1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments My thoughts on this whole issue are basically a response to an article I read in PC magazine: »discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1004401···ost.aspx
The big telecoms such as AT&T, Verizon, and now even Comcast and TWC want to distinguish between types of packets. The PR cover story is that they merely wish to distinguish high priority packets (such as video or phone) from low priority (email - if it arrives a second later we customers really don't care). However, they told their shareholders that they want to distinguish between, for example, Google's packets and Yahoo's packets, and charge them different rates. The legal power to charge different rates is the legal power to destroy or help a business, and that is the heart of the net neutrality issue.
It is the difference in rates that is the problem, not really the rates themselves. Don’t get me wrong, none of us want to pay higher rates. But the real problems start when a company is charged higher rates just to put them at a disadvantage or out of business.
Example: Netflix has streaming movies now, and if you have a Netflix account there is no additional charge per month, just a $99 converter box to plug in between your Ethernet and your TV. Comcast has streaming movies too, at $4 per movie. If you watch more than four movies per month, which would you rather have, the Comcast account or the $17 per month Netflix account?
Now consider what happens if Comcast tells Netflix “we won’t carry your movies unless you pay us the equivalent of $20 per user per month.” Comcast, Verizon and AT&T have proposed to Congress to be allowed to do exactly that, and this is why net neutrality legislation is so important.
Or imagine a scenario where Google wants to promote YouTube, so it approaches AT&T and proposes a grand scheme: AT&T will charge Yahoo $1 for every video that Yahoo downloads. Google will pay AT&T for any lost Yahoo revenue over what AT&T currently gets from Yahoo plus a premium. Yahoo’s video business will disappear, Google wins. And once Yahoo loses, Google can simply raise its prices to more than cover any additional outlay. Or perhaps it would be the other way around, and Yahoo schemes with AT&T to win.
The result is that the incumbent telecoms become kingmakers. They will decide which businesses succeed. Big players like Google, Amazon and MSFT will play Machiavelli games in backroom deals. Little companies don’t have a chance.
This isn’t a result of my fertile imagination. These very scenarios have played out before: Imagine the year is 1900. I run a steel company, and you run a railroad. I sell steel for, say $50 per ton and you carry it on your railroad to various places for a metered rate of $3 per ton. I have two major competitors. I come to you and tell you that I will give you $10 per ton if you agree not to carry steel for the other two. You know that number will give you far more profit for far less effort, so you say yes. You're happy. My two competitors cannot move steel from Pittsburg to Kansas any other way (what, by horse and wagon?) so they go out of business, or a least their business is limited to local purchasers or those on water routes.
What happens next is that I raise my price of steel from $50 per ton to $75 per ton. What choice do the consumers have? I make huge profits. I'm happy. You make huge profits. You’re happy. The consumers and my competitors aren't happy, but who gives a flying f*** about them?
This is the history of the railroad business in the late 1800s. This scenario played out again in the 1920s in trucking. Congress stepped at both times and mandated that any shipping company must charge the same amount for all customers, based only on size of goods or weight. These laws are still with us today.
Shipping internet packets isn't conceptually different from shipping freight. Rather than size and weight we now have megabytes and bandwidth speed. The U.S. has had 100 years of history and success with "net neutrality" so far. The major telecommunications carriers want to go back to the days of the robber barons, where they can make or break companies with backroom deals.
I am amazed that there even is a debate in Congress about this. The only people who don't want net neutrality are telecom execs, their employees and shareholders. For the other 299 million of us the issue is a no-brainer.
So, metering itself won’t make the net neutrality issues go away. The net neutrality debate is about whether everyone gets to pay the same rates. |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | That post needs like 10,000 Thumbs up. |
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | reply to jjeffeory
Excellent summation using real-world historical examples to prove the point. This should be required reading for everyone piping up about the net-neutrality issue! |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to KrK
said by KrK:That post needs like 10,000 Thumbs up. I gave him a thumbs up, that needs to be painted on the back of my vehicle. I always loved history in school and that's why the common phrase "those that don't know history, always repeat the same mistakes" applies to people that don't bother to learn it.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | said by knightmb:I always loved history in school and that's why the common phrase " those that don't know history, always repeat the same mistakes" applies to people that don't bother to learn it. I believe the quote should read: "those who fail to learn history (or are ignorant of history) are doomed to repeat it".
Honestly I feel we're doomed to repeat history regardless of our knowledge simply because it is human nature to seek power over others and to control the general population. But you can always delay the inevitable for a generation or two before people get soft and think to themselves "oh, that couldnt happen nowadays, not to us." then... Dictatorship again. |
|
| reply to KrK
Say "NO" to caps and "YES" to more speed and innovation I Agree with KRK, a very well done comment jjeffeory!
We are all at a pivotal moment in internet history, there are new technologies and products just starting to mainstream like VOD, offline backups, social networking apps, legal torrents, distributed computing and research. The net today is so much more than the net of yesterday, it is an informational hub, it is a service hub, it is many things yet to be imagined.
I am personally against caps and packet discrimination, but at the same time I understand and respect the residential TOS and managing network performance. There must be a better way. If I had a choice between caps and a price increase of say extra $5.00 per month to avoid caps, I would gladly pay extra $5.00 to avoid caps. |
|
 NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working?Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ | reply to jjeffeory
Re: Great, More Ammo For The Cap Arguments Wow, amazing analogy, I'm surprised I haven't heard that before. Some legislators in Washington could benefit from reading that, as it's exactly what everyone is saying. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | reply to jjeffeory
There are a few of us telecom employees who can see beyond balance sheets.
Net Neutrality lost, they've applied the prices to the customers and already there's no choice between providers who do or do not meter. Unless you're lucky enough to have FIOS and I expect they will come along after they get a few more customers.
Were the group that congress listens to last so I doubt anything will be done about it anytime soon. By then the American IT sector will probably be raped and pillaged and there will be little congress can do that will change the face of things for a decade or more. When it all plays out, America will not be producing Googles. India and China will be doing this.
Get to working on your mandarin. |
|
| reply to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:So, metering itself won't make the net neutrality issues go away. The net neutrality debate is about whether everyone gets to pay the same rates. Nice post.
The other problems this will have is "metered" news and other content. Sen. Larry Craig would never have been found out so widely had the gay guy he had sex with before posted the info online. News will become what they want you to know rather than what you need to know. Ask Barack Obama how voting for Credit Card companies the new ability to screw anyone at any time. 30% rates. He voted for them.
I wonder if these ISPs Union Employees are for metered pricing? Hard to find out the truth about your company's anti-union behavior (yes, I busted a union or two in my time--it's not hard---"Like all those perks? Well, if you unionize, they go away." Union was voted down 199-1. I guessed they liked onsite babysitting, negotiating your own raise, and getting stock options more than they liked the Union.) if you can't do research.
If consumers don't want this crap, get off your a@@ and write your Senator and Reps. Don't call or send emails. WRITE A LETTER! If you can't write a letter, you deserve metered bandwidth and all those restrictions.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
