  IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
State PUCsState public utilities commissions do a much better job at regulating telecom/utilities than the federal government does. If broadband ISPs are going to maintain their monopoly/duopoly status, then they should have to answer to state PUCs or be subject to the local franchise authorities that regulate cable tv. I have gone to the regulators before when efforts to get a provider to fix things failed. One in particular was a faulty electric meter that the utility fixed after a call to the puc. | |
|
 | tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA |
tpkatl
Member
2012-Mar-26 8:59 am
Re: State PUCsWhile state PUCs are the more proper regulatory groups for this type of thing, the simple fact is that they state PUCs are frequently in the pockets of big business.
So the chances of getting an objective, fair, and untainted hearing in the state apparatus are next to null. | |
|
| |  woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 9:36 am
Re: State PUCsor if they don't like the PUC's they cry it is a fed issue, then say it is a state issue, kind of like a mobius strip » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M% ··· us_strip | |
|
| | steven s
Premium Member
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI |
to tpkatl
said by tpkatl:While state PUCs are the more proper regulatory groups for this type of thing, the simple fact is that they state PUCs are frequently in the pockets of big business. And the FCC isn't? | |
|
| | | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: State PUCsWell, they are certainly not in AT&T's pockets or their merger would have gone through no problem. | |
|
| | |
to IowaCowboy
Capping any accounts and throttling users should be illegal.It is a ripoff scam these greedy Telcos are doing to all of us. | |
|
| | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 11:10 am
Re: State PUCssaid by gorehound:Capping any accounts and throttling users should be illegal.It is a ripoff scam these greedy Telcos are doing to all of us.
Do you think ISP's networks should be designed to support 100% use by 100% of their customers 100% of the time? Do you think that a mandated policy to provide a service like that wouldn't affect monthly customer costs?? | |
|
| | | | |
Re: State PUCssaid by pandora:said by gorehound:Capping any accounts and throttling users should be illegal.It is a ripoff scam these greedy Telcos are doing to all of us.
Do you think ISP's networks should be designed to support 100% use by 100% of their customers 100% of the time? Do you think that a mandated policy to provide a service like that wouldn't affect monthly customer costs?? Yes to your first question, and your second question makes no sense. We're already paying for 24/7 usage. Now, let me pose you a question - do you believe ISP's should be allowed to skate by without upgrading their networks, and merely CLAIM they are overloaded and must throttle/UBB, without any oversight at all? | |
|
| | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 2:14 pm
Re: State PUCssaid by EdmundGerber:Yes to your first question, and your second question makes no sense. We're already paying for 24/7 usage. Here is our fundamental disagreement. I don't think it makes any sense to plan a network for 100% use by 100% of it's customers 100% of the time. said by EdmundGerber:Now, let me pose you a question - do you believe ISP's should be allowed to skate by without upgrading their networks, and merely CLAIM they are overloaded and must throttle/UBB, without any oversight at all?
I think what AT&T does with DSL, is a moral crime. I strongly believe there should be competition. Currently we have a government mandated internet duopoly for landline internet service. This shouldn't be accepted. If we have competition, prices and TOS will evolve to a level that makes sense. At the moment we have not only a government enforced duopoly, but many government taxes and subsidies that really mess up the cost structure of many services. All taxes, mandates, and subsidies should be abolished imo. Companies should be free to bit on a per pole basis and each pole of conduit should have as many providers permitted as the market will accept and the laws of physics (and safety) allow. Lack of competition, government mandates and fees are the problem imo, not any particular duopoly TOS. They can impose much of this stuff due to the close relationship the regulated have with their regulators. | |
|
| | | | |  S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
1 recommendation |
Re: State PUCsPandora...you're wrong....if it's being sold as 24/7, then it needs to be maintained as 24/7...plus, you're admitting that ISPs are oversold on inadequate networks, and to top it off....even if everyone was capped, if they all got on at the exact same time then the network would still be F***ing congested negating the argument that caps solve network congestion. | |
|
| | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 7:36 pm
Re: State PUCssaid by S_engineer:Pandora...you're wrong....if it's being sold as 24/7, then it needs to be maintained as 24/7...plus, you're admitting that ISPs are oversold on inadequate networks, and to top it off....even if everyone was capped, if they all got on at the exact same time then the network would still be F***ing congested negating the argument that caps solve network congestion.
Networks have bandwidth limits. I suspect most ISP's regularly review traffic and upgrade infrastructure as needed. It is unlikely that the networks ISP's had 10 years ago could handle the traffic we have today. There has to be a method of handling congestion when it occurs. ISP's should publish their method so users understand. To get a better price curve, competition is needed. Less regulation, less mandates, less taxes, more competition. Instead everyone seems to want more regulation. | |
|
| | | | | | | S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
1 recommendation |
Re: State PUCspeople want more regulation because the "self-regulation creates more competition" theory has proven to be a myth time and time again. The proponents of letting the "market" handle it will have citizens using copper for dsl for the next 50 years. Even in big markets like mine....there is no competition...only collusion. | |
|
| | | | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 11:58 pm
Sillysaid by S_engineer:people want more regulation because the "self-regulation creates more competition" theory has proven to be a myth time and time again. The proponents of letting the "market" handle it will have citizens using copper for dsl for the next 50 years. Even in big markets like mine....there is no competition...only collusion.
Yeah, it's not like Apple, Microsoft and Google offer stuff by themselves that people want, now is it? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15 |
intok (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-27 1:21 am
Re: Sillysaid by pandora:said by S_engineer:people want more regulation because the "self-regulation creates more competition" theory has proven to be a myth time and time again. The proponents of letting the "market" handle it will have citizens using copper for dsl for the next 50 years. Even in big markets like mine....there is no competition...only collusion.
Yeah, it's not like Apple, Microsoft and Google offer stuff by themselves that people want, now is it? Massive difference, they aren't selling an infinite resource, they are selling a product that is made out of things and those things break down, they cease to be able to handle the new tasks that their owners require of them, so hardware makers are required to continue to produce something new all the time or their users will move on to another company. A better analogy would be Microsoft sitting on their ass for years with XP. Microsoft actually tried to do things when they had to worry about OS/2, BeOS, NextStep, AmigaOS, Mac OS, Solaris, Minix, MacOS etc. Once their only competiton was Linux, MacOS and Solaris they didn't do anything but sit on what they had till Apple started getting big and Linux started making inroads into government and school desktops that Microsoft finally started moving again, now they're the ones playing catchup to iOS and Android with no success with their mobile OS which is getting people to want to see more of what the non Microsoft world can bring them. Problem is with ISPs is that they don't get a choice, once you've only got the cableco and the telco colluding to be a duopoly they have absolutely no incentive to do anything. TL:DR, no, self regulation is like having Bernie Madoff investigate himself for fraud and embezzlement. | |
|
| | | (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
3 edits |
to pandora
I don't think they have to support 100% use by 100% off theirs customers that is unreasonable, but that by far is not what anyone is asking for and it's also nothing like the current state of our wireless networks in which most users don't use tons of bandwidth. You are using a old and tired slippery slope argument.
but in a market with such little effective competition
and by effective i mean that a lot of users find themselves with only two real choices for reliable wireless coverage, AT&T and Verizon if they are lucky otherwise they may only have one or the other, I've been on other networks and their coverage just stinks so it's not an option. and their prices are always nearly the same. I honestly do not know a single person who uses anything other than the big two.
Because of this I think the wireless caps do need to be investigated for two reasons,
One, they are artificially low designed to bring in more profit and not based on network utilization for instance both of their LTE networks have very low utilization rates at this point.
Two, caps have been show not to necessarily change usage habits, it's not an effective way to manage their network usage if you want effective network management looks at Verizon's 3G network throttling of unlimited 3G users, it only throttles the highest 5% of users when they happen to be connected to a congested tower, otherwise they are given full speed. This is a far more effective way to control a congested network, Verizon does a lot wrong, but their current throttling practices on their 3G network are one example of something they do right.
I know a lot of people are against throttling but a congestion based approach like Verizon uses on it's 3G network is much fairer.
I'm not saying they can't charge for data usage, unlimited may no longer be a viable option, but the caps should be much higher, especially when it comes to LTE, their lte pricing is all about making money on overages, nothing more.
The free market doesn't apply in the wireless sector, their are simply too few viable alternatives for the majority of people. | |
|
| | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 2:17 pm
Re: State PUCsAnyone who doesn't want caps, and is fortunate enough to have Comcast can go to Comcast business. That does represent a sizable percentage of the country. Though even those who have the choice whine about it.
There must be caps and throttling on a saturated network, unless it's designed for 100% use 100% of the time by 100% of the customers. Such a design will cause crippling subscription costs.
IMO what is needed is competition, less regulation, zero taxation, no mandates and mostly for the market to work it's magic. | |
|
| | | | | Desdinova
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD |
Re: State PUCs"There must be caps and throttling on a saturated network, unless it's designed for 100% use 100% of the time by 100% of the customers. Such a design will cause crippling subscription costs."
And how does paying more for Business affect congestion issues? If I upgrade to Business here at my home, I'm on the same network, using the same connection off of the same node. Why does paying more money suddenly make the data more manageable? | |
|
| | | | | | ssavoy
Premium Member
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA |
ssavoy
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 5:45 pm
Re: State PUCsExactly. Especially since I'm paying $59.95/month for standalone residential internet. If I upgraded to business class, I would suddenly get better speeds, no cap, for...gasp...$59.95/month. The only thing holding me back is the godawful Comcast Business SMC Gateway. | |
|
| | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
to Desdinova
said by Desdinova:And how does paying more for Business affect congestion issues? If I upgrade to Business here at my home, I'm on the same network, using the same connection off of the same node. Why does paying more money suddenly make the data more manageable?
Comcast wants heavy users on starter business or off their network. They didn't consult with me about their plan.  Competition would solve most problems imo. | |
|
| | | | |  CamaroQuestion everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA |
to pandora
said by pandora:There must be caps and throttling on a saturated network, unless it's designed for 100% use 100% of the time by 100% of the customers. Such a design will cause crippling subscription costs
Well the way I see it if you are selling a product in our great country then I am sorry but I feel the exact opposite. Its not my or any other customers fault that either you were short sighted or want to put giant band aids instead of investing in your network and not fleecing it's customers. On a separate note the power company seems to come to mind on the 100% comment. I pay less for my electric bill than my cable bill a month,food for thought. | |
|
| | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 12:05 am
Re: State PUCssaid by Camaro:said by pandora:There must be caps and throttling on a saturated network, unless it's designed for 100% use 100% of the time by 100% of the customers. Such a design will cause crippling subscription costs
Well the way I see it if you are selling a product in our great country then I am sorry but I feel the exact opposite. Its not my or any other customers fault that either you were short sighted or want to put giant band aids instead of investing in your network and not fleecing it's customers. On a separate note the power company seems to come to mind on the 100% comment. I pay less for my electric bill than my cable bill a month,food for thought. Modifying the basis under which customers use a network, will change utilization, and alter ISP costs. Customers must pay those costs, whatever they are. The same folks here today who want an unlimited buffet all the time, will cry if their ISP rates go up. It will be poor grandma who uses 200 mb a month subsidizing some kid who downloads 20 TB a month of video he'll never watch. | |
|
| | | | | | | CamaroQuestion everything
Premium Member
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA |
Camaro
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 11:50 pm
Re: State PUCssaid by pandora:said by Camaro:Well the way I see it if you are selling a product in our great country then I am sorry but I feel the exact opposite. Its not my or any other customers fault that either you were short sighted or want to put giant band aids instead of investing in your network and not fleecing it's customers. On a separate note the power company seems to come to mind on the 100% comment. I pay less for my electric bill than my cable bill a month,food for thought. It will be poor grandma who uses 200 mb a month subsidizing some kid who downloads 20 TB a month of video he'll never watch. I feel it's the long term susucribers who foot the bill, like grandma who doesnt even know what a ISP is and that you can switch providers to get a better deal. | |
|
| | | intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15 |
to pandora
Bandwidth isn't the finite resource you make it out to be, it's a constant steady flow, if you've got a 1000Mbps line to 200 people the chances of them using all of that flow in it's entirety is pretty low in general, but even if they all load a 4k quality youtube video at the exact same time the amount of bandwidth is large enough that none of them should really notice the slowdown.
File sharing can't even max out the line 24/7 for the simple fact that you will run out of disk space in no time, not that there is all that much content worth downloading anyways these days. Either way, the faster they finish their download the sooner they are off the shared line.
Now seeing that 10GigE and even 40GigE gear is readily available and the fact that the companies seem to be making pure profit by the truckload they have no excuse to not be upgrading their networks.
TL:DR the only problem here is greed, not tech or users. | |
|
| | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-26 7:31 pm
Re: State PUCssaid by intok:Bandwidth isn't the finite resource you make it out to be
All networks have limits, including all ISP networks. Instead of more regulation, my proposal is for less, and for competition. Less tax, less regulation, more choice. Is that so radical? | |
|
| | | | | intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15 |
intok (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-26 10:00 pm
Re: State PUCsThe problem isn't a lack of regulation, the lack of regulation IS the problem, they are not forced to compete like they are in every other developed nation.
They make more then enough to overhaul the entire network while still being profitable, but they don't want to provide a better product while being profitable, they want to provide as crappy a product as possible for as much as they can possibly charge to squeeze every last cent out of you they can because why are you going to take your money to? Nowhere thats where. | |
|
| | | | | | pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Mar-27 12:06 am
No, it's very regulatedsaid by intok:The problem isn't a lack of regulation, the lack of regulation IS the problem, they are not forced to compete like they are in every other developed nation.
These folks are regulated at the federal, state and local level on just about everything. All utilities are. To deny that, is to not understand the problem. | |
|
| | | | | | | intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15 |
intok (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-27 12:56 am
Re: No, it's very regulatedThey've also rigged the game, buying their legislation and write their own regulations via organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council and via massive bribes i the form of unchecked Political Action Committee donations that allows them to not have to compete.
In countries that have proper services they are controlled by common carrier laws that require them to allow other companies to use their lines if necessary in much the same way Earthlink sold DSL and Cable internet service years ago here in the US. If everyone had 10 high speed ISPs to choose from even out in the boonies they'd have to compete on speed and price since what they're selling costs them essentially nothing to produce and maintain. They can talk about their billion dollar networks all they like, but it doesn't help their case that they can't afford to upgrade when the executives are getting multimillion dollar bonuses and the companies are making billions in profit that they just use to buy out their competition and bribe government officials.
As it is not I'm paying more for an infinite resource then I do for natural gas heat, dryer and stove and coal powered electricity. Look at it this way, it they upgraded the nodes to 10GigE and to the home was upgraded to 1Gbit you can move 50Gb assuming a horrendous 25% overhead in a mere eight minutes and twenty seconds, even with 1000 people on a node any slowdown would be insignificant and at that rate even someone with a massive 16 drive RAID 10 array of 3Tb HDDs would fast run out of room to save things let alone things to download. But with that speed you'd open up tons of possibilities for new businesses and technologies that aren't currently possible, even with 100Mbps.
Maybe you should reread your own sig mate. | |
|
| | | |
| KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ |
to IowaCowboy
Actually what needs to be looked into is why the caps have not been increased. Usage of the internet is up but caps are still at levels that are several years old. | |
|
| |  Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA |
Jerm
Member
2012-Mar-26 4:18 pm
Re: State PUCsDING DING DING we have a winner!
I like the commercials: View 100-thousand webpages, send 25-thousand emails, stream music 8 hours a day all month...
What they leave out:
OR STREAM 1 HD MOVIE!!! | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ |
to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:Actually what needs to be looked into is why the caps have not been increased. Usage of the internet is up but caps are still at levels that are several years old.
Because despite how fast your internet is, legacy video profits still need protection. | |
|
| 25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
to IowaCowboy
or they go and get the states to give up their power; like ATT did with Ohio. | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC |
Re: State PUCsAnd Verizon did with NY. In fact, they would not get away with neglecting the copper to the degree they are if the PSC kept their old rules. | |
|
| |
Again it's business....This is paramount to having the government investigate the rise in price of milk at your local Starbucks. Carriers are business's Despite the facts about bandwidth and statements on capacity costs per bit and everything dropping (yet carriers have to replace infrastructure every few years).
If a carrier imposes caps, and limits it sucks for the customers but the FCC should not be ingrained or poking it's head at the business plans of these companies. If nothing else the trade guys would be a better target for misleading with bellow the line fee's. That's a article I can get behind but the tantrums about caps and overages are getting to be a bit tired. | |
|
|
••••••••• |
| |
ISP'sNow your game is over : ) | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2012-Mar-26 10:13 am
I don't think every action needs to be justifiedIs $5 a month more for cable TV necessary? No. Perfectly legal, though. If you need a justification for caps, how about "to make more money". Every move doesn't need to be regulated, just because it's greedy.
The real injustice is lack of competition. Throw out the anti-municipal broadband laws, and keep blocking un-competitive mergers. | |
|
|
•••••••••••• |
| |
UNKNOW982
Anon
2012-Mar-26 11:11 am
FCC = CorporationsFCC most often sides with corporations. They eventually work for them as lobbyists after their terms are over | |
|
| | |
Re: FCC = Corporationssaid by UNKNOW982 :FCC most often sides with corporations. They eventually work for them as lobbyists after their terms are over
That sums it up in one sentence.. Thank you. Straight talk 1000 min/1000 txt for 30 bucks a month is all I need. Can't believe how everyone is so dependent on smart phones and pay way too much for data plans. But seriously, short of millions just dropping their plans in protest, i'm afraid it will never change being the law makers are the ones that can regulate the madness, but they never will. | |
|
| |
Anoni
Anon
2012-Mar-26 12:07 pm
Change.org's planning a social media campaign for this: | |
|
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-26 12:52 pm
AgainFCC has NO power over this. Public Knowledge just wants to cost tax payers more $$$$ | |
|
| | |
Re: Againstill they need to get this to stop | |
|
|  IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC |
to 25139889
Hey Public Knowledge: Wouldn't hurt to cc the FTC on this as well... | |
|
sparek
join:2002-06-10
united state |
sparek
Member
2012-Mar-26 3:25 pm
Greed or necessary?I don't have a problem with reasonable caps on any type of connection. I understand that the wireless market likely has much more of a need for this than wired connections.
People need to understand that bandwidth is not free. Bandwidth, by itself, probably isn't all that expensive, but it's not free. It does cost some money to provide that bandwidth.
I think the wireless caps are a bit too low, especially in rural areas where mobile internet is the only internet option available. What are the limits for those devices? 2GB? 5GB? I realize you can get more, but it is expensive.
My question to AT&T and Verizon and other wireless carriers, are you making the plans that expensive just so you can make more money? Or is it a legitimate cost needed to cover the cost of their bandwidth? Their prices seem quite a bit higher and their caps are considerably lower that other wired connections, which leads me to believe that they are inflating the prices just to make a bigger profit.
A 150GB or 250GB per month cap for wired connections should be enough for most of the population. I'd say 30GB per month is about the average usage, that's about 1GB per day. Granted, I understand that there are some that use their Internet connection to stream movies, tv shows, and other videos, apparently all day long, and for that a 250GB cap may not be enough. But generally speaking I would think that this would be enough.
You just can't expect all bandwidth to be free. | |
|
| (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: Greed or necessary?You really cannot compare Wired to wireless caps and tiers they are completely different beasts, cell sites and there spectrum is far more scarce than wired bandwidth.
Wired internet has tons of capacity, and is easily increased by creating new smaller nodes, both FIOS and Cablevision in my area don't have any caps, with the negligible price they pay for data even a customer who is using 1-2 TB a month is still making them money. Caps aren't required, throttling heavy users when a node is congested is a far more effective network management tool. The reason for caps on wired internet are simple to make it more costly or harder to give up cable tv/vod in favor of internet video streaming.
For wireless it's a completely different equation, it's not really about the bandwidth usage it's about the limited spectrum and congestion, some form of caps is understandable with wireless data, but they artificially set the tiers very low in order to make extra $$ on overages. But in terms of maintaining network quality they could offer much higher tiers for less money and throttle heavy users when they happen to be connected to a congested tower which would be far more effective than data tiers , but that doesn't make them extra money. | |
|
|
|
·
