|
Net neutrality ruling could screw tube sites!
Bend over tube site owners and get the lube out, there’s a 500 hundred pound gorilla dressed in a cable guy costume ready to impale you in your backside! (Thanks to cable industry lobbyists)
The U.S. Court of Appeals struck down FCC rules requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to be neutral in their restrictions on bandwidth. What does this mean!? This move means ISPs will be allowed to charge content providers based on how much bandwidth they use! Holly shit!, I don’t know of any sites that uses more bandwidth than adult tube sites other than mainstream sites like youtube or dailymotion or possibly banned sites like piratesbay! Any thoughts?? |
We're talking about some double-edge sword territory here.
|
yes it will be bad for tubes. it will also be bad for everyone thats not a billion dollar corporation.
|
Problem is, thanks to the tubes lots of real sites are barely hanging on at present. Even modest cost increases would be enough to do a good many of them in.
Bottom line: The collateral damage from ending net neutrality will probably outweigh the good. . |
this wont hurt tubes as much as you think :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:
|
You aware of the types of profits some of these tubes are pulling in? Bandwidth? pffft
|
|
|
It won't hurt tubes at all. You can expect that if anything, the cost will be shouldered by the consumer.
|
If this goes ahead it will have very considerable effects on the internet including tubes.
Cams and dating used to be the mantra for tube ad sales. Now its pretty much just dating, and that business is getting harder by the day. Anyone who thinks that the the BW suppliers wont leverage this to their advantage clearly does not understand how capitalism works. |
It will be a fucking nightmare - It scares me that anyone in the biz would think it's an OK idea...
The net will become a 2 (or more) tier system - Where do you think porn (not just tubes) will end up?.... |
FRED WILSON: The Net Neutrality Decision Will Be A 'Nightmare' For New Startups |
So who is going to start charging more? Bandwidth providers (hosting)?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What makes you think it will be bad for tubes? The big tubes are owned by the same groups and they make money. What makes you think they won't just pay the extra fee that is sure to come? This will hurt the small pay site owner more that the tubes...
The telco and cable companies have fought for this for years. They are going to fuck shit up royally. If you have Comcast, AT&T, Verizon you are probably fucked because they were the biggest ones pushing for this so they will be the most bold with it out of the box.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If you ask me: The ISPs want a business model like the print newspapers and magazines have (rapidly declining) -- get their money from both ends -- the reader's cost per copy and the advertisers rates. Change the parties to viewer and originating website owner -- same thing really. |
Quote:
Backbone traffic is delivered to consumer ISP networks -- the toll window goes up there too on the information (now data) highway? |
Quote:
:) |
|
Quote:
I don't think so -- there are numerically few backbone providers to be the cause of price manipulation -- The Sherman Anti-Trust Act almost guarantees that. |
It's not good, and if this trade agreement gets fast-tracked, it will get even worse...
https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1130649 |
Get the "GUNS"
OH NOES! :1orglaugh Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Nobody here seems to understand what Net Neutrality is! And you supposedly are internet entrepreneurs?!
Net Neutrality was the name for the FCC rule that states that ISPs (actual ISPs for customers, not hosts) are not allowed to charge different costs to CONSUMERS depending on the TYPE of traffic they use. It has nothing to do with hosting. Hosting providers can do whatever they want since day one. This means that, without NetNeutrality, AT&T for example could charge their customers NOTHING for just surfing the web, but $5 a minute for watching a video on any streaming website (obviously exaggerated). Or Comcast could charge people $5 per MB for torrents they download, and $10 a month if they use video streaming services other than those Comcast owns (argument being, that Comcast has no cost internally using its own systems, but externally needs to fill its network with traffic from outside sources and thus invest more in infrastructure). These are just two examples of what Net Neutrality is all about. That being said, yes, you are correct, it could mean problems for Tube Sites because customers might start to pay more money to their ISPs if they visit any porn tube sites. Theoretically this could be now possible to implement. I doubt they will though. Hope this helps people understand better... |
Think file lockers and being able to sue a bit torrent user in court for the $1,000,000 in bandwidth bill he skipped out on.
|
With all the porn watched, mega sites like xHamster or xvideos or pornhub are going to feel the pinch and in turn the smaller tube sites that feed in content from these bigger sites will feel the pinch. How? Slower and possibly chopper feeds. To avoid this, they are going to have to pay or risk losing visitors. Will the visitor to the site pay ISPs for faster access or will the content providers pay for across the board speed, who the fuck really knows. Here's a stat that help Netflix stock drop yesterday, Netflix will have to pay an est. 75 to 100 million more per year to cable ISPs for bandwidth and if you think they are not going to place some fucked up porn surcharge on the big boys you're living in XXXanadu.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I've always thought internet usage charges should be based on actual usage. So the few people who are sucking 90% of the bandwidth should be paying out the ass.
|
Quote:
You obviously have no idea who our clients are... Sorry Bronco, it's just shocking to hear such stupidity..... |
One thing I've learned in Life: rich people get whatever the fuck they want (eventually). So, in a few years, there will be a multi-tiered Internet with various levels of entry and access. The more you pay the more Internet you get. Period.
Solution? Time for a whole new Internet - which won't work, ultimately. We are ALL fucked so deal with it. /MrHappy |
|
ok
Yes rates have been getting lower to date.
But the whole purpose of Major ISP's like Verizon taking this to Court is to charge Tiered Rates in the FUTURE. Therefore commercial (large and small business) and high bandwidth end users will pay a much higher rate in the Future. Netflix, Tubes and even Pay sites. Basically the with this ruling the costs of bandwidth in the Future will probably increase (note the word Future). Corporations go to Court for a reason basically Commercial gain aka Profits. |
Quote:
|
I'm confused how this is going to play out.
Let's say I am an AT&T broadband customer, and I use Netflix. Is AT&T going to throttle my bandwidth from Netflix? If my ISP was throttling my bandwidth I would be furious and would drop them in a heartbeat. (I get free Internet from my HOA and have for years.) |
I see this as a market opportunity to start an ISP. I'm sure I'm not alone in that line of thinking. If an ISP is going to charge me for video content I'd be happy to relocate to another. It happened with cellular plans, why not metered bandwidth?
|
Quote:
Google Fiber fiber.google(dot)com I'm quoting google here, "Google Fiber starts with a connection that is 100 times faster than today's average broadband speeds. Instant downloads. Crystal clear high definition TV." |
Quote:
|
This industry has to have more idiots per 1000 than any other on earth.
|
So the ISPs and telcos are going to have a say in which data they deliver to you, its source, and the speed you can access it at. Basically editorial (for commercial reasons) control of the internet.
Which begs the question why they claim they are unable to do this for piracy, or porn, or cp, or anything else whenever governments or pressure groups suggest doing exactly this for moral/ethical reasons ? |
Quote:
|
bring it on.
More money from consumers = more money for content providers/tube sites. Bigger piece of a pie for everyone to split. The flip side is also true, more bandwitch costs for tube sites = less profits for tube sites = Less tubes or more consolidation. It's in everyone's best interest to have more not less traffic going through the pipes. Backbone providers and ISPs are not going to cut them selves out the game by raising the prices to levels where it cuts companies out the game. |
The USA really needs to put Net-neutrality into the trash. How else would you be able to block the citizens from reading about real-world-issues and visit sites like Wikileaks?
The only site you should be able to visit is Foxnews. j/k, this is sickening. |
Quote:
It will end up that ISP clients will be asked 'Do you want to watch porn? OK, I am signing you up for the PERVERT PLAN, that's extra' - Nightmare..... |
|
Looking at it from Google's point of view....
Someone does a search on Google for "____ videos" (you fill in the blank) It returns a list of sites that fit its criteria. Oh, but wait, the 1st spot on page one is blocked by the cable provider in your area and, oh shit, spot #2 is also blocked. Even worse for Google, you click on a paid ad and oh snap, that site is blocked, too. This could decimate or seriously hamper Google's #1 revenue stream. Maybe I'm totally off but I can see why Google is fighting to keep net neutrality. |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123