Fred Windish Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Also known as 'Net Neutrality,' I feel certain all kinds of streaming will be affected. I also expect cost to the consumer will rise. But, what other considerations are up for discussion in a drum corps sort of way? I'll start with the absurd . . . . DCI Finals WILL be streamed, but the event is now an ALL EXHIBITION show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runner235 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 It shouldn't have much of an impact on the everyday consumer initially. If anything for the little guys like DCI, it ensures that their streams get just as much priority between the pipe leading into your house and to your ISP. IMO, this is an excellent thing. For the providers like DCI, Netflix, Amazon, the key to getting quality content and priority content into the homes is going to be more related to how well their datacenter and servers peer with the internet backbone that routes traffic to the ISP. Watching a 1080p stream from a datacenter in the US that has one or two skips / hops to link up with backbone and Comcast uses is an entirely different (and better experiment) than trying to stream 1080p content from a datacenter in the EU that has a bunch of more nodes to pass through to get to Comcast. Dependent on how those backbone providers peer with one another and the amount of bandwidth they have, it'll have an impact on the inhome quality. What I'd expect to see happen is they'll claim they need to purchase more bandwidth from their backbone providers and pass that buck along to us. Working in the tech space, it's a good regulation to level set the playing field and make sure that every packet that makes it your ISP has an equal opportunity to get to your house. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyWonder1911 Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Things like this always start off with the promise of good intentions and being necessary and harmless, good for society, etc., but many fail to realize that if you give someone the power to make things "better", they can also change the definition of "better" into whatever they arbitrarily decide fits in with their philosophy. All they need is that little bitty window to be opened just a crack. This has gone on for generations. 4 legs good, 2 legs bad, and even that turned into 4 legs good, 2 legs even better. Fascism exists both on the left and the right. In fact, altogether, the left and the right are two sides of the same coin and have been for a while now. I hope all corps have a good show this season and that Fan Network will be even better than before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Windish Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 Thank you, Runner. I really don't know what to make of this. You provide an intelligent, positive take. I have read a few, equally intelligent sounding, NEGATIVE descriptions of such regulation. I truly hope this discussion will become a learning opportunity as it relates to enjoying drum corps through the web, something I do almost exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) When those most opposed to the ruling are those companies who hoped to charge a premium price to content providers for the "right" to have their content reach the consumer in the highest quality feed (at the same time the ISP is charging consumers a premium to access the highest speed content) - that should tell you something about whether it's a good deal for consumers or not. Meanwhile, the US has broadband speeds ranked significantly slower than many other industrialized countries, at pricing that is significantly higher. Maybe the ISPs should be focused on providing better service at a better price, rather than ######## at Washington for cutting off their ability to gouge. Edited February 27, 2015 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 When those most opposed to the ruling are those companies who hoped to charge a premium price to content providers for the "right" to have their content reach the consumer in the highest quality feed (at the same time the ISP is charging consumers a premium to access the highest speed content) - that should tell you something about whether it's a good deal for consumers or not. Meanwhile, the US has broadband speeds ranked significantly slower than many other industrialized countries, at pricing that is significantly higher. Maybe the ISPs should be focused on providing better service at a better price, rather than ######## at Washington for cutting off their ability to gouge <charge what the market will bear>. Fixed that for ya'. Does this get us closer or farther away from ala-carte pricing for broadband v. content packages? "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Even one you have to make up, apparently. Hey, they broke up and regulated Ma Bell and look what we have today! Verizon and Sprint! Yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Net Neutrality is generally a GREAT thing for all except the billion dollar companies (and the senators they bribe donate to). Not only will there be rules saying companies can't charge more for "faster" internet, but providers won't be able to throttle customers who don't pay more (or screw companies who can't afford to pay more money to compete with Netflix) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Hey, they broke up and regulated Ma Bell and look what we have today! Verizon and Sprint! Yay! And US Cellular. And AT&T. And T-Mobile. And Crickett, if you want. Are they competing for your business? Yup. Are they willing to offer better service for less money in order to get it? Yup. But if you're like most people, you don't get that option when it comes to broadband providers. You're stuck with whoever your town contracted with to provide the service. There goes "the market." Given that there is no genuine "free market" when it comes to wired broadband service, it's not a very effective argument against protecting at least the right of the consumer and content provider to connect with each other without the ISP using their monopolistic system as leverage against either party. Edited February 27, 2015 by Slingerland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Net Neutrality is generally a GREAT thing for all except the billion dollar companies (and the senators they bribe donate to). Not only will there be rules saying companies can't charge more for "faster" internet, but providers won't be able to throttle customers who don't pay more (or screw companies who can't afford to pay more money to compete with Netflix) So it sounds like you are saying they can't give a better price to customers who don't need super fast internet? And companies with critical needs for fast and highly reliable service including those many people depend on can no longer acquire such service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrownBariDad Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 But if you're like most people, you don't get that option when it comes to broadband providers. You're stuck with whoever your town contracted with to provide the service. There goes "the market." Hmmm... I'm not seeing that. I can choose between AT&T, Comcast, and various satellite providers. My town only "provides" free WiFi in the downtown area and we are free to use it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts