dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-05-15 12:24:11: Rather unsurprisingly, the FCC this morning voted three to two along partisan lines to open a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on new net neutrality rules. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


chamberc
Premium
join:2008-08-05
Irving, TX

2 recommendations

Pay for what you use...

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.


cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

2 recommendations

New sign held up...

"will work for hi-speed internet"


--
Splat


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2
reply to chamberc

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

The flaw to that logic is that prices are already based on a balance of your 250Gb and other users only pulling 1Gb. The flat rate + usage model is just dishonest. If they want to bill by the byte, then bill by the byte, just as power is billed by kw/h, and water is billed by the gallon.

travisdh1

join:2007-10-20
Wooster, OH

3 recommendations

reply to chamberc
Ok, that's fine chamberc. Problem is what happens if someone decides to DOS you're internet connection? You receive 1TB of traffic that month, of which you only requested the normal 250gb. The ISP most likely can't tell what traffic you legitimately requested, so you get billed for all of it!

A home internet connection isn't considered an inviting target currently, but what happens when we go to metered billing and you do something to make Anonymous mad?

onthecake

join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO
reply to chamberc
By your logic then all connections should have the same speed then. If I am paying $70 a month for 45 Mbps and your paying $35 for 15 Mbps why should I be expected to use the same amount of data?

Papageno

join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR

2 edits

6 recommendations

Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

...and it just keeps getting worse (and won't change till the perverse doctrine of "spending oodles of money = free speech"* is nullified).

*which amounts to: most people's free speech is a 25W light bulb, but the Koch Brothers' free speech is the star Betelgeuse.


BillK

@69.180.93.x
reply to travisdh1

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by travisdh1:

A home internet connection isn't considered an inviting target currently, but what happens when we go to metered billing and you do something to make Anonymous mad?

Wow. FUD. And one using an extreme outlier as an example.

Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to onthecake
I subscribe to a faster speed tier so I can download things faster, not download more.


BillK

@69.180.93.x
reply to Papageno

Re: Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

Oh, please, Mr. Soros Forgetter.


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

6 recommendations

reply to chamberc

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb.

What does your private usage have to do with the subject of 'net neutrality?

Jim


BillK

@69.180.93.x
reply to onthecake
said by onthecake:

By your logic then all connections should have the same speed then.

No, that would be your logic. I pay more so that response is faster, not more voluminous in comparison to you. Are there some who would fit your narrow framing? Sure. But posing a false dichotomy as you have does nothing to advance a true discussion of the argument intelligently.


mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
reply to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

So a a DDOS is political speech if I pay for the servers?

BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to travisdh1
Heck ever heard of griefing ? What happens when someone does it just for fun ? Or finds it fun to serve chunks of data from your connection to virus infest others ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

clone

join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
reply to Papageno

Re: Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

Wait...the Obama Administration? In bed with the Koch Brothers and their big business ilk??? Doesn't that make liberal and conservative heads explode? (Yes, it is the truth.)

And the reverse is true, as well. All the big liberal spenders are in bed with the conservatives, too. Once you realize it's not R vs. D, that it's the top 0.001% vs. the bottom 99.999%, it's real easy to see what happens from here.

onthecake

join:2003-08-08
Kansas City, MO
Reviews:
·Google Fiber
reply to BillK

Re: Pay for what you use...

Your paying more to get a faster response? I didnt know that was an option.

Since I made an unintelligent argument please tell me why I should expect to pay for faster access to content AND a higher limit to the monthly amount of bandwidth I can consume? The ISPs need to pick one or the other.


abitbent

join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·Start Communicat..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to chamberc
said by chamberc:

It's absurd that a few should have to foot the bill for the many... I use over 250gb of data a month at home, and I should pay more than someone who uses 1gb. Somehow, we've come to expect too much free in this society. Entities that pay more, should receive higher priority.

We need to remember that data isn't a finite resource. You don't use it up like electricity or water. An internet connection that has been used to access 250Gigs of data over a monthly period costs an ISP no more than one that's used for 1Gig.

Binoculars are sold by how powerful they are, not by how much you look through them.

Data costs nothing. Don't believe the ISP hype.

Mirco Bibic of Bell complained that their networks were congested by "bandwidth hogs" just a few years ago. Once they got their way with usage based billing, network congestion suddenly didn't exist. We're downloading more now as a society than we ever did.


PWGuy097

@174.21.210.x

FCC Decision really about Internet vs Internet2 ?

Hey Karl,

A long term question for you related to the underlying technologies that drive the internet and the stance the F.C.C. is positioning itself towards.

Context:
Internet vs Internet 2... not politics or applications or the web of all things but the technology, the switches, the routers, the protocols and fiber that make up Inet2 which is now functioning on many universities, research centers, technology companies and government facilities.

I can understand the challenges of the ISPs, backbone providers, et and that they have a limited function and with those limitations they are always looking for new mechanisms to differentiate themselves from others and offer "something" that they can charge (any) customers for. I also read... I see what other countries are doing, have done, have looked at their business models and see that the entire Internet infrastructure can only do so many things. This "industry segment" has reached their own cap, their own limitations on what they can do to drive new avenues for revenue and are milking what they can now, while they can, from what could become a common carrier arrangement with little to no prospect for new areas of revenue generation.

Isn't the vote by the F.C.C. really a forward leaning vote that enables distinction between what we have and think of today as the Internet vs. what some have and what home consumers some day may have in the form of Internet2? i.e. 1Gbps tops from Google today on Internet, 100Gbps and beyond from Internet2 (»www.internet2.edu)...

I see the F.C.C.'s position as saying consumers (not carriers or edge providers or ISPs but the actual consumers (you, me and the small businesses) can have this current Internet with the current set of limitations and pseudo throttling (not upgrading) and that moving forward as the next set of technologies get implemented to actual consumers there will be a separation between higher speed, bandwidth, QoS, protocol technologies? One level of the Internet based on our current tech is WYSIWYG and if anyone wants access to better infrastructure (Inet2) they (everyone) will pay for those "upgrades"?

Isn't this vote by the F.C.C. really about the future and making Internet2 all about tiered services?

I see this not as consumers vs. the Internet but really about positioning the groundwork for cap and throttle of Internet2.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to abitbent

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by abitbent:

Data costs nothing. Don't believe the ISP hype.

That's not necessarily true. Maybe for a very large ISP, that has a lot of settlement-free peering and charges other networks to connect to them, but for smaller ISPs, data does indeed cost money. There are transit fees (which are billed on capacity leased), cross connect fees, collocation fees, fixed hardware costs, etc.

Residential connectivity is oversubscribed to a degree, in fact pretty much all connectivity is these days. A carrier might lease a 10G wavelength between POPs and oversell capacity, with the assumption that not everyone is going to saturate their connections at the same time. Same holds true with residential connections, as there is middle-mile connectivity that tends to be oversubscribed.

Go ahead and price out leased point-to-point connectivity within a metro area. A 10G wavelength won't come cheap.

Point is, if the ISPs built out infrastructure to truly allow for 1:1 contention, you would be paying more for your connection. It would require increased CAPEX and OPEX, all of which would require larger revenue to support.

78036364

join:2014-05-06
USA

Much ado about nothing

You do realize that companies have had the ability to have this fast lane for YEARS already.

Papageno

join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR
reply to clone

Re: Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

I agree with you about the fact that in general, it's the priorities of the very wealthy and the companies they own and control which are foremost in the minds of most of our politicians, but I won't go so far as to say R vs D doesn't matter. It does to some extent--one (generally speaking) is less bad for most people than the other.

Still, I heard an astounding statistic a few days ago. In the US, from the late 1940's through 1979, 80% of the income growth went to the bottom 90% (not distributed equally, to be sure), but since then it's been more like 80% of the income growth has gone to the very top of the pyramid.


abitbent

join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·Start Communicat..
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to BlueC

Re: Pay for what you use...

Thanks for the info BlueC. I figured it wasn't as simple as that, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in cost between someone using 250Gigs vs 1 Gig is almost negligible.

If capacity is a problem, manage it with speed.

The fact that they've got the general public believing this "pay for what you use" and using the electric and water utility as an example drives me nuts because it's inaccurate and misleading.


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

1 recommendation

reply to Camelot One
said by Camelot One:

The flaw to that logic is that prices are already based on a balance of your 250Gb and other users only pulling 1Gb. The flat rate + usage model is just dishonest. If they want to bill by the byte, then bill by the byte, just as power is billed by kw/h, and water is billed by the gallon.

Why bill by the GB? Most ISP's pay 1¢ per GB going out to the so called "Internet".

Data IS Cheap.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to Camelot One
If they went 100% metered like power, Water and gas they likely worry they could face becoming a utility which would then make their meters have to be verified by the weights and measures of any state they operated in.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

2 recommendations

reply to abitbent
said by abitbent:

We need to remember that data isn't a finite resource. You don't use it up like electricity or water. An internet connection that has been used to access 250Gigs of data over a monthly period costs an ISP no more than one that's used for 1Gig.

Actually, depending on where the 250GB is coming from make a difference to the ISP.

Most ISP's pay 1¢ Per GB hitting the Internet, so an ISP would pay $2.49 more for a user using 250GB vs. 1GB of another user.

As I keep saying.. Data is Cheap and the only reason why we have usage caps is because ISP's that offer TV packages want to keep users from leaving to go to internet TV.


Tamarisk

@46.175.106.x
reply to cableties

Re: New sign held up...

And here it is...

»imgur.com/Lm6xagZ


abitbent

join:2004-04-23
Brantford, ON
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·Start Communicat..
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 recommendation

reply to davidc502

Re: Pay for what you use...

said by davidc502:

As I keep saying.. Data is Cheap and the only reason why we have usage caps is because ISP's that offer TV packages want to keep users from leaving to go to internet TV.

That's the ultimate truth, everything else is just splitting hairs.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to chamberc
You really don't have the first clue on how information technologies work, do you?

wispalord

join:2007-09-20
Farmington, MO
reply to BlueC
data does not cost anything but the interconnections do and quite a lot... but they make more than enough to keep it running they way it is they want to double dip, kinda like paying extra to drive in the passing lane and not get a ticket but you already pay taxes on the road in the 1st place everytime you buy gas...

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 recommendation

reply to chamberc
I guess google's technology is the work of the devil then, because they can magically allow their fiber users to download multiple terrabytes of data a month for just 70 bucks.
Get a clue, or stop trolling.

wispalord

join:2007-09-20
Farmington, MO
reply to Papageno

Re: Our government is so in bed with big business it's disgusting

right to the illuminati I think I spelled that right