Adult Internet Neutrality

As it doesn’t feature any Asian girls this video is technically off-topic, but if you want to be able to continue to enjoy sites like Asian Sirens at the same speed you always have, net neutrality is very much on topic. I can barely afford to run AS as it is, so I certainly won’t be able to pay extortion money to US cable operators to maintain its present speed. So if you’re one of our vast majority of US readers, stand up for a continued free, fair and open internet!

 


 

  1. Avatar of French

    Well done, Doc. And very well-explained.

    So many places in the world have lightning fast internet, and in many places (huge areas of Vietnam) internet access is free too.

    And yet, the USA lags behind in both speed and access.

  2. Avatar of gunnar

    this is a very important topic. those who have a way to fight should do it as much as possible. we don’t want a planet where only youtube and netflix can work properly.

  3. Avatar of fungusfarm

    Point taken! good video! Agreed to stand up for free, fair and open internet!
    “Slower! Slower!” lol

    Thank you, Doc, and others for running this site that I enjoy much!

  4. j smith’s avatar

    Yes, a very big thank you to Doc and fellow contributers.

  5. Nik2’s avatar

    American internet is quite monopolistic, broadband speed lags behind Namibia and it is perhaps among world’s most regulated, which in turn inhibits investment and invention. Even my phone/cable bill includes “universal connectivity fee” which then pays for free phones for welfare rats. After Obama touted net “neutrality”, AT&T cancelled its plans to bring faster internet connection to 100+ American cities. Why invest billions in modern info highways and then see others ride it for free? Oh, one more thing – one of those older ladies mentioned Commcast, which supported Obama and Democrats at rate of 9:1. Well, they slept with dogs & now they’re waking up bitten by flees.

  6. Avatar of Dr. Lee

    Nik2,

    This is exactly why basic infrastructure needs to be strongly regulated or even publicly owned. Business just wants to go where the money is and to hell with everybody else; only strong regulation which forces them to treat everyone equally will ensure that they do.

  7. gunnar’s avatar

    Nik2,

    Wow you’re quite a hater… lol

  8. gunnar’s avatar

    Dr. Lee wrote:
    Nik2,

    This is exactly why basic infrastructure needs to be strongly regulated or even publicly owned. Business just wants to go where the money is and to hell with everybody else; only strong regulation which forces them to treat everyone equally will ensure that they do.

    i couldn’t agree more, but many americans love their “freedom” so much that they won’t want anything publicly owned, even if they have to pay the price with this terrible internet they use everyday… unfortunately.

  9. Nik2’s avatar

    Dr. Lee wrote:
    Nik2,

    This is exactly why basic infrastructure needs to be strongly regulated or even publicly owned. Business just wants to go where the money is and to hell with everybody else; only strong regulation which forces them to treat everyone equally will ensure that they do.

    Absolutely not. I want a free competition between providers, with minimal gov’t interference. Anyone charging more for less would be left dead in water & go bankrupt. Market forces regulate morality of profit.

  10. Nik2’s avatar

    gunnar,

    Tell me why.

  11. Avatar of Dr. Lee

    Nik2,

    You appear to not be using the quote/reply feature correctly—I had to edit both of your comments to make sense of them.

    In your utopian capitalist paradise, which internet provider is going to service remote communities when they’d have to charge them hundreds of dollars a month to make it worth their while? That’s why the original telecommunications act was brought in, otherwise country people wouldn’t even have telephones.

  12. Avatar of wingsfan19

    Tempting to go into a political discussion here, but just let me say that I especially love the brunette and if I don’t look too carefully, she appears a bit Asian.

  13. Avatar of The-Dean

    Dr. Lee,

    While still lagging in most of the country, some US cities have started to fight back. Chattanooga Tennessee how has a non-profit company (EPB) supplying blazing speed over a fiber optic network. I did some remote tech work on a client’s computer today and was shocked at the speed of their Internet. It maxed out the Ookla speed test at speedtest.net.

    More US cities are (finally) starting to catch on. You are right, the US is still far behind the far east, and monopolistic cable/telephone practices are to blame.

    https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141104014739-90103575-top-24-cities-with-fastest-internet-speeds-in-2014

    I should have noted much of Europe is behind even the US in broadband access and speed.

  14. Avatar of daznlover

    Nik2,

    There is no such thing as morality of profit. There is only the culture of maximum profit for shareholders. You should know that, if you ever worked in such kind of company (a Fortune 500 or similar).
    For some company which is publicly traded, the logic is to provide as much profit as possible to the shareholders. If the management doesn’t do that, it faces criticism and most certainly replacement. Therefore, there is no moral or crucial social responsibility (except for the usual show-offs) when running these companies. That’s why regulation must exist, to provide some ground rules to the cut-throat business tactics that go around.

    Having said that, companies already charge their customers for normal Internet access packages. There are several options, where poorer customers usually pay for cheaper packages and slower Internet. And well off customers usually pay for pricier packages and faster Internet. Companies already charge accordingly to Internet speed provided. But they only charge customers.

    Now, without Net Neutrality, operators also want to start charging the businesses that are accessible through the Internet.
    Metaphorically speaking: today we have a city that provides streets and avenues where businesses can open stores. The big businesses opened up stores in the big avenues, while the smaller businesses opened up stores in the streets crossing the avenues. But now, despite the city already making a nice profit (from charging the population for using the avenues/streets and from charging rent to the big businesses that are located on the main avenues), the city wants to start charging the businesses that are located on the side streets. If the small/medium businesses don’t pay the bill, they will get some sort of roadblock on front of their store, effectively dissuading customers from going there.

    I understand that operators should charge some businesses that make an intensive use of infrastructure and congest the streets (Netflix and Youtube), with lots of trucks (trucks of video content, so to speak). That seems fair, since they are the ones taking advantage of the infrastructure. And Netflix already has some business agreements in place, to guarantee that they compensate the operators for the extra congestion.
    What is not acceptable is the intention to start charging more the small/medium businesses, since they already pay to be connected to the infrastructure. Why pay more, if they are not the ones congesting the infrastructure? And, even if they congest the infrastructure a bit, it is better to divide the costs among all the players/customers, instead of just charging abusively over some small congestion and, in that process, scare away the startups and innovators that can come up with new ideas/businesses (even with some congestions).

    Let’s not forget that everybody is paying the operators right now. And the operators are having steady profits! So, the distribution of costs is really happening and they are charging some high congestion businesses such as Netflix and Youtube, which are big guys that can afford that.

    Who’s paying and what:
    - Big companies: they pay for Internet data cables and for hosting their servers in the operators owned data centers, to have a faster access to the Internet.
    - Small/Medium companies: they pay for Internet data cables and/or for hosting their servers in intermediary data centers, to have average access to the Internet (in fact, their sites are already affected by lower speed of access).
    - Customers: they pay for Internet access packages accordingly to their chosen speed of access.

    Net Neutrality: doesn’t charge more the small/medium businesses that have Internet sites/stores, effectively allows ease of access to everyone in more or less equal terms, and promotes more competition and startups and new business ideas.

    No Net Neutrality: only boosts the profits of operators (which are already good) and kills or severely affects many small/medium businesses (or even amateur websites like this!) that use the Internet as a very important channel but can’t afford new and higher fees. Is this what we really want/need?

  15. Avatar of daznlover

    Meanwhile, in Hungary, an hungry state was seriously thinking about taxing Internet data consumption, on a basis of 62 cents per GigaByte.
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/29/359893123/close-to-100-000-protesters-turn-out-to-protest-internet-usage-tax

    Let’s admit it: everyone is salivating to make more money and the Internet is an easy target. But the telecom operators are making a profit as they have always did and there is no reasonable need to impose more taxes and costs on customers and companies. In fact, that is strongly against a competitive and healthy market!

  16. Avatar of French

    @daznlover: Well done! I like that “visual” you described.

:) 
:D 
;) 
:( 
:? 
8) 
8O 
more...