 jaykaykay4 Ever Young
MVM
join:2000-04-13
USA
kudos:24 ·Cox HSI
1 edit |
The latest on Net NeutralityMoments ago, the Federal Communication Commission voted to push forward with Internet "fast and slow lanes," ending Net Neutrality and establishing paid priority online. Hundreds of thousands of us worked with groups like Demand Progress, CREDO and Free Press, flooding the FCC with so many calls that they had to literally turn their phones off. That still wasn't enough to stop Chairman Tom Wheeler from backing an Internet for the 1 percent — but our fight is far from over. Before these disastrous rules go into effect, the FCC is calling on the public to weigh in on the changes, and the Democratic commissioners have already expressed skepticism over the changes, calling on the public to guide their next moves. We need to make it crystal clear to all five FCC commissioners that the public demands Net Neutrality, no matter what Tom Wheeler is selling. We want broadband reclassified as a utility, and an open Internet available to all — we will join us in the final push today? PETITION TO FCC COMMISSIONERS: The FCC must reclassify broadband as a utility, and stop companies profiting by giving the rich better Internet access and choking out competition. Fight for innovation and equality, backing Net Neutrality and rejecting the new "fast and slow lane" Internet rules now! Click here to sign -- it just takes a second. Thanks, -- The folks at Watchdog.net P.S. If the other links aren't working for you, please go here to sign: » act.watchdog.net/petitions/4655 |
|
| |
First, let me make it clear that I am in full support of Net Neutrality.
Now, the question comes in about what exactly that is.
I have seen a lot of focus on preventing a provider from paying for access and for avoidance of "fast lanes" vs "slow lanes" but have not seen much in the way of exactly what that means.
I want to leave any and all discussion of so-called peering agreements out of the picture.
I disagree with any notion that transit between providers (of any type) is free or should be free. I believe that every byte in each direction should be paid for by the sender. Those rates should be non-discriminatory in the interest of Net Neutrality (IE: everyone pays the same rate for 1TB volume in 1 day, for instance).
As part of each agreement, both parties agree to the same terms: Each is responsible for guaranteeing their side of any given "connection" is capable of handling, without degradation, traffic in both directions. Each side would pay the other for every byte they sent to the other.
My description is perhaps far too simplistic (partly intentional) but hopefully it makes my point. A high bandwidth service puts far greater demands on inter-networking infrastructure and so should incur higher costs than low-bandwidth services.
The alternative (which many seem to favor) is that all transit is "free", regardless of volume. The downside I see to this is that there are costs, sometimes significant, involved with accommodating network traffic. If all providers are forced to offer free transit then they will in the end find a way to pass this on to their customers, such as residential users. For instance, we very likely could see the resurgence of metered plans for broadband and the ultimate demise of "unlimited" usage at defined bandwidth levels. Want to view 1TB of movies each month? That plan will cost you $150/month. Only want 100GB of data per month? That plan will cost you $10/month.
Using the notable agreements that Netflix has been making - I do not see this any different than if their previous provider had made the same agreements. As long as Netflix didn't have to pay a premium (IE: higher per-byte rate) this would seem to be inline with my opinions of net-neutrality. However this is my opinion.
And that brings me to my final point: Before choosing a side or jumping behind the very-broad term "Net Neutrality" each individual should have an idea of what this means to them and to ensure that agrees with what is being pushed by various campaigns. Sometimes the phrase "Be careful what you wish for" is very appropriate. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
to jaykaykay
jaykaykay , thank you for the notice and link. Let's keep it simple - Internet should always be neutral and classified as utility. There should be no "fast" lines for 1% and "slow" for the rest... Internet is way far more important for all of us (may I say, for mankind?) to allow some (very small percentage of the population) to profiteer from it... Internet is not for them, it's for all of us, don't you think? |
|
| |
to jaykaykay
JayKayKay you may reconsider posting the link you provided. I hit it and the information provided in the information slots was of a J. Klein and an email address of Harvey@*******.com. It may be yours or it may not but it's out there. |
|
| |
to OZO
said by OZO:Let's keep it simple - Internet should always be neutral and classified as utility. I think this is a perfect example of being careful what you wish for. Being neutral and being a utility are not the same and the latter is not necessarily required to ensure the former. Our government gets paid via taxes and fees for imposing regulations and overseeing utilities. The regulating agencies also provide for "allowances" to utilities in lieu of allowing competition and supply-demand determine price/features. Anyone that still has a POTS phone (or equivalent regulated phone service) will be able to point out that a regulated utility does not mean it is efficient or is a particularly good value. Many jump to non-regulated phone service for the better value. There should be no "fast" lines for 1% and "slow" for the rest... Exactly - but what does that mean to you? Does it mean that everyone should pay for data transfer using the same rate structure, or that there should be no charges for data transfer? There's a huge difference, and someone needs to fund both the equipment and the operational costs for that equipment. Unfortunately many of the "net neutrality" efforts do not clearly define what they are asking for, and this historically leaves the worst interpretation for the consumer to be chosen. This is unfortunately not a simple topic, largely because the concept of "Net Neutrality" has been expanded in scope and diluted beyond the original intent. Internet is way far more important for all of us (may I say, for mankind?) to allow some (very small percentage of the population) to profiteer from it... Internet is not for them, it's for all of us, don't you think? Being a utility does not mean not making a profit. In fact, being a utility often provides for guaranteed profit. This is why I made the point that each person that wants to stand behind "Net Neutrality" needs to understand exactly what that means to them since there are many different thoughts of what this is. |
|
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-21 2:26 pm
The discussed "Net Neutrality" regulation is not about should the Internet traffic be paid at some cent/byte rate (as you actively trying to push here). It's about should it be filtered and prioritized by some. Personally I don't think it should be. Hence - I'm all for keeping "Net Neutrality" as it was before. Am I clear here? |
|
 Rocky67Pencil Neck Geek
Premium Member
join:2005-01-13
Orange, CA |
Rocky67
Premium Member
2014-May-21 3:03 pm
said by OZO: Am I clear here? Perfectly clear, thank you. |
|
| |
to OZO
said by OZO:The discussed "Net Neutrality" regulation is not about should the Internet traffic be paid at some cent/byte rate (as you actively trying to push here). It's about should it be filtered and prioritized by some. Personally I don't think it should be. Hence - I'm all for keeping "Net Neutrality" as it was before. Am I clear here? You are clear but I think you may have missed my point. There are many (in this forum and several others here) that have a different opinion. In fact there are quite a few discussions whether or not Netflix paying ISPs is anti-net-neutrality, and this has been used as an example with several efforts behind petitions for net-neutrality. The 'fast' and 'slow' lanes is a weak indirect reference to what happened with Netflix, so it is hard to say it is not about that. The concept that the "rich" can pay for priority while the rest are relegated to "slow" lanes directly goes to cost and who pays who. That is the only reason I bring this up: The ability to pay for priority is at the foundation of the current disagreement - the FCC currently is seeking to allow this (claiming they will keep it "under control") while the opponents are seeking to prevent this. This demonstrates that while we each have our own understanding of what Net Neutrality is and we each have our assumptions about what is being progressed, the reality may be different. There are many that don't see that this term really has been overloaded even among those petitioning, lobbying, and looking to push legislation and/or regulation. This is why the details are important. I wasn't saying you are wrong or right, and I wasn't asking for you to defend your position. I was stating that we each need to ensure that what we think Net Neutrality is (or what we think it should be) agrees with what is specifically being driven. Being such a hot topic there are those with alternate agendas that may not agree with what each of us may desire in the end. |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
to jaykaykay
Sadly, until metered-usage costs become universal, nothing else is going to solve this - only make it worse. With any limited resource (in this case, bandwidth and infrastructure), the more of it that's used imposes extra costs to somebody somewhere - else the quality of everyone's service suffers. The problem is that current wide-open, fixed-fee usage of a scarce resource like bandwidth has created all sorts of absurd inequities... infrastructure and bandwidth is being consumed in vast amounts by a handful of content-heavy, profitable sites (Netflix, et al) who are being subsidized in their niche markets by the "free" Internet infrastructure put in place and maintained by everyone else. If websites paid access fees accurately based on delivered bandwidth, and if users paid access fees based on received bandwidth, the costs of "heavy hitting" would be distributed directly across those who have the greatest impact on the infrastructure. A major, if not total, part of those extra traffic fees ought to be plowed back into improvements in that infrastructure.
All the chatter about "net neutrality" ends up being just a way for political entities to promise to put paint on a pig... with the end result that the pig gets slaughtered anyhow. Until those using a limited resource more heavily have to bear the proportional costs of that heavier usage, the mess will only grow and the political animals will create ever more regulatory nightmares. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-21 10:22 pm
Do you think Netflix doesn't pay for the Internet and uses it for free? It may come from reading your speculations. Or do you think, that if it pays, it does pay the same way as you, the residential customer, do? And, because there is no way to make Netflix to pay accordingly to the bandwidth it uses, now we have to tag those packets and treat (filter) them accordingly, making their traffic "slow" as coming form a violator of some imaginary business model. Right? Wrong! Netflix does pay its own share for the Internet, contributing, as you said, in "improvements in that infrastructure". If payment is inadequate, that's the business between Netflix and its ISP.
Tagging and prioritizing data packets, if allowed, will lead to segregation of the Internet into several pipes (I use this term just to make it understandable for our Senators...) And that, instead of facilitation of the "improvements in that infrastructure", will actually lead to its stagnation. And we see that tendency here, in the US, if we start to compare our Internet to other developed countries (as you know, now we're far behind many others in providing Internet in terms of bandwidth, speed and price for the service). By Comcast's will, we would still measure bandwidth in floppy-disk-speed units and would have separate Internet for video (one speed), web browsing (another speed), VoIP service (a third kind of speed), email (yet another speed), etc. All of those kinds of speeds would be provided by associated services and their bundles... In that respect Comcast reminds me the recent story about MAAFIA, BTW. Comcast is late in the game of video over the Internet and now it tries to filter and slow down traffic, coming from its rivals. Old phone companies (like e.g. AT&T) want to keep old technology (POTS lines) as long as possible (preferably forever) and even if new technologies have arrived, they want to make transition to them very slowly, so you'd pay the same $30 per month for one phone line (and if you want to get Caller ID - pay $10 more)... That's them, who want to make Internet "colored" in many flavors. That's them who want to introduce priorities for data packets (to control transition form old technologies to new ones). And that's why they want us to accept it. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
2 edits |
Blackbird
Premium Member
2014-May-22 12:14 am
said by OZO:Do you think Netflix doesn't pay for the Internet and uses it for free? It may come from reading your speculations. Or do you think, that if it pays, it does pay the same way as you, the residential customer, do? And, because there is no way to make Netflix to pay accordingly to the bandwidth it uses, now we have to tag those packets and treat (filter) them accordingly, making their traffic "slow" as coming form a violator of some imaginary business model. Right? Wrong! Netflix does pay its own share for the Internet, contributing, as you said, in "improvements in that infrastructure". If payment is inadequate, that's the business between Netflix and its ISP.
Tagging and prioritizing data packets, if allowed, will lead to segregation of the Internet into several pipes... The problem is that it's not just the business of Netflix and its ISP. Netflix's ISP is just that - an ISP... not necessarily a backbone provider, not a relaying service, and almost certainly not an ISP serving customer locations some 1,000's of miles away. Yet the impact of that heavy Netflix traffic moving over all that shared infrastructure taxes the rest of the system - a system existing outside the boundaries of the ISP that's reaping Netflix's payments. There's a reason semi-trucks, wherever they go, pay higher vehicle tax rates than automobiles, higher axle tolls, higher permit fees. The reason is that those semi's create a heavier burden on the traffic infrastructure - wherever they go, locally or otherwise. If Netflix's ISP was contributing significantly to maintaining and upgrading the general Internet infrastructure across the entire Netflix traffic flow-paths, I'd have much less problem with the current concept, but that's almost certainly not the case. I'm not advocating tagging any packets, nor playing any semantic games over "net neutrality"... I'm suggesting that a traffic-volume-dependent fee or tax be applied at/by both sending and receiving ISPs, and that revenue be totally allocated (and accountable) for expansion and upgrading all along the Internet. As it is right now, that's not the case and, to a larger extent, Netflix (and other similar high-volume content-providers) get an essentially free ride beyond their ISP into neighborhoods like mine, loading down the DSL speeds and general connection speeds for everyone else. If Netflix and their customers truly had to pay their way for the full-path impact they have on Internet infrastructure and bandwidth, either they'd use it a lot less or the Internet beyond Netflix's ISP would be funded adequately to expand and accommodate it all. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-22 1:53 am
Let's not mix apples and oranges here. One thing is tagging and prioritizing data packets and another thing is how content providers (e.g. Netflix) pay their fee for using the Internet. New (anti) Net Neutrality ruling will allow to differentiate net traffic depending on who sends it and provide means for "fast" vs "slow" transmissions. That is bad and should be stopped from the beginning. It will help monopolies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc to double dip everyone for the Internet use, and to interfere (effectively suppress) traffic from their rivals, trying to gain market share. Do you agree that it should be stopped? said by Blackbird:The problem is that it's not just the business of Netflix and its ISP. Netflix's ISP is just that - an ISP... not necessarily a backbone provider, not a relaying service, and almost certainly not an ISP serving customer locations some 1,000's of miles away. I'm sorry to say, but that's just plain oversimplification... Don't you really think that Netflix's ISP just takes the money from Netflix and run?.. No, of course not. Of course it redistributes part of received from Netflix money back down to backbone providers. But that means, that the Netflix IS paying money for the maintenance of the infrastructure and its improvements. I have no any doubt about it... Do you? Then why create this whole confusion and mix these two different things? To loose the clean vision who is behind it and why or what?.. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
Blackbird
Premium Member
2014-May-22 10:29 am
said by OZO:Let's not mix apples and oranges here. One thing is tagging and prioritizing data packets and another thing is how content providers (e.g. Netflix) pay their fee for using the Internet.
... said by Blackbird:The problem is that it's not just the business of Netflix and its ISP. Netflix's ISP is just that - an ISP... not necessarily a backbone provider, not a relaying service, and almost certainly not an ISP serving customer locations some 1,000's of miles away. I'm sorry to say, but that's just plain oversimplification... Don't you really think that Netflix's ISP just takes the money from Netflix and run?.. No, of course not. Of course it redistributes part of received from Netflix money back down to backbone providers. But that means, that the Netflix IS paying money for the maintenance of the infrastructure and its improvements. I have no any doubt about it... Do you? Then why create this whole confusion and mix these two different things? To loose the clean vision who is behind it and why or what?.. It's not mixing apples and oranges, it's the engine that's driving it. A key purported reason for the tagging/prioritizing schemes is because some content providers can't dependably access their customers fast enough on a clogged Internet (one that they and their users, largely, are clogging). So they want the capability of "paying extra" for priority delivery... delivery that will come at the expense of everyone else whose share of existing bandwidth will get clipped even more by the set-aside. And, certainly, packet-tagging makes it easier to track the heavy-hitters' packets as they move along the net and could facilitate some sort of pay-as-used scheme for billing fast-trackers for their premium usage in order to maintain the fast-track performance... that's what makes the argument attractive to some of those concerned about Internet overloading. But, as many opponents note, packet-tagging also makes censorship and privacy-loss not only feasible, it makes it easy for those interested in "controlling" people. The problem is that the Internet functions as a sort of communications monopoly (regardless of how it's internally structured) - that is, there is no alternative to it for most users. There are no privately-operated alternative data comm networks that the public can access end-to-end from a given region, though there might be some choice in local ISPs or access methodologies. User/provider revenue streams start and end largely at the local ISP; those, in turn, provide revenue to their backbone partners, etc. based on long-term, gross bandwidth for the connection. However, everyone in the game is avoiding the obvious: funding the infrastructure (especially that beyond their own servers) for peak-load. A bottleneck anywhere in the stream is a bottleneck for all traffic moving along that path. The current "solution" is to simply let the net slow down without paying the freight to increase its capacity. The packet-tagging scheme is, at root, a method for charging extra to the heavy users (at the performance expense of the rest of us) to prioritize their traffic to avoid the slowdowns... but it leaves the non-prioritized users' performance hanging in the wind, entirely apart from "net neutrality" issues. It's a method whereby "scarce resources" can be preferentially sold to those willing to pay extra for the privilege, but does nothing to relieve the pressure on the already-overloaded infrastructure. In fact, it can be (and has been) argued as detrimental in the long-term, since it incentivizes the marginalizing of Internet performance for non-premium users. Until a truly effective mechanism for funding the expanding and maintaining of all the infrastructure of the Internet is found and implemented broadly, these kinds of schemes will only continue arising. Right now, it's a patchwork quilt that is tearing and developing holes. With the entire using community geared to thinking in terms of "free", funding necessary service quality along the way is simply not happening as it needs to. |
|
 planet
join:2001-11-05
Oz
kudos:1 |
planet
Member
2014-May-22 11:10 am
Sounds like the cable companies/ISPs, losing money due to many moving to internet based video programming (netflix, youtube, etc), want to try and reproportion the slice of the money pie. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:So they want the capability of "paying extra" for priority delivery... delivery that will come at the expense of everyone else whose share of existing bandwidth will get clipped even more by the set-aside. And, certainly, packet-tagging makes it easier said by Blackbird:it incentivizes the marginalizing of Internet performance for non-premium users. Knowing all of that, why are you defending it?.. You (actually all of us) will get slower Internet, will end up paying for it even more and you're helping those several monopolies to gain even more power by trying to find excuses why they should be able to prioritize data traffic for their own benefit... Where is any logic here? |
|
 Snowy
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
|
to Shady Bimmer
said by Shady Bimmer:- the FCC currently is seeking to allow this (claiming they will keep it "under control") while the opponents are seeking to prevent this. "under control" needs 2 things. 1. A reference. 2. A song to go with the dance. We learned everything we need to know in kindergarten. " With a wink wink here and a wink wink there
Here a wink, there a wink, everywhere a wink wink
Old MacDonald had a farm, P-A-Y-O-L-AImplementing a regulation that is so flawed that it requires a statement that basically says: Don't worry, we see the potential for abuse, trust us"Is enough reason to scuttle it, IMO |
|
nony
Premium Member
join:2012-11-17
New York, NY
kudos:1
1 edit |
nony
Premium Member
2014-May-23 3:57 am
|
|
| |
to Snowy
said by Snowy:Implementing a regulation that is so flawed that it requires a statement that basically says:
Don't worry, we see the potential for abuse, trust us"
Is enough reason to scuttle it, IMO This is likely why there is so much resistance to it with alternate efforts to push "Net Neutrality". Again - there are many opinions on what this means and each effort has different agenda behind it. The FCC's version is just one of many. Note that I am not making any statements or implying any opinions - just stating what is on the table. |
|
Snowy
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 ·Hawaiian Telcom
·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
|
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-May-24 12:14 am
said by Shady Bimmer:Again - there are many opinions on what this means and each effort has different agenda behind it. The FCC's version is just one of many. Isn't the FCC version the only one that matters? Net neutrality = packet neutrality is how I would define it. |
|
nony
Premium Member
join:2012-11-17
New York, NY
kudos:1 |
nony
Premium Member
2014-May-24 2:28 am
They are the only entity that is immediately consequential. Hence we attempt to channel what they say and don't say. However, they are not the courts, nor the policy makers, and contrary to popular opinion they can't devine (last I checked). And they do struggle to get it right. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
to OZO
said by OZO:said by Blackbird:So they want the capability of "paying extra" for priority delivery... delivery that will come at the expense of everyone else whose share of existing bandwidth will get clipped even more by the set-aside. And, certainly, packet-tagging makes it easier said by Blackbird:it incentivizes the marginalizing of Internet performance for non-premium users. Knowing all of that, why are you defending it? ... Where is any logic here? I'm not sure why you think I'm defending it... perhaps I was unclear in something I wrote. I'm opposed to the packet-tagging concept for several reasons. My point is that seeing this issue (and trying to limit discussion of it) in terms of only its potential for censorship misses the economic/performance drivers behind it... and those drivers will assert themselves eventually, one way or another, as the net becomes ever more overloaded by heavy traffickers. The driving issues will have to be dealt with or these kinds of tracking-laden proposals will keep on arising. Given the economic model of the "free" Internet in which its users have become used to accessing a "network on the cheap", either the economic/performance issues will be dealt with by preferential treatment of those willing to pay extra for it or by some kind of effective traffic-volume-based revenue sharing that assures everybody in the data stream obtains expansion revenue from the heavy users. I prefer the latter approach, in part, because it puts the direct burden directly onto the heavy content providers and users, but passes the content-based revenue beyond just the local ISP to all the other choke-points in the data stream... plus it's packet and content neutral. But it will cost, and it will act like a tax... heavy providers will pay more, and users will have to pay heavy providers (and their own local ISPs) more for their heavy-traffic data. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
1 edit |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-24 2:42 pm
said by Blackbird:Given the economic model of the "free" Internet in which its users have become used to accessing a "network on the cheap", The Internet is not "free". I pay for it as everybody around does. And it's neither "cheap". I pay $60 for 6Mbps download/700Kbps upload... Is that cheap? I don't think so. And I'm sure Netflix pays its share for the Internet (and respectively to the Internet infrastructure) too. With the new FCC's anti-"Net Neutrality" ruling old Internet providing services are trying to consolidate their dominant position and suppress their new rivals in that business. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
said by OZO:said by Blackbird:Given the economic model of the "free" Internet in which its users have become used to accessing a "network on the cheap", The Internet is not "free". I pay for it as everybody around does. And it's neither "cheap". I pay $60 for 6Mbps download/700Kbps upload... Is that cheap? I don't think so. And I'm sure Netflix pays its share for the Internet (and respectively to the Internet infrastructure) too. ... Which works out to about $2/day - about half the price of a gallon of gas or half the price of a fast-food hamburger. Around here, that's about the same price as the sewer bill, for many users. By my reckoning, that's "cheap" - especially for a technical/data portal that provides access to literally millions of no-charge, heavy-traffic websites (which is the "free" in "free Internet" I was referring to). Actually, around here, many users are getting Inet access for $20-$40 per month, though their speeds aren't always the same as yours... and many of them are very heavy bandwidth users (gaming, videos, etc). As for Netflix, I strongly doubt its "share for the Internet" ever trickles down to the providers of downstream infrastructure (past Netflix's own 'local ISP') to provide growing capacity for the bandwidth its products consume all along the way to its end users. Perhaps I'm getting too old, harkening back to an era when one actually had to pay dearly for what they got... data networks included. Now, it's almost taken for granted, like a glass of water. Unfortunately, the pipeline bandwidth hasn't kept pace with the demand and many users are now experiencing significant net slow-downs. You can particularly see that in many places starting around 4-5pm on schooldays as the kids come home and start either gaming or downloading movies or all manner of streaming media; suddenly, about 10-11pm, the net clears up and access speeds resume. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-25 12:40 am
Yeah, continue to compare price of the Internet service to gas prices and you surely will get the picture of what's going on and why...  Meantime, here are the facts: • Prices for Internet service in the US are higher, than in many other countries in the world. Currently US is on 19th place in the list - Global Value Index. • Regarding the speed of Internet service, US is on the 30th place among other countries in the world - Download Speed by Country (just think about it!) And it's not because content providers (or content users) in the US don't pay enough to backbone infrastructures. It's because big corporations (check the list of anti-"Net Neutrality" supporters) want to keep their monopoly and, along with it, old technology (e.g. POTS, cable TV) in place as long as they can. That's why they want to introduce packet tagging and filtering into the Internet,. To interfere business of their new rivals. Not because they are not paid enough to maintain the Internet infrastructure... |
|
Snowy
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 ·Hawaiian Telcom
·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
|
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-May-25 2:26 am
said by OZO:And it's not because content providers (or content users) in the US don't pay enough to backbone infrastructures. It's because big corporations (check the list of anti-"Net Neutrality" supporters) want to keep their monopoly and, along with it, old technology (e.g. POTS, cable TV) in place as long as they can. That's why they want to introduce packet tagging and filtering into the Internet,. To interfere business of their new rivals. Not because they are not paid enough to maintain the Internet infrastructure... TWC produced almost a half Billion dollar net income on ~5/1/2 billion in sales during the first 3 months of 2014 » ir.timewarnercable.com/i ··· ult.aspxNet profits were high enough that they repurchased 20 million shares for $1.3 billion year-to-date through April 25, 2014 Adjusted Operating Income excluding Time Inc. grew 12% to $1.6 billion In 2013 they had an average 45% gross profit! Dec. 31, 2013 44.24% Sept. 30, 2013 49.20% June 30, 2013 43.23% March 31, 2013 45.96% TWC has the financials to build/maintain it's infrastructure. DISCLAIMER: My forensic accounting skills give real accountants headaches, humor & bewilderment. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:4 ·Frontier Communi..
|
said by Snowy:... TWC has the financials to build/maintain it's infrastructure. ... And if TWC provisioned the entire data stream to the end user on a non-interfering basis with other users, that observation might carry more weight. The problem, IMO, is all the heavy providers like TWC dumping high-bandwidth content into a network only one end of which they "build/maintain". That's one of the reasons they're so profitable: they aren't paying appropriately for the 'build/maintain' part of all the other DSL network services whose bandwidth is being choked each evening, down to the 'last mile' to the end users. Those other services are where the bottlenecks all too often exist, and to the frustrated users, it matters little what TWC's financials may be. |
|
Snowy
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 ·Hawaiian Telcom
·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
|
Snowy
Premium Member
2014-May-25 11:24 am
said by Blackbird:Those other services are where the bottlenecks all too often exist, and to the frustrated users, it matters little what TWC's financials may be. Aah, I knew you must have valid reasons to support your opinion, I just couldn't figure it out until now. Seriously, for arguments sake how about we call it "crappy service"? I can subscribe to crappy service from TWC by ordering their bottom level tier of up to 2 Mbps @$14.95 month " Great for the occasional Internet user. A good choice for checking email and doing a light amount of web surfing - at a budget-friendly price."Obviously from your post reply I get that not all ISP's are created equal & that crappy service isn't always an optional service, it can the norm. My point is that should the likes of netflix compensate TWC for the crappy service they don't even provide the $14.95/month customer? Or should they subsidize TWC so that they can provide more bandwidth to their $14.95/month customer? If so, where's the motivation for the top tier customers to keep paying for service available to all tiers? |
|
nony
Premium Member
join:2012-11-17
New York, NY
kudos:1
1 edit |
to jaykaykay
I continue to be on-board with Tim Wu's current proposal - » apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docume ··· 21098085-nony |
|
 EGeezer
Premium Member
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 ·Callcentric
|
to jaykaykay
I pay for a promised download speed from the internet. Netflix etc. pay for a promised upload speed to the internet.
If they want to cripple our speeds, then put it in writing before we choose a service, and drop the price for a crippled connection.
Otherwise, we're heading for third world service at first world prices. |
|
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 |
OZO
Premium Member
2014-May-26 2:11 pm
Yes, we are. And it's pity to watch, how many don't see where this FCC ruling is leading us to. It's in plain sight, clear and simple... Instead, they try to find whatever excuses they can to justify the process, where they are actually get robbed... It's amazing. |
|
·
·
·
·