| reply to sivran
Re: Defending Net Neutrality said by sivran:Wow, the extent of your pro-ISP/anti-consumer bias is shocking. We are advocating for our customers' interests. The extent of your ignorance of this is shocking. |
|
1 edit | So the rationing of bandwidth is a consumer interest, huh? Tell me, who specifically designates what a "satisfying experience" is?
The current rationing will only get worse as online video content becomes more prevelant. Failure to upgrade the oversold networks is the main problem.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
3 edits | said by S_engineer:So the rationing of bandwidth is a consumer interest, huh? Absolutely. If you are going to charge users $30 per month, and 1 Mbps of bandwidth costs you $100 per month at wholesale, you need to carefully ration it. This means shaping traffic and preventing bandwidth hogging. If you don't, you can't give users good Web performance, and other things they need and expect, without charging them $80 to $90 per month for the 768K which the FCC has now tentatively set as its new standard for broadband. To simply raise prices, making service unaffordable, would truly be anti-consumer.
As for upgrading networks: Our networks don't need to be upgraded at the moment. They can already handle far more traffic than they're carrying. But if we can't at least break even on the cost of backbone bandwidth, it makes no difference how much network capacity we have. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:So the rationing of bandwidth is a consumer interest, huh? Tell me, who specifically designates what a "satisfying experience" is? The current rationing will only get worse as online video content becomes more prevelant. Failure to upgrade the oversold networks is the main problem. Well, given that ol' wispy has no problem at all with flagrant net neutrality violations, and apparently believes web browsing to be the only legitimate use of the internet... 
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
3 edits | said by sivran:Well, given that ol' wispy has no problem at all with flagrant net neutrality violations Well, since there is no common definition of "Net Neutrality," there is no way to determine whether one might be "violating" it. Not that you have the right to tell me how to run my business or manage my network in any case. |
|
