent movie viewing.  I don't like it, but can understand why it could become common with all ISP's.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         paradigmsearchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Bah-humbug, contract also addresses throttling whoever and whatever they want. I do have a sliver of hope. I'm the last person in the USA that still has a landline, thus I use DSL. Nowhere in the entire contract is DSL mentioned. So while the bottom 25% gets priced out of internet service, I just might survive.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I hear you.  We used to have DSL, but canceled it when we found it just wasn't consistent.  Always losing service, for minutes to hours.  But it does remain an option, and the've improved the service with all fiber now in my area. 
            
            I can kind of see throttling when done by a server - if they want to offer different services then that seems reasonable.  But the ISP that I use?  No way - I don't use their services to have them decide what I can see.  If they want to offer me slow internet at a reduced price, fine, but don't pick and choose which sites will be slow.  Either all or none.

            replyreport
4. 69

   Sherry Hewinsposted 7 years ago

   Only time will tell, but my opinion is that it can't be good. If they can slow down page load time of any site that doesn't' pay to be in the "fast lane," that means the big guys with the deep pockets have a distinct advantage over the little guys.
   
   That would definitely be detrimental to a small blog or a small business website. I'm assuming that HP would still be small potatoes, who wouldn't want to pay for faster load times.

   replyreport
5. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

   My guess? They'll just throttle the competitor sites to the point of unusability, as opposed to outright blocking. Based on the unethical conduct I've personally experienced in the past, I consider it a 99% certainty TWC will pull this stunt. Good-bye Netflex, Hulu, and so forth. Alternative being TWC can now legally extort money from those sites and the subscribers in turn get their rates jacked up. Leastwise that's what TWC has been doing to the TV cable channels for decades.

   replyreport
6. 84

   snakeslaneposted 7 years ago

   Um, nice work.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      paradigmsearchposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks. Duct tape and super glue are amazing.

      replyreport
7. 78

   davidlivermoreposted 7 years ago

   In all seriousness, if the worst were to happen, we would see the internet fold in on itself.  Companies would see less revenue being generated overall from ads, products, etc.  The big internet providers won't see an increase in income, only a decrease.
   
   I have no problem cutting my Netflix, discontinuing watching videos on YouTube, etc.  I don't have cable and never plan to have it.  I'll move to satellite or just go back to old fashioned discs.
   
   It would suck if it hurt HP, as the income is nice, but that's how it may go.
   
   However, it won't be long term.  If the worst happens, every single politician who didn't put a stop to it will be voted out of office, then the new politicians will (hopefully) set things right.
   
   Or, nothing will happen at all and we are worrying about nothing.

   replyreport
8. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 7 years ago

   As long as the HP network doesn't clog up ISP infrastructure with high-bandwidth ads or bury the reader in excess images, I don't think we will even be noticed; thus an ISP won't have any reason to put us on any block or throttle list. Same will apply to all our own websites; on a personal note, I already killed off those obnoxious video ads on mine years ago anyway. Happy Friday.

   replyreport