 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | If wireless is different, then so what? (I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...)
But, if wireless is different, then what?
If the open Internet is part of the pipe, the remainder is what carriers can use for their own premium services. If the pipe is smaller because it's wireless, then the carriers have more incentive to erode the Internet part of the pipe to make room for premium services. MORE protections are needed in that case, NOT LESS!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though.
Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time.
My Cox service has been sucking lately because of people using all the bandwidth on the node (I have a sneaking suspicion it's just one or two customers doing the hogging, given the traffic patterns), but that doesn't mean they should be able to tell me what services I can or can't use, although I'd appreciate some reasonable prioritization of interactive traffic, since they have the option of splitting the node or adding a new DOCSIS carrier at any time of their choosing.
Wireless providers don't have that luxury, in general. Between the relatively small amount of spectrum they can get their hands on and the difficulty in installing new sites thanks to NIMBYs, they definitely rate different regulations.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by wierdo:You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? That's not limited to wireless. Wireless has more noise, but discriminating useful signal from that noise has always been an improving capability (wireless and wired). To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread.
said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. Several US carriers are doing this, too, rather quietly. They characterize the service as "unlimited" but actually it's limited.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
|
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by funchords:That's not limited to wireless. Wireless has more noise, but discriminating useful signal from that noise has always been an improving capability (wireless and wired). To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread. The difference is that with a wire, you have 1 GHz or more of bandwidth to work with. Even the most spectrum-heavy carrier is lucky to have a tenth or twentieth of that in a few markets, and more like a hundredth in many.
Several US carriers are doing this, too, rather quietly. They characterize the service as "unlimited" but actually it's limited.
I strongly disagree with that characterization. My cable service is not "limited" (in the sense of "opposite of unlimited data transfer") merely because it has speed tiers. As best I can divine from your statement, you think my cable company ought not be able to advertise "unlimited" service unless they let the modem run uncapped?
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:To say that wireless is merely behind would be a simplification of reality, but it's effectively true: wireless is following where wired has already tread. And wireless providers don't want to lose control and end up with the same issues they currently face with wire line. If they can keep the choke hold on, then even if wireless ever does catch up... it'll always be different... their cash cow foreva. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though. Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people. These advocates largely have accepted reasonable pay-for-use models. What they've rebelled against was clearly unreasonable rates and tiers that were nothing but an anti-video filter.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. Fixed wireless broadband is a pretty stupid idea in the grand scheme of things, IMO.
Regardless, it is true that without caps of any kind, you will end up with LTE being just like satellite. Crappy. Satellite isn't crappy because of the FAP, it's crappy because it's congested at the best of times, in my experience.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:said by funchords:(I maintain that wireless is not different, just slower, but so was the 'net 5 years ago...) You haven't heard of the shannon limit, I take it? Wireless is different. That doesn't mean carriers should be able to discriminate based on what services you use, though. Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. Wait what? There's no throttling in Japan, on either 3G or 4G. Lots of people use 3G as their primary internet connections at home and on the road. Heck I use hundreds of gigabytes every month on my WiMax connection, and they've actually tripled my upload speed over the last 4 months. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by wierdo:Personally, I think the carriers in other countries have the right idea. You buy unlimited service for whatever price and after the first few GB of transfer in a month, the user gets throttled to a lower speed, to avoid people monopolizing scarce air time. But the same "consumer advocates" that are attacking AT&T, Verizon, etc for using pricing mechanisms or caps & overage charges to manage spectrum would attack just as vociferously if they used the "slow down" method. Face it, nothing that the providers do to manage wireless congestion will be accepted by the champions of the people. How about proof that congestion is actually necessary? You know why that's impossible? Because AT&T et al. are making huge, huge margins on wireless while cutting capex. There's no excuse for their practices, which are unheard of in other developed countries like Japan and the Scandinavian countries. |
|
| reply to wierdo
said by wierdo:said by BF69:FEW GB? So this is what they want to take away broadcast TV for? So rural people can have slow wireless internet with severe caps and many restrictions because net neutrality shouldn't apply to wireless? Rural people can have that now. It's called satellite internet. Fixed wireless broadband is a pretty stupid idea in the grand scheme of things, IMO. Regardless, it is true that without caps of any kind, you will end up with LTE being just like satellite. Crappy. Satellite isn't crappy because of the FAP, it's crappy because it's congested at the best of times, in my experience. Again, no caps in many other countries with much lower-capacity 3G and there have been no problems. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by sonicmerlin:Again, no caps in many other countries with much lower-capacity 3G and there have been no problems. You're right. No caps, but they do throttle after a certain amount of data transfer in a month, at least in a lot of places I've been.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to funchords
I think flat rate metered billing makes sense when the demand is much higher than the supply. What I'd really like is for people who use very little to pay very little. The guy using 10GB can pay $50, the other guy using 10MB pays 5 cents. That would seriously encourage the efficient use of bandwidth by the software, but the carriers don't want 50% of their data users paying 5 or 50 cents a month.
The carriers care about how much money is going into their pockets. If overloading the network was the fastest way to make money, they would do it. Killing network neutrality will mean more money for them. Bandwidth considerations are simply an excuse. |
|
