Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.
LordofHats wrote: Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.
Yes but we can drive it further. Like we did with SOPA. The government is very accessible all we have to do is just call them up. So that the battle is won again.
LordofHats wrote: Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.
This. There is far more money on the 'let's keep it open' side than the 'pay per site' side.
Yes but we can drive it further. Like we did with SOPA. The government is very accessible all we have to do is just call them up. So that the battle is won again.
SOPA was less clear cut because in the end there were companies who fell on both sides of it. Something like what you see in the OP benefits only the internet provider to the detriment of virtually everyone else. No one will benefit from their business being blocked behind a pay barrier imposed by service providers.
Way to blow things out of proportion. First, it only supply's to the US, the US is not the world. If the charges are too high these companies will just move servers elsewhere. And the US market is already broken with little competition. Second, it is talking about charging content providers, not users. Those providers will have to cover the costs, but given that most of the them already cover there costs at no expense to the user, and those that do charge like netflix charge for other reasons than bandwidth charges, I can't see that changing. Finally, as far as O can tell it is just a different way of charging for the same thing. Data, dispute what people think, is not free. There will now just be an option for telcos in the US to charge by bandwidth and data amount rather than just data amount.
Well, I'm kind of surprised it took this long. If you look at the history of Radio, it started all free and open and then overtime became harder and harder for the individual to use to spread ideas as it became more mainstream/commercial.
Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.
Fafnir wrote: Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.
I don't think additional charges for individual web sites would work in the UK.
Capacity is so cheap already, as long as you don't live in the middle of nowhere, that it's hard to see why any more money needs to be paid.
My phone line costs me about 20GBP a month including free evening and weekend calls and unlimited broadband data at about 13mbps (effective rate). I live in a not very well provided area. You can get much faster internet in cities.
LordofHats wrote: Look at all the names on that pic in the OP. We won't be needing to contact our senators. Google, Apple, the games industry, Net Flix, Hulu, social networking, eBay, Amazon, and all them are going to do that for us.
You might be correct, but there is a scenario in which this is beneficial for them. If say, all the search engines protest and refuse to pay for better bandwidth, but say... google decides they will, then its game over because google will get increased market share, forcing the others to also comply (at least until a new ruling comes about). Likewise, if Netflix refused and Hulu decides to pay, they could see increased market share, if Call of Duty doesn't pay, and Battlefield does, then increased market share for Battlefield, etc. The actions the players in this little game will take aren't so clear cut, in fact, a lack of neutrality is advantageous to the bigger players while putting the smaller ones at a huge disadvantage.
Game companies are unlikely to go with this at all. They won't want to put any of their profits into paying for bandwidth (which gets pricier the more successful the game is).
Likewise, this has very little to do with the cost of data. Data is cheap. The hardware infrustructure of the net however is expensive with little profit in it so providers are trying to find a way to make more money (as is their perogative) at the expense of the rest of us. The costs of bandwidth usage will be offset to the consumer, not to mention the introduction of download limits that could kill streaming services.
I doubt the Internet will be the wild west forever either but I don't think this is going to stand. The model is bad for everyone.
The net neutrality provision is the only thing that protected the market from being dominated by an oligopoly. Now 100% of the control lies supply-side; which is exactly how a free market doesn't work.
Not quite true...
Look... this issue isn't "as simple" as it looks.
My brother is a network guru at Charter and the things he tells me is enlighting.
Case in Point:
Netflix. They charge a flat fee for their streaming services... right?
It used to be that Netflix wouldn't pay the services providers (aka, Charter) to use their infrastructure to provide streaming.
Remember, Charter owns those lines... not Netflix. I can't remember what was done to rectify that... but, I'll ask him again later on.
The concern here really... is that now, these service providers COULD legally throttle/restrict content. But, from my brother's perpective... it's really NOT in the best interests for providers to go down this path.
The concern here really... is that now, these service providers COULD legally throttle/restrict content. But, from my brother's perpective... it's really NOT in the best interests for providers to go down this path.
Its not in the best interest of the music industry to support SOPA, or the best interests of game providers to continually release shoddy products (/gotmypunchin) but they do it anyway.
Point being, companies often do things that seem like good ideas, realize later it was a bad idea, and for some reason refuse to step away from the bad idea. Problem is that a lot of places in the US only have 1 service provider who already gouges prices. Now they get free reign to gouge more. In a perfect world competition between providers might keep costs down, but even in a lot of urban areas providers have special deals that keeps the competition out.
If anything, the more likely outcome of ChaosOmega's example is that the one provider who doesn't charge for the use of its lines but instead offers a single flat fee would come out the winner. Their profit margin would be lower but everyone would use their lines.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think additional charges for individual web sites would work in the UK.
Capacity is so cheap already, as long as you don't live in the middle of nowhere, that it's hard to see why any more money needs to be paid.
My phone line costs me about 20GBP a month including free evening and weekend calls and unlimited broadband data at about 13mbps (effective rate). I live in a not very well provided area. You can get much faster internet in cities.
Its the fact that these content providers can control the bandwith legally and can give you asmuch as they want. They could lie to you and give very little bandwith and take money from you. They are basically trying monopolize their control over the internet.
Frazzled wrote: I don't see the problem with chargers big users more.
Because the end users already pay for that bandwidth.
Lets say you order a lot of stuff online, and you pay for it. Lets say you have tons of boxes arriving all the time, all day, you love getting stuff delivered. How would you feel about UPS saying to Amazon "hey, we deliver a lot of your packages to Frazzled, you need to pay us an extra dollar for delivering those packages, or we'll start leaving them in the back of the truck. They'll eventually get delivered, when we feel like it - we cut a deal with Newegg, so we will deliver their stuff first. Pay up."
Wouldn't you feel like Amazon should tell UPS to go blow, because you already paid for the cost of the shipping? What about if UPS was the only company that could deliver packages in your neighborhood, if they had a state-sanctioned monopoly in your area so there could be no competition? Wouldn't you find the whole thing especially ballsy if your tax dollars had gone to support building that whole infrastructure, and to this day gave enormous tax breaks to them?
If cable companies have bandwidth issues, they should put in caps (and maybe stop advertising services they can't support). It sucks but it's fair. My cable company switched to a 350gb/month cap, so I had to switch to a more expensive plan and have my cap raised to 2tb/month. Annoying, but also fair.
They are related. You can't have high capacity without good bandwidth. There is no point in good bandwidth without high capacity.
The point is that Henley is saturated with bandwidth and capacity and cheap deals, and it's a moderately backward location compared to larger towns and cities in the UK.
Frazzled wrote: I don't see the problem with chargers big users more.
Because the end users already pay for that bandwidth.
Lets say you order a lot of stuff online, and you pay for it. Lets say you have tons of boxes arriving all the time, all day, you love getting stuff delivered. How would you feel about UPS saying to Amazon "hey, we deliver a lot of your packages to Frazzled, you need to pay us an extra dollar for delivering those packages, or we'll start leaving them in the back of the truck. They'll eventually get delivered, when we feel like it - we cut a deal with Newegg, so we will deliver their stuff first. Pay up."
Wouldn't you feel like Amazon should tell UPS to go blow, because you already paid for the cost of the shipping? What about if UPS was the only company that could deliver packages in your neighborhood, if they had a state-sanctioned monopoly in your area so there could be no competition? Wouldn't you find the whole thing especially ballsy if your tax dollars had gone to support building that whole infrastructure, and to this day gave enormous tax breaks to them?
If cable companies have bandwidth issues, they should put in caps (and maybe stop advertising services they can't support). It sucks but it's fair. My cable company switched to a 350gb/month cap, so I had to switch to a more expensive plan and have my cap raised to 2tb/month. Annoying, but also fair.
Look... internet speed/bandwidth is a commodity. There's only so much available to go around... yes?
Companies such as Comcast, Verizon Communications Inc. (ISP providers) generally have opposed forced adherence to Net neutrality, while Internet names such as Netflix and Google Inc(internet businesses) have favored it.
Gee... why is that?
But, then again... with the rapid advances in speed/bandwidth... this will be a moot point.
The time for net neutrality should've been 10 years ago...
Look... internet speed/bandwidth is a commodity. There's only so much available to go around... yes?
Companies such as Comcast, Verizon Communications Inc. (ISP providers) generally have opposed forced adherence to Net neutrality, while Internet names such as Netflix and Google Inc(internet businesses) have favored it.
Gee... why is that?
But, then again... with the rapid advances in speed/bandwidth... this will be a moot point.
The time for net neutrality should've been 10 years ago...
Yes, that's the thing. High capacity fibre, compression algorithms and faster computers mean that bandwidth/capacity is not the scarce commodity it once was, even though the volume of data is constantly increasing.
Bandwidth is not a scarce commodity. You can have as much as you are willing to build. That's the rub, the providers don't want to build it, so they can keep it scarce.
Edit: It is also possible I have no idea what I am talking about.
Easy E wrote: Bandwidth is not a scarce commodity. You can have as much as you are willing to build. That's the rub, the providers don't want to build it, so they can keep it scarce.
Edit: It is also possible I have no idea what I am talking about.
Yes it is.... It is not made from nothing. There is only so much bandwidth in the air.
Because bandwith is limited and used by phones and basically anything that requires a wireless connection. The largest user of bandwidth is Television. There is actually a big worry among us that there is too little bandwidth in the air to support as many users as there currently are. So we are running out of bandwidth in general. All we need now is Television to give up its HUGE control over the bandwidth.
The court basically found that ISPs weren't common carriers like telephones were. For the FCC, it means they have to go back to the drawing board in order to enforce net neutrality.
Congress has been totally incompetent when it comes to internet policy, partially because partisans (generally Republicans) are opposed to any rules being established by the Federal government in relation to the internet, even something decidedly beneficial like Net Neutrality. And a bunch of congressmen have lived the majority of their lives without the internet even existing, so they have NO clue what is going on with the internet.
While my hope is that companies like Comcast and Verizon won't start charging for Youtube (via Google) and Netflix's increased data usage, I suspect they will. After all, what can google and netflix do about it? Stop providing services? Those costs get passed to us, or the companies have to lose more money, and comcast and verizon get to line their fat wallets with more money.
Frankly, the solution is simple. Buy all the internet infrastructure via eminent domain, and license it back to the companies. Take the money earned from licenses and reinvest it in infrastructure. Put like a $1 a month tax on internet service too and reinvest that too (kind of like the gas tax for road infrastructure). Comcast and Verizon have shown that they are unwilling to let smaller ISPs on their lines, which is their right, BUT the cost to create one's own infrastructure is far too great to expect smaller ISPs to do so. The result is a bunch of monopolies and duopolies where the consumer gets screwed and the USA looks like a bunch of stone age morons for allowing it to go on.
Fast, dependable, open internet SHOULD be a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT at this point in history. Think about how important the internet is to every human being. Even if you don't need the internet for your daily life personally, there are dozens and dozens of ways it indirectly is involved in and benefits your life. Allowing such a vital utility to be held by the (greedy) likes of Comcast and Verizon going forward will only make the US fall farther and farther behind other nations.
The thing that makes me most annoyed is how Verizon and Comcast lobby hard to keep the status quo. They have killed municipal ISPs wherever they can in order to maintain their status as the main gatekeepers to a vital utility, and it needs to stop right now.
DogofWar1 wrote: Frankly, the solution is simple. Buy all the internet infrastructure via eminent domain, and license it back to the companies. Take the money earned from licenses and reinvest it in infrastructure. Put like a $1 a month tax on internet service too and reinvest that too (kind of like the gas tax for road infrastructure). Comcast and Verizon have shown that they are unwilling to let smaller ISPs on their lines, which is their right, BUT the cost to create one's own infrastructure is far too great to expect smaller ISPs to do so. The result is a bunch of monopolies and duopolies where the consumer gets screwed and the USA looks like a bunch of stone age morons for allowing it to go on.
I'm sorry, but you're talking about nationalizing the intranetz. This is brought to you by the people who brought you Obamacare. Seriously?
If you worried about oligopolies you just made it a government monopoly. When was the last time the govenrment was innovative in anything except taxation methods? How's that DMV thing working out?
I'm sorry, but you're talking about nationalizing the intranetz. This is brought to you by the people who brought you Obamacare. Seriously?
As incompetent as I think the government is, honestly, I'd rather deal with government incompetence because at the end of the day, no one is more incompetent than Comcast (we're all thinking it I'm just saying it!).
Careful with the language in image macros! Thanks ~ Manchu
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the DMV is organised on a state by state basis.
Even the fed can't get its act together enough...
The internet was a crappy government lab project until private enterprise took off with it. Give it back to the government and it will stay slow and crappy, plus all your emails are belong to them.
I'm sorry, but you're talking about nationalizing the intranetz. This is brought to you by the people who brought you Obamacare. Seriously?
As incompetent as I think the government is, honestly, I'd rather deal with government incompetence because at the end of the day, no one is more incompetent than Comcast (we're all thinking it I'm just saying it!).
Well we may disagree on everything except the sentiment about Comcast...
Let's put it this way... an ISP is a company that built a network with its own capital, should be able to call the shots on how traffic within that network should be handled.
What's sticky is this:
Companies like Comcast owns both the pipes and some of the content. There's an obvious incentive to discriminate content in favor of its own content. But, so far, there hasn't been significant proof that has occured.
In the past, America has forced companies to separate the content from the distribution network. Hollywood studios were forced to sell off their theater chain ownership, for example.
Doesn't seem a horrible idea to force a separation between the content owners and the distribution owners. That would reduce Comcast to a "dumb pipe" owner.... and a new spawned content business formally owned by Comcast... which, obviously isn't what Comcast would want.
Another twist is companies like Netflix...
If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs.
Remember, those ISP charges Netflix to use their infrastructure. <-- this is a VERY important distinction that most consumers don't understand.
As an aside: There's another business revenue source that ISPs (ie, Comcast / Charter) does that we consumers "don't see"... They charge companies like Netfilx and Hulu to host servers on the ISP-owned network equipment to "resolve latency and availability" issues.
If said ISPs try to bully Netflix into paying more, I see Netflix just saying "nope, we'll pass and not deliver our content to your servers" which again will cause consumers to flee those ISPs.
The companies like Netflix are the consumer darlings, not the ISPs, so I don't see the ISP having as much control / power that would warrant regulations like Net Neutrality.
People also forget that the wide successes of the internet was successful without regulations like these.
I know the "we built this" meme is ever popular, but be real: The US government has invested countless taxpayer dollars into the infrastructure used to build these networks and has artificially distorted the marketplaces many operators are located in by giving them service monopolies. Comcast, a company with 62 billion dollars in revenue in 2012, has gotten a decades worth of tax breaks on it's corporate HQ. Verizon has been skating on corporate taxes for years. Additionally, the wireless spectrum in particular is owned by the US government and is leased to private operators. The very packet switching method that most internet traffic relies on was created by the US government.
Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.
If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs.
Like many Americans I only have 1 choice of ISP. Comcast. No one else services my area because Comcast forced everyone else out of the market and won't let anyone else in. Not everywhere has small time ISP providers or even a choice in where to get their service and from who. My situation is normal in most of suburbia and smaller urban areas that aren't major cities. Rurual areas have it even worse.
Comcast is a terrible company. If they were even remotely good at what they do, I'd probably be fine and have faith they'd make a smart decision, but this;
Oops, you posted again while I was assembling that.
whembly wrote: Companies like Comcast owns both the pipes and some of the content. There's an obvious incentive to discriminate content in favor of its own content. But, so far, there hasn't been significant proof that has occured.
Up until this happened, the FCC did not allow it.
whembly wrote: If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs. .
How many cable operators can you choose from where you live?
People also forget that the wide successes of the internet was successful without regulations like these.
I know the "we built this" meme is ever popular, but be real: The US government has invested countless taxpayer dollars into the infrastructure used to build these networks
I think you're confusing the old Baby Bell companies to the ISPs. The ISPs never got near the amount of money/tax breaks that telecom got.
and has artificially distorted the marketplaces many operators are located in by giving them service monopolies.
You're talking about cable companies here...right? That's true.
Comcast, a company with 62 billion dollars in revenue in 2012, has gotten a decades worth of tax breaks on it's corporate HQ. Verizon has been skating on corporate taxes for years.
O.o
And just about any other major corporations in any industry... right?
Not sure I see your point.
Additionally, the wireless spectrum in particular is owned by the US government and is leased to private operators. The very packet switching method that most internet traffic relies on was created by the US government.
Okay... and your point?
Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.
Sure... because those were the enforced standards.
Ouze wrote: Oops, you posted again while I was assembling that.
whembly wrote: Companies like Comcast owns both the pipes and some of the content. There's an obvious incentive to discriminate content in favor of its own content. But, so far, there hasn't been significant proof that has occured.
Up until this happened, the FCC did not allow it.
Yeah... I know.
But I get the feeling that most of the throttling complaints where the torrent/p2p users as opposed to Youtubing and Netflixers.
whembly wrote: If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs. .
How many cable operators can you choose from where you live?
Landline cable companies? One. Charter.
But, I can get ATT Uverse.
Verizon has that hotspot broadband...
But, I like Charter... besides, my brother works there.
If Netflix is such a big traffic hog (because people use it) and ISPs start throttling it for whatever reason... consumers will dump those ISPs.
Like many Americans I only have 1 choice of ISP. Comcast. No one else services my area because Comcast forced everyone else out of the market and won't let anyone else in. Not everywhere has small time ISP providers or even a choice in where to get their service and from who. My situation is normal in most of suburbia and smaller urban areas that aren't major cities. Rurual areas have it even worse.
Comcast is a terrible company. If they were even remotely good at what they do, I'd probably be fine and have faith they'd make a smart decision, but this;
That's likely true just about everywhere...
So...genuinely asking here...
Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Ooh sorry make that four with Verizon.
"cable"
another cable thingy
AT&T (ours)
Verizon
Hughes Satellite. Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure!
Ouze wrote: Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.
Sure... because those were the enforced standards.
Are you saying that we need to remove the open network standards the FCC enforces while simultaneously agreeing with me that those standards helped it be as successful as it currently is?
But I get the feeling that most of the throttling complaints where the torrent/p2p users as opposed to Youtubing and Netflixers.
I think there is a distinction to be made here. If you decide to throttle the top x percent of your heavy users as a network management strategy and it's not specifically for what content they are consuming, there is nothing wrong with that.
Ouze wrote: Finally, I posit that a large part of why these networks were so successful was because of regulation, notably the open network principles of 2005 laid down by the FCC.
Sure... because those were the enforced standards.
Are you saying that we need less regulation of the internet while simultaneously agreeing with me that the last 10 years of regulation helped it be as successful as it currently is?
I'm arguing that Net Neutrality is more regulations... as in, on top of the existing rules/regulations.
If you're so pro-net neutrality.
Would you also be in favor of pro-partisan neutrality with the news media companies?
Ie. 50% segments are pro-Democrats and other 50% are pro-Republicans?
I think there is a distinction to be made here. If you decide to throttle the top x percent of your heavy users as a network management strategy and it's not specifically for what content they are consuming, there is nothing wrong with that.
Right.
But the end goal of Net Neutrality was to treat ALL network traffic the same. If it was still in place, ISP couldn't throttle users of torrent/p2p traffic by simply being torrent/p2p traffic.
I'm arguing that Net Neutrality is more regulations... as in, on top of the existing rules/regulations.
If you're so pro-net neutrality.
Would you also be in favor of pro-partisan neutrality with the news media companies?
Ie. 50% segments are pro-Democrats and other 50% are pro-Republicans?
It's only fair.
No, because it is a false analogy.
And it's not "new regulations". It's a continuation of a open network principle we have already had for almost 10 years.
whembly wrote: But the end goal of Net Neutrality was to treat ALL network traffic the same. If it was still in place, ISP couldn't throttle users of torrent/p2p traffic by simply being torrent/p2p traffic.
The FCC makes a distinction between network management and blocking. There is a big difference between throttling a torrent user who passes 3TB a month in data, and what will now be allowed: Google to deliver 404's for Yahoo Mail in the venues it supplies fiber.
i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network
management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their
broadband services;
ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful
websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony
services; and
iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??
In this day an age? Yeah, probably. Most people who want it can afford it sure, but do we really need to be encouraging companies to form regional monopolies where they proceed to price gouge and then hand them a free pass to gouge even more?
I'd be fine with the status quo as it is if I actually had a choice in my provider, cause you know, then they'd have to actually compete with each other to provide a better service instead of just buying out the rights to the area like some kind of fief and some changes to renters protection laws (land lords should not be able to dictate which cable provider I can use like they did to me in PA).
Alternatively, I'd be fine with internet service going the way of radio or roads, with the government providing the organization and infrastructure and then selling it to providers who then sell it to me and some of that money going back to the government to pay for more infrastructure. At least then there'd be some kind of forced standard, however inefficient it may be, can't possible by much worse than what we have now. They could even treat the internet like highways... Okay not like the interstate and pay the states to build the infrastructure (assuming they don't bungle it up like they did with interstates).
I'm also fine with telling ISP's to suck it up for the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the country.
Is access to the internets, should that be on the same level of "access rights" as it is for standard utility (ie, power, water, gas)??
In this day an age? Yeah, probably. Most people who want it can afford it sure, but do we really need to be encouraging companies to form regional monopolies where they proceed to price gouge and then hand them a free pass to gouge even more?
I'd be fine with the status quo as it is if I actually had a choice in my provider, cause you know, then they'd have to actually compete with each other to provide a better service instead of just buying out the rights to the area like some kind of fief and some changes to renters protection laws (land lords should not be able to dictate which cable provider I can use like they did to me in PA).
Alternatively, I'd be fine with internet service going the way of radio or roads, with the government providing the organization and infrastructure and then selling it to providers who then sell it to me and some of that money going back to the government to pay for more infrastructure. At least then there'd be some kind of forced standard, however inefficient it may be, can't possible by much worse than what we have now. They could even treat the internet like highways... Okay not like the interstate and pay the states to build the infrastructure (assuming they don't bungle it up like they did with interstates).
I'm also fine with telling ISP's to suck it up for the benefit of pretty much everyone else in the country.
Yeah... the question would be... how do we get there?
Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states). Ten years from now, we won't be able to consume the network traffic at capacity.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think additional charges for individual web sites would work in the UK.
Capacity is so cheap already, as long as you don't live in the middle of nowhere, that it's hard to see why any more money needs to be paid.
My phone line costs me about 20GBP a month including free evening and weekend calls and unlimited broadband data at about 13mbps (effective rate). I live in a not very well provided area. You can get much faster internet in cities.
Boy, That's far from what I pay, in a bigish city. Don't laugh. I barely hit the 1mbps on a good day.
And from the OP... a limit of 500mb of transfer? That's one episode of a series per month?
Would you like it if ISPs could decide what parts of the Internet you get to watch or not?
Can't visit Dakka on our plans. I guess you could subscribe to another provider. What's that? We're the only provider in your region? Well, that's just too bad. *Starts rubbing nipples sensually*
I'm sorry, but you're talking about nationalizing the intranetz. This is brought to you by the people who brought you Obamacare. Seriously?
If you worried about oligopolies you just made it a government monopoly. When was the last time the govenrment was innovative in anything except taxation methods? How's that DMV thing working out?
We're not talking about nationalizing the internet. We're talking about nationalizing the "series of tubes," to ensure they remain open for all corporations and websites.
In essence, it would function similar to the radio spectrum, in that the government owns the spectrum and then makes it available. The way the government has leased the spectrum via a command and control structure (basically exclusive licenses to corporations and groups) has been criticized and the FCC is moving towards a more open form of allocating spectrum to ensure it goes to the highest valued user. Taking the tubes would result in a similar system, and one that, with the government coming around to favor unlicensed use or easier to gain licenses, would mean ISPs could easily spring up around the country.
Under such a system, it's highly likely we'd go from usually 1 or 2 ISPs for a given area, to 4-5 or more, especially in high density areas. The reason we only have 1-2 ISPs in an area is because making the tubes is so damn expensive. Remove that cost and the ISP market becomes vastly more diverse within a matter of a couple years.
What could be done once the government owns the "tubes" is basically setting up regional monopolies for the "tubes," that is corporations with capped profit margins who are paid by ISPs for use of the tubes, and who maintain the fiber/whatever with that money. It'd be somewhat similar to regional power companies or water companies.
Anything where ISPs get relatively cheap access to the infrastructure to provide an internet service is VASTLY preferable to the current situation of Comcast and Verizon owning all the infrastructure, and locking everyone else out by the inherent barriers to entry mixed with exorbitant license costs to use their infrastructure.
whembly wrote: Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states).
You're assuming that this is about legitimate capacity issues rather than an opportunity for ISPs to extort additional profits, and that no new technology will appear to consume more capacity. After all, people in 1990 probably thought that there was plenty of capacity for text-only internet and had no idea that streaming video would ever exist and dominate internet traffic.
This sounds very different to the way the UK works. - Not that I understand how that goes.
BT owns the main bulk of the actual infrastructure / cabling here (though Virgin are doing their own work with virgin cable, I think). Yet, we have lots of companies, including some relatively small ones, like the growing Plusnet (from Yorkshire :p), who I believe then license from BT.
Ouze wrote: The other possibility is that once some ISP runs rampant with this, Congress will finally get their gak together and resolve it, at long last.
I think the worries I've read in the last few days are probably unrealistic and doubt they will actually happen.
Agreed.
I still need to talk to my brother about this... but, he's outta town till this weekend. I hope this topic is still around till then.
whembly wrote: Like I said few posts back... this may all be moot as capacity is rapidly increasing (at least in the US... I have no fething clue whats going on outside of the states).
You're assuming that this is about legitimate capacity issues rather than an opportunity for ISPs to extort additional profits, and that no new technology will appear to consume more capacity. After all, people in 1990 probably thought that there was plenty of capacity for text-only internet and had no idea that streaming video would ever exist and dominate internet traffic.
Heh...
We'll see eh?
As to streaming video... we've ALWAYS knew it was coming and we always knew the internet was going to explode.
The next big thing is when IPv6 becomes more mainstream on the consumer end.
Fafnir wrote: Well, you know how when you pay for cable TV, there might be only 3 or 4 channels that you regularly watch, but you have to pay for a package of 200 anyway? Think like that, but for your internet now.
how is that different then what I'm doing now?
whembly wrote:It used to be that Netflix wouldn't pay the services providers (aka, Charter) to use their infrastructure to provide streaming.
I'll make this brief. Our legislators have been grappling with the notion of forcing cable companies to offer channels/content ala carte. It's not law yet, but this is not dissimilar from the legislation passed on cell phone service providers. The days of astronomical roaming or overage charges, or charging for text messages individually. They were forced to bring overage rates down to a cost related pricing structure, and also simplify the way you where charged. Mobile data will be on the chopping block soon, my provider charges $12.99 for every 512mb over! But this to shall pass.
Point being, with our other services being pushed to one end of the scale at the federal level, it makes no sense that they would allow this kind of pricing structure at the other. So I think it's fair to assume that this will not take hold.
Addendum: As mentioned previously, the Internet doesn't live in America. That being said, netflix, google, or whoever, would simply use oversees servers. Which solves everybody's problems except ours (Americans).
If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.
If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.
Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.
Yes, it's true that America is not the world. But you'd be pretty blind to note take not that they're a very important part of it, and that a lot of legislation that they do pass ends up making waves, especially when it concerns things like technology and copyright.
DogofWar1 wrote: If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.
If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.
Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.
ISP doesn't want to challenge pr0n.
The ISPs and Adult Industries wanted to have their own TLD (top level domain) called ".xxx" to be the red light district of the internet... but ICANN refused to approve that.
DogofWar1 wrote: If big ISPs are stupid enough to challenge porn, they will lose, and lose hard.
If there's one thing you don't mess with in the USA, it's allowing adults to have access to porn in the privacy of their homes. Moral guardians fight it, and it looks good to some, but when the chips are on the table, you don't mess with the porn industry. VHS won because of porn, DVD won because of porn, the internet is what it is today because of porn.
Congress will never admit it, but if ISPs dick around with porn, something will get passed.
Porn, hero of the internet. That said, I doubt that porn cares much about free porn sites as much as its cares about paid for ones.
Okay... had my conversation with my bro last weekend.
Here's the gist.
You need to stop thinking that these cable companies are like Southwestern Bell.
The government did NOT fund the infrastructure costs... like it did for the Bell companies.
The cable lines are wholly owned by said companies.
Understand?
He did say that it's possible that comapnies like Comcast could prioritize their own content over a competitor's content: (ie, Comcast's VoD vs. Netflix). But, that is NOT the same as "throttling down" speed on netflix transactions. Instead, Comcasts can charge Netflix (and they do currently... all cable providers do that) for the right to stream accross the cable company's infrastructure.
Even before when Net Neutrality was struck down, ISP providers already OFFERS hosting services (yes, for a price) to companies like Netflix so that the customer get a better streaming experience.
The OP's "R.I.P. The Internet 1982-2014" is really overly dramatic.
The same as it has been since page one. You keep making this argument that cable companies should be able to do what they want because they are bootstrappy, can-do types that did it all on their own and as such the government has no right to intrude onto how they handle their private business, while my argument remains that they only came to be where they are by large public subsidies, unfair market skewing and government winner-picking. If they're going to get the advantages they have gotten, that comes with a state interest in how they run their business.
Ouze wrote: The same as it has been since page one. You keep making this argument that cable companies should be able to do what they want because they are bootstrappy, can-do types that did it all on their own and as such the government has no right to intrude onto how they handle their private business, while my argument remains that they only came to be where they are by large public subsidies, unfair market skewing and government winner-picking. If they're going to get the advantages they have gotten, that comes with a state interest in how they run their business.
And they ARE subjected to State's/Fed's rules and regulation. It isn't the Wild-Wild West.
You're making a mountain out of an ant-hill here... imo.
I applaud you in your vigor because you fear that it will only screw the paying customer, but again, I believe it's unwarranted.
BTW: where's the info on "that they only came to be where they are by large public subsidies"???
EDIT: we're getting side tracked... I think we should be advocating ‘open access’ policies... which really means promoting easy, inexpensive and open access to publicly owned rights-of-way for these infrastructure.
The Google Fiber project in Kansas City MO is a perfect example of that.
The issue is that while the companies own the infrastructure and it isn't quite Bell, the combination of Verizon and Comcast is similar to the old Bell vs. Independents system that existed in the 20s IIRC.
Bell owned most of the infrastructure nationally, but there were also independent companies (mainly at the local and regional level), and it was Bell with like 50% of the country, while independents had the rest of the 50% divided between them. Verizon and Comcast probably have a similar amount of customers, if not more.
The other thing was that Bell wouldn't allow independents to hook their network into Bell's network, meaning that non-Bell customers couldn't talk to anyone who wasn't with their company (and Bell customers couldn't talk to non-Bell either, but they had a huge chunk of the market so it was less of a problem for them). It's somewhat similar to the way that Comcast and Verizon don't allow smaller ISPs to buy usage of their national lines to expand.
There are differences between Bell and now, but there are some similarities.
The key issue is, if Net Neutrality isn't implemented, and if the duopoly of Verizon and Comcast isn't expanded to an actual competitive market, there is a high probability that they will abuse that to charge websites more for access, which gets passed onto us OR results in worse services (or both). And no other ISPs can get into the market because of high costs of laying pipe. Sure, the companies MIGHT not do that, but if you let them have the right to do it, sooner or later they almost certainly will.
And it's not like these companies are hurting, they pretty much have all their infrastructure built and their upkeep costs aren't exactly highly prohibitive. If they can't make a healthy profit off of their duopoly, then they need new management.
The real thing that bugs me is the fact that all of the above combine with these companies trying to block municipal fiber, created by local governments. Few local governments have invested in municipal fiber yet, but in some of the places they have companies have jumped in lobbying to pass legislation to make it illegal for local governments to create their own fiber network to compete with private companies.
While it's all very anti-competitive, I believe it's protected by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, but it still stinks to high heaven.
SOMETHING in terms of US internet service providers NEEDS to change. Our internet, in relation to the rest of the world is slower than other countries and costs more, and we aren't doing anything to fix that.
Yeah. They say it'll go no further, but this happened. Maybe a sign of things to come? Or are we pro-net neutrality guys crazy neckbeards?
It has nothing to do with net neutrality...
It's all about Netflix purchasing bandwidth... particularly to reduce Netflix's dependence on middlemen like Cogent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Comcast buying out Time Warner is probably more worrying than the principle of the matter. Comcast is bad enough with its current monopoly.
but why fraaaaaaaaaaazled.
