2017 December Newsletter - Net Neutrality


#1

I just read the newsletter that went out. Reading through the “colorful” detail that was laced throughout the message’s intent, I have to say that in my opinion, the ad hominem attacks probably don’t belong.

I completely agree that net neutrality is important, but regardless of your marketing branding (taking the lighter side with how you tend to communicate), I was REALLY put off by the aforementioned.

I don’t know how many others (if any) agree with me, but I was honestly surprised by how far you took the over-personalization.

I’ll also say this is probably the first newsletter I’ve actually read in its entirety in 8+ months. So, if this is common practice and I wasn’t aware of it, I still voice the same concerns.


#2

Hey DreamHost, Government intrusion and overstep is why net neutrality needed to be done away with. Freedom shouldn’t be throttled! Let the free market speak for itself.


#3

Thanks for the feedback!

While we admittedly took some cheap shots at the FCC’s Chairman, he was the driving force behind the move to repeal net neutrality.

DreamHost was founded in 1997 at a time when the Internet was still new, exciting, and fresh with promise.

The concept of net neutrality harkens back to those early days of an internet founded on open technologies, where content and traffic were treated equally. Net neutrality benefits all internet users by protecting free speech and innovation from ISPs that would seek to prioritize (and monetize) the delivery of certain types of content.

As a content-neutral infrastructure provider, we will always support a free and open internet.

For more about why we feel so strongly, be sure to check out our Guide to Net Neutrality:

Thanks again for saying something - your feedback will have a direct influence on the content of future DreamHost newsletters.


#4

Net Neutrality keeps all data flowing on the same pipes at the same price, with no one evaluating it along the way. How is that “intrusion”? It’s exactly the opposite.
It prevents your cable company from throttling Netflix after making a deal with Amazon.
It prevents some company involved with some segment of the backbone from imposing their ideological preferences on traffic moving through their wires.
It prevents a company like Facebook from buying Comcast so that they can charge a premium for faster access to their content, while possibly passing competitive content much more slowly.
It ensures that voice traffic, email, chat, games, eCommerce, webhooks, newsletters, software downloads, and videos have the same priority and quality as they do now, regardless of type or content.

If you’re influenced by claims that Net Neutrality limits revenue generation, and thus investment in infrastructure, consider nothing has ever stopped companies from raising their rates. I’ve read that these companies can’t afford to provide services to lower income audiences without being able to charge a premium as restricted by Net Neutrality. But they raise rates all the time with (true or false) claims that they’re investing in infrastructure, opening new markets, and improving their services. With monopolies on services (cable companies, phone companies, etc) we already have a hard time getting around it.

Giving these companies the power to decide the value of traffic, type or content, serves no purpose other than to give even more control to companies over our data. It starts to impair the freedom we have of exchanging information, in the form of videos versus web pages, or podcasts versus email, and it starts to limit the options available to people to share and learn new things, which has caused an exponential increase in such exchanges since all of this has been around.


#5

I don’t mind some personalization, or the company taking a stand on some issue. As @Erutan409 mentions, the DH newsletters have been a source of pain for many years and I’ve been complaining about them for the decade that I’ve been here.

It’s nice that

but it’s a shame that feedback has had no influence on the format of the newsletters.


#6

This is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different. Forcing a one-size-fits-all-in-all-fairness solution on the Internet stifles innovation by blocking some companies from turning new ideas or business models into successful products. Let the free market shake it out without big brother intrusion.


#7

I see that you’re one of those that thinks that for Comcast, ATT and Verizon to be providers of commodities is bad. It’s a fair opinion, I respect it although I fundamentally disagree with it.

I don’t think it’s bad to sell a commodity: there are hundreds of businesses making lots of money selling potable water, gas, oil, electricity… All while still innovating and paying shareholders. Somehow telecoms have convinced some people that their business is different. If you look at most of Europe, where telecoms are treated like commodities, business model innovation still happens, prices are generally lower, accessibility and internet speeds are on average higher than US.

Oh well, we’ll have to wait and see what happens in US with these changes.


#8

Your theory has a huge problem. Net Neutrality wasn’t regulated until just a few years ago. Companies have had a couple decades to innovate in the way you describe, but that hasn’t happened. They’ve had time to work through financing models to serve lower-income communities and improve technology, but they haven’t done it. Net Neutrality only became a thing when companies started to evaluate content on the wire as a way to generate revenue rather than actually improving their offering. The feds stepped in to preclude abuse of the system. But suddenly it was this legislation itself that got blamed for preventing their innovation? In practical terms nothing has really changed except the protections (intrusion?) against corporate abuse.

I’m all in favor of new ideas and new business models, and the ethos of the American system is bent in that direction. What’s wrong with addressing concerns of both abuse and of corporate ability to innovate? Many laws have flaws and we should strive to improve upon them. Unfortunately there is an all or nothing mindset, not to fix what’s broken but to completely dismantle whatever is in place without regard for whatever good it does. (And then to claim that something “better” will be devised “later”, somehow better and later never come.)

The problem here is that repealing Net Neutrality now conveys a message that Non-Neutrality is an approved and encouraged way to monetize, where for the last 20 years that hasn’t been a thing either. All that does is empower those with the ability to use this “free market” to start limiting how the free internet has been used. None of us benefit from this.

Let’s be honest. This has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. It’s just another in a stream of initiatives to repeal anything that’s been put into place over the previous eight years. It’s not progressive or even conservative. It’s regressive and pure retribution. Despite all of the reasoning, the pretense of good intentions, like everything else (healthcare, EPA, education, consumer protections, protection of family values, the sanctity of marriage, social spending, the arts, voter’s rights, and anything else on the GOP target list), this is all just another strike against the previous administration, and a drive toward insane monetary gain and power by those who already have it and seek more. It’s about dying with the most toys and winning the game - and the fun of duping people along the way into believing that this is all good for them.


#9

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.