Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
|  It seems like this situation happened a long time ago.
 This seems to be an repeat of what went on between businesses, consumers and the Railroads in the late 1800's. The Railroads were abusing their power by employing unfair practices and rates to discriminate against various industries and to support other favored industries.
Please see this article from Wikipedia describing the reason for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate···erce_Act
We need an agency to regulate the ISP's in the same way that the land telecommunications industry is regulated. Although the broadband business is not a monopoly in most areas it is an oligopoly with one or two factors offering service in any physical location.
Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic. This is nothing new. When the Bell System was broken up the Long Distance Carriers were required to pay the Local Telephone Companies for carrying their traffic. We need a form of regulation such as the one that exists to regulate the land line telecommunications industry to guarantee that the ISP's receive a reasonable return on their investment while offering the use of their network at a reasonable rate. The broadband subscriber should not be subject to CAP's. The content providers should help fund the expansion of the ISP's networks. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by Mr Matt  :Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic. This is where the net neutrality argument started. Why should content providers like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple all have to pay more because broadband providers screwed up on how they bill their customers? |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt :Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic. A) Nextflix et all already pay for their bandwidth. Now you expect them to pay TWICE? You do realize the only reason why people want to use the ISPs pipes is that there is content to be consumed. No content then the "tubes" can be as big as they want and no one will use them. ISP should be GRATEFUL companies like Netflix made the internet so popular that people want to pay $50 or more a month for internet service
B) do you think companies like Netflix are going to eat this cost? No they will pass this onto the consumer. So if it's your assumption that by charging these companies a fee and thus this will mean you won't have to end up paying like you would with a cap and overages you are greatly mistaken.
C) I find it ironic ISPs like at&t are all for wanting to charge companies a fee for using their pipe, but right now they pay ESPN money to carry bandwidth hogging espn360.com. Does that make sense? So not only is espn360.com using up a lot of bandwidth per every at&t user that accesses it, at&t is paying for that "privilege". That would be kind of like the toll booth operator paying me to use the tollway. Why should I trust the opinions of a company that says it wants to do one thing and then does the exact opposite? |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to espaeth
 The internet is evolving. It was not designed to carry streaming traffic. What I am proposing is a way to allow the ISP to recover the cost of upgrading there networks to support the increased traffic. I propose that the ISP's be paid to carry the streaming traffic without increasing the cost to subscribers not using commercial streaming services. If the content providers pay the ISP's to carry their traffic the revenue can be used to finance the necessary upgrades. On the other hand I believe the fees should only be applied to commercial usage that requires significant upgrades to carry the traffic that usage requires. I also propose that prices be regulated to prevent the ISP's from applying predatory pricing that would make it financially impractical for content providers to use the internet to deliver content. On the other hand defining what is considered a commercial service may be a major issue. The Internet industry has to start working out these issues sooner or later and I believe it should be sooner. Subscribers and Service Providers should take their heads out of the sand and work out these issues. |
|
