Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 14:54:02
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.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 15:39:23
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 20:41:49
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/15 20:51:37
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
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.
Exalted!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/15 21:42:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/16 06:08:41
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...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/16 06:09:02
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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;
Is so true its god damn scary.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/15 22:25:16
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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.
How many cable operators can you choose from where you live?
Three not including Hughes Satellite.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
