Do you think todays FCC vote will have any effect on Wikitree? [closed]

+12 votes
279 views

Simple question.Yes or no.

closed with the note: Conversation has run its course
in The Tree House by James Collins G2G6 Mach 6 (60.2k points)
closed by Julie Ricketts

Jeanie There must be a meaning to this, "have to add more words.....Yes"  Some subtle reference to data throttling? Or the manner in which I phrased my question?

James, you have to put in a few words in the comment box in order to respond to a question, a simple "yes" is not enough.
Michael got it, you can't just put yes or no in an answer, have to have more letters

Thank you, Michael. Please feel free to answer any way you would like.

Thank you everyone. I did not intend for a one word answer. I meant it was a simple question. Although many try to to cloud the issue with talk of politics,half-truths and double speak. It is really about fair play. I worded my question so as not to prejudice opinion. Rather to encourage awareness.

If I asked a question then told some one how to answer would I get their answer or mine?

Julie, Ellen And I were just discussing this. Frankly I too was out of points to make. I did not close it my self yet because it was still getting views. I wanted to give it a little more time in case someone wanted to add other pertinent information. As I have said this is NOT a political issue.The question and concern is world wide as you can see by the comments here in. I believe that a lot of people THINK that they know what net neutrality is. My intention was only to get the FACTS exposed. I have no desire for blind arguments. My wish is for clear concise discussion of the facts. I value everyone's opinion. I encourage correction if I am wrong but desire proof. I apologize if I have given offense. It was not my intention.

4 Answers

+6 votes
 
Best answer
OK, I have now read what this is actually about. Looked at CNN, CNBC, and also at BBC where there was a brief article. In the two Norwegian newspaper websites I follow it didn’t even get a mention.

My initial reaction is that it is not possible to answer yes or no at the moment. It will all depend on whether today’s vote is formally challenged.
by Lynda Crackett G2G6 Pilot (666k points)
selected by James Collins

Lynda, Thank you for spending your time to  research this issue. here is one more resource.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality  The first sixty or so so words should be enough to show the reason for my concern.

"Article 3 of EU Regulation 2015/2120[120] sets the basic framework for ensuring net neutrality across the entire European Union. However, the regulation's text has been criticized as offering loopholes that can undermine the regulation's effectiveness.[121] Some EU member states, such as Slovenia and the Netherlands, have stronger net neutrality laws."  Direct quote from wikipedia.

The decision has now also been covered in the Norwegian newspapers. They are saying that it is likely to be challenged as the FCC have not followed appropriate procedures.

Norway had a unanimous vote for net neutrality legislation in March this year.
James, Thanks for the best answer star.

Lynda you are most welcome. It is possible that you were the catalyst  I needed to get some interest about this issue.

Happy to help. It is turning into an interesting discussion.
Returned for the third time. Best answer
Thanks again James. Unfortunately whoever is deselecting is not prepared to do you the courtesy of explaining why they disagree with your choice
I was taught, that I had a right to voice my opinion AND the obligation to support it with facts. I was also taught, that I should take responsibility for my actions. But I realize that maybe others may have not been taught the same. Forgot my manners for a moment. You are welcome.
+6 votes

Absolutely,without a doubt YES. The fact that we are discussing the issue here today, is proof. Raising awareness of it"s importance, not only to us at Wiki but world wide. This is the the world wide web. Not the USA wide web. Lynda is correct in her answer, that the most  significant effects will depend on weather or not WE accept this decision. Now my next question. If this decision stands, do you think we will still have unrestricted, access to Wikitree? Bear in mind this is not pay to use site!

by James Collins G2G6 Mach 6 (60.2k points)
edited by James Collins

The ISP model is very complex.  As for-profit businesses, their end goal is to maximize their profit.  They have three main potential income sources:

  1. Consumers, who pay them to provide internet service.  The cost of physically delivering service to each individual customer's location substantially cuts into their net income from this source.  Most ISP's do things to increase profit:
    • They have a rate table (i.e., 1 rate for private individuals, a different rate for businesses)
    • They have a rate table for amount of service (i.e., how much data can be transferred per time unit after which there is an additional charge)
    • They have a rate table for speed of service (i.e., higher price for faster service)
    • They lure customers from each other with introductory rates and bundles to combine television and telephone services with internet service.
  2. They can sell advertising to companies who pay to have their content delivered to the ISP's customers directly (not by visiting any particular website).  This adds another dimension to their customer rates - they can charge different rates for different levels of add censorship, thus playing both ends.
  3. They can vary the speed at which they deliver content from specific content providers who pay them for priority.  The priority system works backwards - the delivery speed you pay for is not increased for those services that pay for priority treatment.  Instead, it is decreased for those that do not pay.  To my way of thinking, this is equivalent to a content provider paying a bribe to an ISP to deliver their content at the speed paid for by the end user.  Limiting this part of the ISP's business model is what net neutrality is about.

The content providers, on the other hand, have 2 potential income sources:

  1. Sales to their customers, which are either products (that you buy and they ship to you) or services (i.e., use of their website content)
  2. Companies that pay them to put ads on their website

James, as a web developer, I am especially concerned about the loss of net neutrality regulations because of its impact on my clients.  They are small businesses and small to medium non-profit organizations, none of which could (or would) pay ISP's for priority content delivery service.  Only one of my clients ever tried to use advertising and found that it was a waste of their money because they were way too small to afford the cost of doing it on a scale that could be meaningful.  If you want an idea of the economics involved in website operation, there is a website (at http://htmlsrank.com) that provides a valuation of any website you want to check, which is based solely on advertising revenue potential.  This is vastly oversimplified - so much so that it should not be thought of as very meaningful, but it is interesting to see.

Thank you Gaile, What about the ISP's that are also content providers? If you really think about what that mean's, it should scare you.

+2 votes
I was going to avoid commenting, but I'll add this as an opposing viewpoint and explain my reasons why.

You asked for a one word answer - in general, no.

But the reasons - net neutrality is all all about open and equal access by all providers to all things. In general and at a high level, at least. Removing this essentially means that providers are free to adjust paths based on any number of economic factors. However, keep in mind that this is primarily "provider-based". The real aspect of this is will "WikiTree be affected" - absolutely not, unless they decide to pay providers to give them preferential treatment with one provider or another, which is extremely unlikely to happen.

Big players like Hulu and Netflix have already made implications that they would be willing to provide some compensation for setting their traffic up as preferential, which gives better options through those providers that choose the deal to stream television and movies. I get that.

However, this opens the market up for smaller providers, like the one I heard on the radio recently, who was happy to hear it would be repealed and flat out said that they have NO intention to change anything - in fact, they expected their customer base to grow as a result, which allows consumers to choose the carrier that benefits them most, increases competition with carriers so that prices should drop at least a little, and increase options on types of traffic and such that you may want to see go faster on the internet.

So I guess I'll be in the minority on this one, but I just don't see how this affects WikiTree at all.
by Scott Fulkerson G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)

All true, Scott, except for one thing ... WikiTree, which will certainly not pay providers for priority access speed, will be affected by slower access speeds for United States based users.  While most WikiTree pages are not very large in size, download speed is not likely to be impacted significantly, but to view pages with graphic content and also to upload images and edit pages, I anticipate a noticeable difference.  The reason for this is that upload speeds are always much slower than download.  Most people don't notice the difference because they only view pages ... here, we are uploading image files and also submitting edit pages and the already slower upload speeds will be more noticeable to users when they are slowed even further.

We can only hope that litigation restores the neutrality requirements on our ISP's.  This is a very sad day for the internet - the main premise of its original development is now being subverted by permitting ISP's to effectively blackmail websites for better treatment than they give to those who don't pay.

EDITED TO ADD:
Competition between ISP's has always been essentially non-existent, which is the root of the service problems that are widely experienced by customers of all the big providers.  In most places, only 1 cable provider is available because they have contracts with the local governments that give them exclusivity in that jurisdiction.  Even where they don't have legalized monopolies on provision of service, the expense of having to install their own cabling is prohibitive, when they would be splitting the customer base with another company that is already in place.

The competitivity (is that a word?) is, therefore, limited to 1 cable company, multiple satellite providers, 1 or 2 DSL providers and - for a lucky but very small minority of people, wireless providers.  In comparison to cable capability, all the others lag far behind.

Whoo Hoo you go girl! Gaile, thank you for your willingness to seek the truth, your openness to accept it and your courage to speak it.

We don't even have 'cable' in my county in England. It was being laid in the 1990's, they even dug a small channel down my road ready to put it in but the company went bust and we never got it. Some places are still waiting for superfast (fibreoptic) broadband - UK coverage is at about 95%, (fibreoptic up to the local box then the existing copper to the house in most domestic cases). We got it in our house about 18 months ago, as soon as we knew it had become available - we'd been waiting years for better speeds. One village in Rutland got fed up with waiting and they clubbed together to provide their own fibreoptic cabling.
I don't know how or if this reversal of policy will affect users in Europe, I'm not very up on the subject. No doubt time will tell but we could do without a negative impact in the UK.

Gillian thank you for your interest. "Article 3 of EU Regulation 2015/2120[120] sets the basic framework for ensuring net neutrality across the entire European Union. However, the regulation's text has been criticized as offering loopholes that can undermine the regulation's effectiveness.[121] Some EU member states, such as Slovenia and the Netherlands, have stronger net neutrality laws."  Direct quote from wikipedia  knowledge is power!

I suppose that's why I tried to point out that there were already providers who had stated the position that they had no intention of changing their speeds and were going to keep things as is. But I understand that there is concern as there will also be providers who will. I suspect we'll have to wait and see.
Scott, providers need to be in a particular area and have the infrastructure to provide their services which in many parts of the country creates virtual monopolies. Not everybody lives in a big city with multiple providers to choose from.

What is more concerning, though, is the right of providers to redirect traffic to sites they choose, presumably because they will get paid by them. You might end up trying to log on to WikiTree and end up getting to Ancestry or MyHeritage.

Thank you Helmut, Even more concerning to me is the probability that when you do finally get to Wikitree (or any other site you chose) you find that the ISP (internet service provider) has "throttled" ( deliberately slowed your data transfer speed) to the point that it makes access to the data impossible.

I don't think it will be all that bad as "impossible", James, but it is likely to make you feel like you're back in the days of telephone ISP's using a 56K modem.  Of course, in those days, a major design consideration for websites was keeping pages small to improve the wait time while a page downloaded and now, we go all-out for bells and whistles without worrying much about page size.  It is likely that page size will once again become an issue for developers, with the result that websites that don't fork over the vigorish will become less appealing in appearance than those that pay off the ISP's.
Scott, very well said! Essentially, I agree with your analysis and point of view.

Thank you Scott, but the fact is people lie. Corporation's do too. Just because they say they will play fair, dose not mean that they will. Even if one decided to play fair how long do you think their share holders will tolerate that policy when they see other Corporation's profiting by not playing fair? Has anyone asked themselves "why are they pushing for the removal of these policy's if they plan to continue to abide by them?"  It makes no sense to me that all this money is being spent to change the rule's, when no one plans to violate them.

James, The companies that say they will not offer priority deals for a price to content providers are the small ones, who are very disadvantaged in their struggle to compete with the big guys.  They don't have a large enough customer base to be able to interest the big players in paying them for priority service anyway, so they hope to get more customers by preying on the disgruntled ones who are being throttled back by their current providers.  If any of them succeed to the point of being big enough to attract priority payments from the big content providers then I am sure they'll change their policies very fast!

Thank you Gaile, If the little guy, becomes the big guy, He will play by the big guy rules! It is all about the http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vigorish?s=t

Thank you Gaile I love that word vigorish. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vigorish?s=t  Studies show that the reduction of transfer speeds that you speak of will be intolerable and the the resulting effect will be consumers leaving the the site before the page fully loads. For me if it suddenly takes all day to do what I now do in a hour,in effect I have lost access.You said "in those days, a major design consideration for websites was keeping pages small to improve the wait time while a page downloaded and now, we go all-out for bells and whistles without worrying much about page size.  It is likely that page size will once again become an issue for developers, with the result of websites that don't fork over the vigorish will become less appealing in appearance than those that pay off the ISP's." That does not sound like something that will encourage development or quality.

Bart, thank you for your input. I respect your opinion and I will defend your right to express it. after all,that is what free speech and net neutrality is all about!

Bart I meant to ask, but forgot. Do you still believe that this is a "political" issue?

We’re disappointed in the decision to gut #NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order.

— Netflix US (@netflix)

Scott you have made some statements. That I can find NO evidence to support. Could you please let us know where your information comes from?

Bart you stated that you agreed with Scott in both his "analysis and point of view" obviously you have access to the same evidence. Perhaps you could produce it?

I understand your concerns over these changes, however, I would prefer to focus my attention on genealogical research and less on political issues. My apologies for ending my part of the conversation, however, I have no intention of providing any further comments on the issue. Thanks.
Delete by request......
This topic has run its course. Let's discuss genealogy instead.
Delete by request....
Delete by request.....
"I am trying to discuss a issue that is important to all of us."

It's not important to me..
Delete by request....
I will return this (best answer,For the second time). to its proper place.The votes,comment's,fact's and evidence all point to current misplacement.
We may need a moderator to step in.
James --

This conversation has run its course, and I'm going to close it. We try to avoid political discussions here as a courtesy to one another. While this isn't strictly political, it could easily head in that direction, and it would be best to discuss this in a different forum.

Thanks!

Julie
Julie, Ellen And I were just discussing this. Frankly I too was out of points to make. I did not close it my self yet because it was still getting views. I wanted to give it a little more time in case someone wanted to add other pertinent information. As I have said this is NOT a political issue.The question and concern is world wide as you can see by the comments here in. I believe that a lot of people THINK that they know what net neutrality is. My intention was only to get the FACTS exposed. I have no desire for blind arguments. My wish is for clear concise discussion of the facts. I value everyone's opinion. I encourage correction if I am wrong but desire proof. I apologize if I have given offense. It was not my intention.
As I have said this is NOT a political issue.The question and concern is world wide as you can see by the comments here in. I believe that a lot of people THINK that they know what net neutrality is. My intention was only to get the FACTS exposed. I have no desire for blind arguments. My wish is for clear concise discussion of the facts. I value everyone's opinion. I encourage correction if I am wrong but desire proof. I apologize if I have given offense. It was not my intention.
+4 votes

Thank you Scott. First let me say I did not ask for a one word answer, there was a period after my statement "simple question". I again made clarification in response to Michael's comments. I will also say that I respect your opinion but I disagree. For me the first sixty or so words from  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality%C2%A0  tells me where the truth is. The way I read this is that without FCC restrictions the ISP"s will be allowed to charge different content providers different rates to transfer the same amount of data.Therefore in theory if ABC genealogy Inc.( a pay to use site) can afford to pay the ISP more per unit of data than Wiki a non pay to use site, and then the ISP is further allowed to slow wiki"s transfer of data to a crawl because they do not pay the higher rate. I am prety sure who loses. Am I wrong about this? You said " Big players like Hulu and Netflix have already made implications that they would be willing to provide some compensation for setting their traffic up as preferential" Do you think that they will not just pass these extra cost onto their customers? They are pretty generous with someone else's money. I think if you do some looking you will find that Netflix has already been forced into this decision,when this happened " AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[11] In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and Youtube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting "network testing" and that net neutrality rules permit "reasonable network management practices".[12] " this is coped verbatim from the Wikipedia page .Even if this had not happened, why would these two large profitable company's not be willing to pay a premium to kill their competition? You said " The real aspect of this is will "WikiTree be affected" - absolutely not, unless they decide to pay providers to give them preferential treatment with one provider or another, which is extremely unlikely to happen." Tell me what if ABC genealogy Inc.decides to pay providers to give them preferential treatment? What do think will happen to our free site? I could go on for day's about this but I think my point has been made.

by James Collins G2G6 Mach 6 (60.2k points)

Ancestry

  Your privacy is our priority.  
  Starting December 14, 2017, we’ve combined the Terms and Conditions for Ancestry.com, AncestryDNA®, and other Ancestry services into one document, and we’ve done the same with our Privacy Statement.

Coincidence?

Related questions

+17 votes
1 answer
+11 votes
1 answer
162 views asked Aug 27, 2015 in The Tree House by Kelly Rishor G2G6 Mach 1 (14.2k points)
+7 votes
0 answers
+3 votes
2 answers
100 views asked Aug 27, 2023 in WikiTree Help by Kenneth Jordan G2G Crew (340 points)
+5 votes
1 answer
214 views asked Mar 31, 2023 in WikiTree Tech by Ellen Smith G2G Astronaut (1.5m points)
+6 votes
3 answers
436 views asked Jan 26, 2023 in Genealogy Help by Terry Dewey G2G1 (1.6k points)
+3 votes
1 answer
288 views asked Jan 8, 2023 in Policy and Style by Jean Price G2G6 Mach 5 (52.5k points)
+2 votes
3 answers
156 views asked Sep 2, 2020 in The Tree House by Gary Muirhead G2G Rookie (190 points)
+4 votes
4 answers
288 views asked Jul 18, 2020 in The Tree House by Alan Upritchard G2G6 (6.2k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...