nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to User0101
Re: Better Understanding...
the COPE act is the bill (H.R.5252) containing various provisions on net neutrality, TV franchising and "competition". Things in the bill:
national franchising for TV: BAD - telcos no longer have to build out service to everyone, they can redline; GOOD - telcos can build out faster
net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| said by nasadude  :net neutrality: weak provisions are BAD - in absence of clear rules telcos will set up a "fast" lane and a "slow" lane; if you don't pay for the fast lane, applications or web sites will be in the slow lane. Think of it as the AOLization of the entire U.S. internet (please note this will only diminish the U.S. network; rest of the world is not impacted). By AOLization, I mean the telcos will control what you can access and how you can access it - if youtube doesn't pay for the fast lane, streaming videos could be slow and jerky, with frequent pauses while video loads. Keep in mind that the bolded you in the above phrase refers not to individuals, but to companies. The individual consumer will not be hit (directly) with any cost increase.
Here's the other thing. If the access pipe providers (telcos and cablecos) are unable to sufficiently monetize the development of next gen pipes, we as consumers won't be getting next gen pipes. The policies advocated under the broad umbrella of "net neutrality" eviscerate the access pipe providers' ability to monetize their networks.
Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me.
I'd also like to see CNET's source for this: While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content. Net Neutrality has NEVER been about blocking certain websites. The only example I'm aware of is a tiny ISP blocking a VoIP provider. And as soon as that came to light, the FCC ripped the tiny ISP a huge new one. Does anyone have a source that back's up CNET's claim?
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | Truer words were never spoken. |
|
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
| reply to NGOwner
"Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Your rates were going up no matter how this law came out. Higher bandwidth apps were going to increase rates. The only question is who is going to get more of your money - the isp's or the content providers.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL
| Both consumers and companies (particularly small businesses) will both be hit with additional fees (and penalties if they don't pay up). Customers will pay more for access to websites, and those websites will forward that on to the ISPs, with ISPs dictating which sites can and cannot be reached properly.
It's comforting to know that small business sites can be destroyed by ISPs, should they not pay their protection monies. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
1 edit | reply to rit56
said by rit56 :do you really think for a second that a corporation is not going to increase our rates based on this? no way. they will now get it from both ends and you can bet your rates will go up. I absolutely believe that the cost of Internet access is going down, not only for us as consumers, but for corporations as well. Look at ATT (formerly SBC). Their prices have been in a free fall. Everyone is running specials. Where there is competition, there are deals. My RR is running $24.99 per month because of ATT in the area. Look at FIOS's pricing in those areas where Cablevision is. Internet access is a COMMODITY. And as the supply increases its price is forced down.
In the corporate world, look at what Cogent has done to access pricing. Forced an off-a-precipice-like free fall.
As far as content providers are concerned, read this thread: »Clueless head of the FCC?!
I speak extensively about how content providers will not be able to raise price.
The concept of Net Neutrality, IMHO, is government intervention and intrusion where none is (currently) warranted.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to NGOwner
You do realize that those content providers won't just 'eat' the cost -- they will pass it on to us, either through subscription fees, or through more [intrusive] ads on their sites.
And where does my $70/mo go to? Shouldn't it be used to subsidize and build out the network? I hope its not just going to somebody's paycheck.... |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to rit56
"Personally, I am happy to strongarm (some would say extort) google, yahoo, mytube, ebay, and all the other mega-internet firms to subsidize the next gen build for telcos and cablecos. Better that they subsidize the build than me."
Bump! I would also point out that, just like facilities based telecom, if you don't like what is out there, build your own. If, as a CLEC, you don't like the incumbents wholesale rates for resale of dial-tone, build your own network. If you don't like broadband providers prices or think they are restrictive, build your own and sell some service! There is nothing in any of these laws to prevent new networks. What? To expensive, you say? Well, there's the rub. It's expensive for the incumbent to operate, maintain and invest in additional capacity. |
|
anonpronman
@optonline.net | reply to tsu9
tsu, To bad only some of us are educated enough to understand "To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
In short the customer is going to get shafted on this one. |
|
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| reply to NGOwner
I think you may be missing one small point:
The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T.
Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access. |
|
gar8182
Premium
join:2004-02-18
Seattle, WA | reply to NGOwner
"Better that they subsidize the build than me."
Are you serious? In the end, it's always the "end-user" who pays. Google, eBay, et al. will just increase their user fees to compensate. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to anonpronman
Customers and businesses are going to be screwed from this. The only winner is the ISP, whom is now free to resume doing nothing. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to viperlmw
The shear stupidity of your post warrants no comment, other than the fact that it is shear stupidity. |
|
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| reply to AnonProxy
said by AnonProxy :I think you may be missing one small point: The ability to "throttle" or provide now "better" access to sites will stop the free fall. What happens when AT&T starts trottling down local mom and pop ISP access to stuff on their network? You move from mom and pop to AT&T or mom and pop has to pay money to get access to AT&T. Now AT&T's new marketing is "we are faster because we can throttle" the access of others to "our content". So there is a new created "value" to going with AT&T...so now they can "charge more" or at a minimum charge access fees to mom and pop ISP for access. ATT has content? |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :Your rates were going up no matter how this law came out. Higher bandwidth apps were going to increase rates. The only question is who is going to get more of your money - the isp's or the content providers. You're of course, under the assumption that telcos will actually provide bigger pipes. Since they run the show now, they have really no insentive to fund for better anything, but now can sell you back the internet you were used to at a premium rate.
Fuggin' awesome. |
|
johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| reply to nasadude
Good thing it passed. Hopefully the senate will pass it as well.
I'm just wondering, when the bill becomes law, and the internet continues to flourish with new services, faster speeds, and more innovation, will everybody here acting like it is the end of the world admit they were wrong? |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace | reply to Thaler
They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| said by LinuxJunkie :They are in the process of providing bigger pipes: there was an article here on BBR only a day or two ago about how AT&T was quadrupling its backbone capacity to 40 Gbps at OC768 levels. That's NOT cheap. And these various speed-increase articles have been pushed to us for how long now, and America still hasn't seen much of a speed increase outside these spotty test sites? Hell, the last bandwidth "leap" I was avaliable to was several years ago from dial-up to broadband. I still await any kind of significant performance leap since then. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to johnh123
And when that dreamland fails to occur, will the supporters wake up and smell the roses?
 |
|
