S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Excellent.....
Its a start....this will be interesting to see who opposes this besides the usual suspects!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | There is a difference between metering and caps.
No law should tell an ISP how to manage their network. As long as the cap is fair, it should be enforced. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| said by baineschile  :No law should tell an ISP how to manage their network. As long as the cap is fair, it should be enforced. Fair is too subjective, this is why a cap must be defined as a cost, or other such term so it can be regulated
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to baineschile
It's not a law about managing your network. It's a consumer protection law against getting ripped off legally. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :No law should tell an ISP how to manage their network. As long as the cap is fair, it should be enforced. And this proposed law says the same thing. It doesn't outlaw metering and caps, it just requires them to be fair.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to KrK
Your right KrK, this is a consumer protection law and should be touted as one. This will be maligned by the carriers and their lobbiests, and Congressmen with huge pockets will look away. But if this argument is framed as consumer protection, then it will be harder for Congress to vote against this. This law as its written has components that look like laws that govern utlilities.
This should be expected for a platform that is now integrated into our economy in so many different ways.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to KrK
"It's a consumer protection law against getting ripped off legally."
This. |
|
robl27
Premium
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL | reply to KrK
This bullshit will not work, too many poor people who can not afford it. Unless we have little sheep out there, I think the people will speak with their wallets as already one person did. In the B Texas area did.
-Rob |
|
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :There is a difference between metering and caps. No law should tell an ISP how to manage their network. As long as the cap is fair, it should be enforced. As far as I remember, there are laws against monopolies too, and as far as broadband goes, much of the country suffers from only one option. Monopolies are easily regulated by the Government. I agree with you otherwise.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! |
|
Shane Davenport
@comcast.net
| reply to robl27
said by robl27 :This bullshit will not work, too many poor people who can not afford it. Unless we have little sheep out there, I think the people will speak with their wallets as already one person did. In the B Texas area did. -Rob You can't really speak with your wallet when all the ISPs have the same limits, which is what they want.
It seems we are headed back to the day's of dialup AOL and Compuserve. Some of you may remember the days before the public Internet, when you had to pay based on the time you were on the service and you had limited content. That's were we are headed.
-Shane |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :There is a difference between metering and caps. No law should tell an ISP how to manage their network. As long as the cap is fair, it should be enforced. I'll bet any amount of money that you would be singing a different tune if your ISP just put a 5GB cap on your connection. Look past your own situation - providers just don't want to provide a fair pricing model, they basically want to make the internet less appealing for high-bandwidth applications such as video. Comcast has been generous, but they already had a "hidden cap" - but you know a company like Time Warner if given the chance to implement caps would just decrease them yearly..."because of tough economic times your new cap is 20GB...10GB...5GB....1KB". Is that the kind of power that you want ISPs to have? I sure don't. |
|
CT3
@comcast.net
| reply to S_engineer
I don't see how its legal. You spend billions on setting up your network, you maintain it, you figure out the prices, no wait we'll figure out the prices and how you can sell it.
Uhh no. I guarantee that can't be what the founding father's had in mind.
If the company cuts its own throat, let it. Consumers need to learn to Vote with their dollars and get over the idea that these are necessities. Food, water, shelter, still the only REAL necessities for life. Internet, fast internet, non metered internet somehow fall very short of that list. I'm actually a little pissed that of all the things that needs the house's attention these days they felt the necessity to waste time on this.... |
|
Jafo232
You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.
Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :I'll bet any amount of money that you would be singing a different tune if your ISP just put a 5GB cap on your connection. Look past your own situation - providers just don't want to provide a fair pricing model, they basically want to make the internet less appealing for high-bandwidth applications such as video. Comcast has been generous, but they already had a "hidden cap" - but you know a company like Time Warner if given the chance to implement caps would just decrease them yearly..."because of tough economic times your new cap is 20GB...10GB...5GB....1KB". Is that the kind of power that you want ISPs to have? I sure don't. If there is competition, then sooner or later, one is going to offer a better cap than the other, until eventually it is unlimited. The same thing happened in the 90's. I remember when dialup was metered until eventually "unlimited access" became the popular keyphrase.
With a monopoly there is no competition, and that is when more regulation is necessary.
Now if collusion is found between two competitors to shaft the consumer, well there are already laws against that.
Somehow though I am starting to feel that there is a movement out there that many seem to think there is some unalienable right to unlimited access, which I disagree with.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to CT3
You are so wrong on so many levels it is almost a waste to even try to correct you.
Ignoring the fact that this entire industry is either in a Monopoly or Duopoly state in a vast majority of this country because of the barriers of entry, the below holds true
WE, the consumers and tax payers, have spent billions on building their networks. These companies haven't spent a dime they haven't received from us or the government to begin with.
WE, the consumers, pay higher prices than we should because of a lack of competition.
WE, the tax payer, contribute to everyone of these networks whether we subscribe to them or not simply because of the "incentives" they are granted to provide services that we are then over charged for if we actually are a consumer.
And you are right, the founding father's would have never allowed the government to cater to corporations like they do now and would have never allowed the corruption state of this government to become what it is. They had morals and good intent for others. Today's government is all about "me". |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer : This law as its written has components that look like laws that govern utlilities. Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I can't think of any utility that DOESN'T have metered billing.
Let's see...electric, water, gas, check. What else? |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| Well, yes, but NYSEG isn't saying $50 a month for the line and up to 100KWh included, then $5/KWh over ... It's more like $10 for the hook up and some smallish amount $0.20 per KWh from the start IIRC...
I think the general consensus is that caps are a horrible idea, but a reasonable line fee (say like the line fee for your phone... $7/month in rural NY) and then a reasonable per GB charge ($0.25??) would be ok.
But the carriers want it both ways... Grandma pays $50 for internet and her 5GB, heavy user pays $50 + $2 per GB over... And the overage charge is just crazy high in relation to the cost of transfer, which as the article notes keeps going down...
And this would also allow night rate pricing which might actually help congestion when of course caps *don't*.
And the really huge downloaders would actually pay more for more use while the really light users would save money. But that would be fair rather than just sneakily raising rates for everyone.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to Jafo232
Oh, I'm a strong supporter of flat rate, no cap. But yes, I think again we in the US mostly get the worst of both worlds.
We either need the government regulated utility style, hopefully done up like NYSEG does with the utility owning the lines and charging a reasonable and set rate for maintaining them, and you buying internet access from any electricity vendor you like at their plan / rate / deal...
Or, we need to open up and let many more companies run lines, put up WISP towers, run cable whatever...
I prefer the first as I think it really is working well for NYers in that you can get better rates on electricity now but there aren't 500 different sets of power lines running by.
I suppose we could use the PUC etc to regulate the existing vendors, but I think it would be better to just open up the lines like we did for local and LD phone service so everyone who cares to compete can link in at the CO or whatever...
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to Jafo232
said by Jafo232 :said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :I'll bet any amount of money that you would be singing a different tune if your ISP just put a 5GB cap on your connection. Look past your own situation - providers just don't want to provide a fair pricing model, they basically want to make the internet less appealing for high-bandwidth applications such as video. Comcast has been generous, but they already had a "hidden cap" - but you know a company like Time Warner if given the chance to implement caps would just decrease them yearly..."because of tough economic times your new cap is 20GB...10GB...5GB....1KB". Is that the kind of power that you want ISPs to have? I sure don't. If there is competition, then sooner or later, one is going to offer a better cap than the other, until eventually it is unlimited. The same thing happened in the 90's. I remember when dialup was metered until eventually "unlimited access" became the popular keyphrase. With a monopoly there is no competition, and that is when more regulation is necessary. Now if collusion is found between two competitors to shaft the consumer, well there are already laws against that. Somehow though I am starting to feel that there is a movement out there that many seem to think there is some unalienable right to unlimited access, which I disagree with. ISPs have monopolies in many areas which is why regulation is required. In my area for example I can either goto AT&T for DSL (which the slots are probably filled up) or Comcast. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me considering my choice will probably HAVE to be Comcast.
Perhaps you are right and it is just a matter of time before ISPs overlap and compete, but dial-up was a good competing business because your neighborhood didn't have to wired for it. All you needed was dial tone and you could use dial-up internet. Plus, the fact that phone companies had to line share which made dial-up the perfect free-enterprise business because all businesses were competing for your dollar. Today's ISPs? Not so much. Don't like Comcast? Then you don't get HSI, simple as that... |
|
Michael Chaney
@natinst.com
| reply to RJ44
What you're overlooking is the fact that comparisons to utilities like electric, water and gas are inappropriate. Data is not a limited natural resource.
A better comparison would be to roads or copper telephone service. The cost is in building and maintaining the road, or installing and maintaining a telephone line to your home. Whether you drive on the road or not, or use the phone or not, the cost is still there. Now business models such as toll roads or per-call charges are ways of recouping the fixed costs (as would be a flat-rate monthly bill or tax), but are not in anyway related to the actual cost structure. The same is true for Internet service. Your ISP pays to provide and maintain the connection to your house, and that cost for the most part is fixed. If we were to incorrectly apply the utility analogy, then if I turn my computer off for a month, I should get a bill for $0, but I don't. They can't do this because the connection cost them whether heavily used, partially used, or not used at all.
The only fair comparison you can make to a utility is when discussing the infrastructure. Because the hurdles and obstacles in providing a wire to your house for a broadband connection are very similar to those faced when providing any other utility service to your house.
How many of those utilities over came these hurdles is by establishing a common carrier status to the physical infrastructure. That's how different phone companies can offer competing service over the same copper lines, or how different electric companies can do the same of one set of power lines into your house. Ultimately the best solution is to have a municipally or privately owned broadband infrastructure that allows for ISPs to compete over that common infrastructure. But that change will not be quick or easy. In the meantime we need legislation that will prevent those monopolizing the infrastructure from abusing their position for money grab schemes. |
|
margaf77
join:2000-12-22
Bayonne, NJ | reply to CT3
Consumers cannot vote with their dollars in most markets. What part of that cant people understand?
And as for internet not being essential, try doing anything today without internet access for 30 days and post back about it. |
|
