funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to bicker
Re: Let the Market Decide
said by bicker  :Let folks pay more to service providers who offer net neutrality, if any are willing to do so. If none are, then that is clear and convincing evidence that the market is unwilling to pay enough to make net neutrality profitable. Network Neutrality has been profitable for nearly 20 years, now.
It's only recently that ISPs have decided for themselves what you may access and how fast they will let you use your bandwidth to access it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon USA
Are you affected by Comcast's RST forging? How to test it! -or- Read my original report. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by bicker :If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. Best for whom? |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Best for their owners, of course. Remember, cable companies are profit-making companies, NOT government agencies. |
|
johndoe303
join:2003-01-01
Boca Raton, FL
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :said by bicker :If net neutrality was still the best approach, then the ISPs wouldn't be moving to another approach. Best for whom? exactly. bicker, big business it talking. now shh! It's all about the money, try not to forget that next time. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| It is all about the money, regardless of who's talking. After all, if it wasn't, then you wouldn't have a problem paying for fractional T1 service to your home. The only difference is that it is your money versus their money. And if your retirement funds and other investments happen to invest in those companies, then it is your money versus your money. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to funchords
20 years is a long time, not to mention, in 1987, there wasn't much of an internet is any at all so that 20 year statement is an over exaggeration.
Now, the markets are shifting and as more and more people want to dump everything on the internet. This DOES have a dramatic impact on the last mile providers - not to mention the backbone - so this changes everything BIG time.
Cut to you - the end user. Are you willing to pay more for that internet connection? You should! If you are not only getting the "typical internet" use out of it, but you're not getting telephone, video services, getting a telephone service , and anything else that can be tossed on it, you think you're going to continue getting that for very long at $14 - $50 a month? That line just became MUCH more valuable.
Look at it from the provider's point of view now. You have all sorts of businesses making big profits from the use of the internet because their model is so much cheaper, thanks to those people that have built networks and connected them to each other (this, the INTER-net) and in order for this system to remain stable, capable, and working, it's the NETWORKS that have to invest the billions of dollars into the network all the while the end user consumer wants less and less of a bill.
Just remember, there ARE two sides to the story.
As brick and mortar is shifted more and more to the internet, it also means that more of that infrustructure cost goes with it. It may be just a little cheaper to do it on the internet, but as more and more people do it, the more and more cost shifts.
And, before ANYONE says "yea, but... these people are paying their own internet fees each month to offer their service" remember this.. 1) they are not required to maintain a level of service and quality on their speeds as the last mile is and 2) it's the last mile that will carry the largest burden because it's the last mile that must be everything for everyone... not the "service" such as vonage or netflix online. |
|
