Originally Posted by kjs (Post 19947461)

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?

Originally Posted by Nathan (Post 19946842)

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...

Originally Posted by DJ Duncan (Post 19947469)

Google's on it.....
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."

Originally Posted by slavdogg (Post 19947654)

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.

Originally Posted by DJ Duncan (Post 19948403)

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.

Originally Posted by slavdogg (Post 19947654)

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.

Originally Posted by adultmobile (Post 19949145)

No issue, Google it can detect your ISP from the IP and show search results (sites + ads) that fits your ISP plan capabilities only. Plus, it could advertise ISPs giving access to more sites of the kind you just searched, such as: "your ISP does not allow X, click here to buy an X plan".
The issue I see there it is that all of the money it is collected by the ISPs, so you should deal with the ISPs to get paid for the content downloaded, rather than Visa/MC?

We know that "internet is for porn" (and pirate or at least very cheap mainstream movies/music/games), so if bigger ISPs will limit or make more expensive the access to tubes (or torrent), automatically millions of people will migrate to the smaller ISPs giving full and cheap access to the dirt. As someone stated, this it can be an opportunity to start an porn ISP, also striking deals with tube guys (and torrent sites...) for traffic rev share. Further, hosting + ISP it could be same company, for example a MojoHost opening a MojoISP or a TubeHost opening a TubeISP making it all at once.

Originally Posted by Nathan (Post 19946842)

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...