Internet Marketing Just got Worse Today (Net Neutrality Rules Approved)
- Thread starter jerry55
- Start date
There's nothing wrong with allowing cable companies the freedom to "segregate users" and create a caste system based on an ability to pay. That's essentially the same freedom mobile providers (Verizon, Sprint, etc.) enjoy with regard to pricing their respective plans. In a free market, that same freedom would be considered a given regardless of industry.
The problem with cable is that, like telecom, it's a regulated monopoly (a fact that music4mic already implied). The cable companies have been granted the right by municipal governments to be among the few select providers - and sometimes the only provider - in a given area. (Admittedly, that's an oversimplification. Here's an old article that describes the process by which this happens. To say the process is convoluted is an understatement.)
Once a regulated monopoly has been established, the companies that have been granted the right to "serve" the community are essentially protected from competition. They can do pretty much anything they want as long as they avoid stimulating the ire of their regulatory masters (politicians). Customers have few options due to the monopoly created by their elected leaders.
Net neutrality seeks to obligate cable companies to provide equal access across the board. That's a very populist notion. Everyone hates their cable providers. They feel like they're getting screwed by them. So most folks support the idea of forcing the cable companies - i.e. the "bad guys" - to provide equal internet access at the cost of their profits.
But people were actually screwed a long time ago by their governments. That's how the cable providers came to enjoy their monopoly (i.e. protected) status in the first place. Asking those same governments to pass laws designed to force cable companies to provide equal access is dismissing the role that regulation played in creating the problem.
There are economic reasons to hate net neutrality laws. But those reasons are all but irrelevant given that so many folks have been bamboozled by simple chicanery on the part of their leaders.
The problem with cable is that, like telecom, it's a regulated monopoly (a fact that music4mic already implied). The cable companies have been granted the right by municipal governments to be among the few select providers - and sometimes the only provider - in a given area. (Admittedly, that's an oversimplification. Here's an old article that describes the process by which this happens. To say the process is convoluted is an understatement.)
Once a regulated monopoly has been established, the companies that have been granted the right to "serve" the community are essentially protected from competition. They can do pretty much anything they want as long as they avoid stimulating the ire of their regulatory masters (politicians). Customers have few options due to the monopoly created by their elected leaders.
Net neutrality seeks to obligate cable companies to provide equal access across the board. That's a very populist notion. Everyone hates their cable providers. They feel like they're getting screwed by them. So most folks support the idea of forcing the cable companies - i.e. the "bad guys" - to provide equal internet access at the cost of their profits.
But people were actually screwed a long time ago by their governments. That's how the cable providers came to enjoy their monopoly (i.e. protected) status in the first place. Asking those same governments to pass laws designed to force cable companies to provide equal access is dismissing the role that regulation played in creating the problem.
There are economic reasons to hate net neutrality laws. But those reasons are all but irrelevant given that so many folks have been bamboozled by simple chicanery on the part of their leaders.
Right on money, brah.
I think it's just another covert tactic to earn more monies. First you pay for service(retainer), and then you pay for being able to use all of the benefits the service brings to the table( pay as you go)-- looks like someone wants to make money, fast.
2 different set of plans integrated into a single package. Nice.
So yeah fight the man, activism, write your congressman, call the FCC, etc. Good. I'll do what I can.
But we're all business people here. Let's put the political philosophy aside for a moment and think about how we can minimize damage to our sources of online income if all of this gets pushed through and becomes the new reality. I also don't think this is just an American issue, it will affect the internet everywhere.
So I thought I'd throw this out there: how about our own lobby? An independent webmasters and online marketers association. You buy shares of membership to sponsor full time K Street advocacy for our interests. More shares = more say in the agenda. Would it buy us any real influence? I don't know, I guess we'd find out how big this industry really is.
The FCC in particular seems committed to wiping out this industry with every other stroke of the pen. We can wait around to see if it finally finishes the job or be a little more proactive.
The system is rotten to its core and we need to conduct our business in a way that reflects that like every other serious industry does. It doesn't hurt that our interests happen to coincide with a pro-freedom position that benefits all of the internets.
To me, making money online is part of a dwindling class of professions that allows you to live life out of virtual servitude. I think it's important enough get organized around. And by organized I don't mean waving signs and writing letters, I mean representing our interests with money.
But we're all business people here. Let's put the political philosophy aside for a moment and think about how we can minimize damage to our sources of online income if all of this gets pushed through and becomes the new reality. I also don't think this is just an American issue, it will affect the internet everywhere.
So I thought I'd throw this out there: how about our own lobby? An independent webmasters and online marketers association. You buy shares of membership to sponsor full time K Street advocacy for our interests. More shares = more say in the agenda. Would it buy us any real influence? I don't know, I guess we'd find out how big this industry really is.
The FCC in particular seems committed to wiping out this industry with every other stroke of the pen. We can wait around to see if it finally finishes the job or be a little more proactive.
The system is rotten to its core and we need to conduct our business in a way that reflects that like every other serious industry does. It doesn't hurt that our interests happen to coincide with a pro-freedom position that benefits all of the internets.
To me, making money online is part of a dwindling class of professions that allows you to live life out of virtual servitude. I think it's important enough get organized around. And by organized I don't mean waving signs and writing letters, I mean representing our interests with money.
Sounds like a good time to launch a hosting business which pays the ISPs to not throttle all sites on their servers...
I'm normally viewed as a pessimist, but when it comes to business; I tend to see opportunities everywhere.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVQPY4LlbJ4"]Glengarry Glen Ross speech Alec Baldwin - YouTube[/ame]
I'm normally viewed as a pessimist, but when it comes to business; I tend to see opportunities everywhere.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVQPY4LlbJ4"]Glengarry Glen Ross speech Alec Baldwin - YouTube[/ame]
Waste of energy. Google turning their background black for 12 hours will have more effect than any lobby we create will have in 3 years of work.
BTW... where is Google and Wikipedia and those guys this time around? Previous times, they were in an outrage. What happened there? Incentives promised to them became promising enough for them to keep their mouth shut this time around?
Imagine if Netflix added a carefully named line item to their customers' bill: "Comcast Bandwidth Surcharge", along with a ph # or url that explains why the fuck the charge is there, which would naturally include a "call your congress bottom" call to action.
Issue: solved. Just a matter of time.
Issue: solved. Just a matter of time.
You are so right; people are good deep down inside. We are oppressed by evil corporations and therefore victims of the world, not active participants and perpetrators of the system. But our government is on our side and soon will come to the rescue of the good people of the world.
</vomiting rainbows>
But how?
What's the charge? $5 per month extra at most?
When you say "throttle"..do you mean, a slow connection for users who refuse to pay the fee?
It makes absolutely ZERO sense why the fuck people i.e Marketers need to freak out over that.
Think about it?...who likes a slow connection?...in a world where 90% of the planet wants everything yesterday...people might bitch about it for a LITTLE while and then think:
"ok...this slow net is pissing me off so bad, ok i'll give you an extra $2 per month" (a cup of starbucks per month).
Reading the title of this thread, I think it's a storm in a fucking tea cup to be honest, unless the OP has every Internet user on the interwebz going through his servers...
Or am I missing the point?..
You're missing the point. Customers don't pay the fee. Website owners do.
Lets say eBay shells out a million bucks to Comcast. Now comcast will prioritize ebay.com for all comcast customers. ebay.com will load fast and quick no matter what is going on with the Comcast network.
Now lets say you own acai-berry-cleanser.com and don't make a million bucks to pay Comcast. You're just a little fish. The Comcast network becomes congested (as it always does) during peak hours (or all the time). ebay.com loads lightning fast for Comcast customers, but your acai-berry-cleanser.com site takes a good 30 seconds to come up. The customer gets tired and bounces off your site on to another one, they have no clue Comcast throttled your site, they just think your site is shitty.
As website owners we have to pay the... 100 different ISPs in the country a fee so that our websites load quick for their customers.
This wouldn't be such an issue if ISP's weren't a monopoly in this country.
Believe it or not Netflix and other big corps love this shit. They can pay a pittance (relatively) and now there is another barrier to entry for competition.
Yup. Netflix paid up quickly. There's plenty of reason to think that payment included a no-fast-lane-for-Amazon clause.
Ok cheers for clarifying that and Kudos.
But I still don't see why we as marketers should be shitting our pants?
How big is this fee?..a couple of $$ per month...$50 per month?..whatever?...
I'd be paying it..cos my ROI is a lot fucking higher.
I can't see it being G's.
This is a very bad spiral towards making it harder for people like us to "make it"
Not to sound like a dick, but I'm kind of shocked how you don't see it's a big deal and not angry