 | | Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....
win/win
..but not for the consumer. | |
|
 |
2 edits | Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines said by cool_coda:Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....
This statement and topic is TOTAL FUD.
1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgrade to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand.
2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps. Those that use 100X more than everyone else shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.... the 1% driving the majority of the upgrade cost for the 99%.
said by Sandvine Report :In North America, the top 1% of subscribers who make the heaviest use of the network’s upstream resources account for 38.6% of total upstream traffic. The comparable downstream users account for 12.8% of downstream bytes. At the opposite end of the usage spectrum, the network’s lightest 50% of users account for only 5.2 % of total monthly traffic. 3) Broadband prices have been relatively flat with more speeds being added every year
Now let's talk about a real problem surprisingly ignored and accepted.
1) Wireless plans are starting to cost more than full triple play services. How is that justified?
2) $30 data plans / phone for a few GB??!?!?
3) Overages that impact the MAJORITY vs the minority
4) Wireless driving users to use their broadband vs their network | |
|
| | | | Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines said by devnuller:said by cool_coda:Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....
This statement and topic is TOTAL FUD. 1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgrade to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand. Bullshit.
If that where the case I wouldn't still be stuck on 1/384. | |
|
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines your neighborhood is not worthy of shareholder dollars is all. you can bet you will still be 1/384 while the McMansion developments with people pulling high six figures will have gigabit.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | | said by intok:If that where the case I wouldn't still be stuck on 1/384.
Ah... extreme corner cases. The data all great arguments here are built on. | |
|
| | | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines He does have a point though, If they truly where upgrading networks constantly he would not be at 2003 speeds still.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | | | 1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgraded to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand.
The cost to deliver a GB is constantly going down to neighborhood of a penny. Yes, networks are constantly being upgraded but so is the technology behind the scenes.
2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps. Those that use 100X more than everyone else shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.... the 1% driving the majority of the upgrade cost for the 99%.
That would be fine if the $$ of overages were A) Being used to upgrade existing infrastructure B) Proved to be necessary.
As of now all you are doing is paying the same to receive less service. After all, the telco companies don't rebate you any money back if you happen to go under the arbitrary cap they've set in place.
They only charge you if you go over. | |
|
| |  Rex
@comcast.net | 2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps.
Are we extreme minorities too?
See, I'm not a big user of streaming video, and the only time I use torrent networks is when I download a Linux/FreeBSD disc, which is perfectly legal as this is how many of them are distributed.
I am, however, tying to get some work done this weekend, but I've been thwarted by Comcast all day.
I am a Systems Administrator, so I pay $115+ tax for the highest broadband tier they offer (50Mbs), but when I begin transferring files via rsync and sftp, my transfers get progressively slower until they move at about 56Kbps.
Try moving a 4gig tarball through at that speed.
Oh, and I haven't even hit my bandwidth cap this month. I never do.
So, here I sit in what is supposedly the greatest country in the world, in one of the most tech-centric cities in the world (Seattle), paying over $100/month for broadband, and I'm getting the same speeds as I was in 1997.
And more often than not, I listen to my fellow consumers tell me that this is just fine ... after all ... I'm using more data than the average person.
God forbid an American spend his/her weekend on the Internet doing something more than watching compressed YouTube videos of men getting hit in the groin with a football. While the rest of the world leaves us further and further behind in broadband usage, we just apologize for monopolies that we have while blaming the customer.
There is no less intellectual approach to the problem than blaming the "1%".
There will always be a 1%.
Always.
When you kick off today's 1%, tomorrow's 2% becomes the 1%, until they get kicked off an the 3% becomes the 1% ...
Assuming they're all evil just because you aren't one of them, is kind of the problem with the American public in general.
According to the American public, it's always the other guy who gets too much government assistance. It's always the guy down the street who gets too much healthcare. It's always our neighbor who uses too much bandwidth.
It's all his fault.
And it's all the big, bad, broadband user's fault that he actually uses that big, expensive connection.
If he'd only grab a beer and turn on the football game like a normal person, he wouldn't have the problems that he does.
The way things are going, it looks like that's going to be my fate soon. Comcast has made it a very unproductive day.
Not that I can blame them. I'm completely at fault here.
After all, I'm an American consumer. I'm always at fault. | |
|
 ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows
join:2001-09-01
Fort Pierce, FL | Awesome Ideas The bill has some great ideas, and looks to address issues that most consumers aren't even aware of. This of course, pretty much means it's defeat.
Too much lobbying by the big guys, plus the lack of knowledge or even interest by the average consumer will make it too hard to get it passed.....
Too bad, we could really use some help in this area.....
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Awesome Ideas said by ShadowMastr: plus the lack of knowledge or even interest by the average consumer Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Awesome Ideas Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Awesome Ideas Nice to see the both of you getting along so well together under that rock, technologically shielded from the outside world and all it has to offer. Legal or not. | |
|
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Awesome Ideas said by AlfredNewman:Nice to see the both of you getting along so well together under that rock, technologically shielded from the outside world and all it has to offer. Legal or not.
I have no idea what that is suppose to be referring to or mean. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Awesome Ideas okay then you don't need access to anymore movies from netflix/hulu/crackle/etc, no more games from steam/origin/xbox live/playstation network, you don't need youtube (for all its own reasons), you don't need to connect your cell phone to your wifi at home, the list goes on.
The point is damn near everything uses the internet now from your home appliances to the latest tablet and everything in between. The more people find to do on the internet the more they will want to use those services they enjoy. Setting a cap is not only foolish IMHO but asking for problems in the long term. What was the average of yesterday will not be the average of tomorrow and at least Comcast understood that when impletmenting the cap of 250GB. A family of four who enjoy various forms of entertainment can use the internet without fear of running over a cap with that at least.
Then again you may be the only one using the internet at your household and merely use it for email/web surfing and that works you but what works for you doesn't work for someone else. For instance, I have a Steam account with over 130 games, not counting the free to play games I downloaded, and over the course of a month I downloaded all my games on a new rig I built. Once everything was downloaded an updated the tally was over 1.2 TB of data downloaded through Steam alone. | |
|
| | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Awesome Ideas I still don't get what your reply has to do with anything I said. That's the point I'm making. I'm pretty sure you misread what I said. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by axus:Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years.
Probably sooner. The point is until people go over that 250 GB and get charged or disconnected they aren't going to care. | |
|
| | | |  tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
 ·OlyPen, Inc.
·CenturyLink
| Re: Awesome Ideas said by BF69:said by axus:Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years.
Probably sooner. The point is until people go over that 250 GB and get charged or disconnected they aren't going to care. Seeing as most people don't know what 1GB even is, never mind 250 GB.... people won't know why they are being charged or disconnected. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| But right now I have AT&T DSL. It's so slow I can't imagine going over my 150 GB cap.
However the funny thing is if I had AT&T Uverse, they wouldn't count my video in my cap at all. I could use 50 TB of video and it wouldn't bother them at all.
Why is that sensible?
That all being said, I would prefer faster internet speeds than I have now but with AT&T that's "all my address qualifies for".
If I had faster speeds I can imagine bumping against that cap. Sure I could. | |
|
| | | |  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ
 ·Comcast
| Comcast set a 250GB cap years ago, and it still hasn't caught up to average usage. They increased it to 300GB. I could see them increasing it by 50GB every 2 years. The cost to deliver a gigabyte will decrease as they upgrade their network.
I could understand mobile data caps being necessary as there is a marked performance decline at peak hours. | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Unless they drop their cable video package and seek video options from an alternative like Hulu or NetFlix. Then they will quickly realize what their cap is and the relative size of a GB. (At least in terms of how many movies fit in their cap.) | |
|
| | | | 50GB is on the high end actually. I think the average is still around 35GB for most providers last I heard. 50GB for Comcast. | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by BF69:Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses.
That's completely irrelevant. There was no justification for the caps in the first place. They had nothing to do with network management. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Awesome Ideas said by brad:said by BF69:Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses.
That's completely irrelevant. There was no justification for the caps in the first place. They had nothing to do with network management. I didn't say there was. And your response to my post is irrelevant. My point stands. People will not get up in arms until it affects THEM. | |
|
| | | | So the average user should pay only about 25% of what a user of 250-300GB would, right?
Notice I did not say they use 1/5th so they should pay 1/5th. I understand there is underlying cost associated with all connections that are pretty much fixed regardless of speed and amount of usage so I gave them an extra 5% there to cover that. Maybe it is 10%, but regardless those light user's should not have to pay as much as the heavy users. Isn't that what they kept claiming when trying to desensitize us to all this? | |
|
| | | Good ideas in Washington D.C. are met with Addendum, Watered Down Language, and ultimately are so far from the original wording, utter defeat.
At least we know there's one good representative in office. I commend the man for trying. | |
|
| | Too funny... "...ensuring ... that caps and overages are actually being used to manage network congestion..."
means it would outlaw caps entirely (so, either no bill being passed at all or plenty of loopholes being added before being passed). Yep, works in theory.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Too funny... Well -- it could mean that providers stop investing in upgrades in an effort to guarantee congestion. The problem is, Internet traffic is like the rush hour traffic. Everyone wants their stuff in the evening hours and monthly data CAPS don't address this problem at all. Perhaps daily "peak period" caps would address the issue. This would be similar to easing rush hour traffic by eliminating non-commuters from the roads during rush hours. | |
|
| | | | Re: Too funny... said by rradina:Well -- it could mean that providers stop investing in upgrades in an effort to guarantee...
customer dissatisfaction and disaffection.
Real networks--without caps--manage congestion automatically in way that's the most fair to each user of the network--not that your typical ISP has a "real" network. Caps--for monthly usage or otherwise--do nothing useful, nothing good for users of a network. They're entirely about marketing and money (for the ISP).
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | | | | Re: Too funny... Real networks don't need to manage traffic. They have ample capacity for all.  | |
|
| | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| Re: Too funny... said by silbaco:Real networks don't need to manage traffic. They have ample capacity for all.
to the Mod:I did NOT mean to approve of THAT post.
can my approval be removed?
To silbaco  That is an ignorant statement, Most networks have temporary congestion at some point.
Good management is to anticipate congestion based on usage patterns and new app designs, to budget for needed/known/upcoming growth, but no one can afford to deploy earlier than necessary, or predict uncontrolled growth from new "fad-like" demand patterns all the time .
If congestion and other problems didn't ever exist there would be a lot less demand for QUALIFED Network engineers. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Too funny... I thought he was being facetious (mostly anyway).
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
| | | | | | | I wasn't being serious.
However there are some ISPs out there that do operate that way. Particularly ISPs that have ftth or cooperatives that offer good old ADSL. They don't or simply can't offer speeds fast enough to cause congestion. | |
|
| | | | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: Too funny... I hoped you were be sarcastic about the post above you, which when beyond ignorant. | |
|
| | | | | | | Real networks are managed by qualified engineers seeking to make the network as efficient as possible for all users. ISP networks (typically) are managed by qualified engineers doing what upper-level management tells them to do in order to make the network only efficient enough to keep customers from leaving (as if most of them had any viable alternatives)--so, not what I call a "real" network.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | How long before we see the "DCIA Tax"? This will only result in higher bills, and another round of finger-pointing when carriers try to innovate.
Industry had better counter this nonsense, and agree upon a metering standard, both software and hardware. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | I'd settle for truth-in-advertising requirements. How about just mandating that using the word "Unlimited" actually means "Unlimited" without any sort of encumbrance (soft cap, throttle, hard cap), otherwise you have to explicitly state the limitations and not be allowed to use the word "Unlimited" at all in your advertising, period.
I don't care if there's limitations, but don't try to bury them underneath an asterisk. Maybe if consumers actually could find hard information about what they were signing up for, they would be a little more picky about where and how they choose to spend their money. | |
|
| | | Re: I'd settle for truth-in-advertising requirements. Given that the ISPs can't even explain how one's usage last month results in some nebulous congestion this month (or last month either for that matter--most customers with "high" usage achieved it by taking advantage of the non-peak hours when traffic is down), I certainly don't see any "truth-in-advertising" on the horizon coming from the ISPs.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA | Oh, woe is us What will the GB's (greedy bastards) do? | |
|
| | monopoly bill of right$? WIRED broadband has no need for caps!!!
Stop protecting monopolies! DO something to increase competition to lower current prices! | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | I continue to be an optimist on this issue. For now it does suck that we have these people getting lots of money for simply being the only game in town. But this can't stay like this for too long. Technology advancements will make sure of that. I think we only need to hold tight for 5 years or so before we see some real alternatives to these clowns. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 60632649Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | We're from the government and we're here to help Run for the hills! | |
|
| robherz
join:2001-06-20
Pacific Palisades, CA | Re: We're from the government and we're here to help Ah ha ha ha you and all of your stupid, sweeping, sophomoric political comments are SO original, brilliant, and funny.
How bout you keep them to yourself? The whole country already knows how flawed Tea-Party reasoning is, we don't need you to remind us. | |
|
| | 60632649Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | Re: We're from the government and we're here to help So what you're asserting is that you work for the socialist republic of Cali's government? Was it something I said? | |
|
 MSaukMSaukPremium
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT | Yikes! Caps, Doesn't sound good to me There is no congestion, period. It is all made up, BS.
Upgrade your network and use the Billions we give you every year. Stop worrying about stock prices and upgrade your network.
--
801 Images | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| Thin. Effing. Air. All they really want is more money for nothing.
"...help consumers manage their data more effectively..."
Hmm. The only part of the actual bill that looks to be halfway worthwhile is this. Still begs the question - define "unnecessarily discourage" please:
"(B) SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB 8
ONES.—The Commission shall evaluate a data 9
cap proposed by an Internet service provider to 10
determine whether the data cap functions to 11
reasonably limit network congestion in a man- 12
ner that does not unnecessarily discourage use 13
of the Internet. 14"
(1) IN GENERAL.—A covered Internet service 6
provider shall, upon the first day of Internet service 7
provided to a consumer, identify commercially avail- 8
able tools that allow the consumer to— 9
(A) monitor, in real time to the extent fea- 10
sible, the amount of bits that the consumer has 11
uploaded or downloaded, and the relationship 12
such information has to the terms of the data 13
cap of the Internet service provider; and 14
(B) control uploads and downloads on all 15
wireline and wireless devices that have access to 16
the Internet service network of the consumer. 17
Take a 150GB cap from AT&T, which they still can't figure out (from what I've read recently, though perhaps this has changed). Let's pretend you have a 3Mbps service plan from them, for example.
Simple math: 150GB divided by 30 days = 5GB per day of use.
Say you have the 3Mbps service, which is 384KB/sec.
(5 gigabytes) / (384 KBps) = 3.79259259 hours
..........3.79 hours per day of full speed use.
Put another way, (150 gigabytes) / (30 days) = 60.6814815 KBps (continual use). This is probably the ugliest number to consider.
I propose, in all seriousness that we strongly examine that number in bold print above, and below. It is a complete sham. We need serious discussions over use for a household, and for future growth.
Let's look at a cable package at 20Mbps, with a 300GB cap, just to be generous, for those who have something close to that.
20Mbps = 2560 KBps
300GB by 30 = 10GB/day
(300 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.42222222 days
(10 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.13777778 hours
--summary--
DSL @ 3Mbps w/150GB cap = 3.79Hrs/day use, or 60.68KBps
Cable @ 20Mbps w/300GB cap = 1.14Hrs/day use, or 121.36 KBps
Sure, from one perspective, you get a larger file much faster. From another perspective, you cannot sustain your connection for as great a time without concern for hitting a cap.
See the problem here??? It's a total mess, that most people, when viewing the information in this manner start to say "wait, so you sold me a faster connection, that I can't use as often?"
Sure, not everyone uses their connection this way, but when we start hearing about bills introduced that include lingo like "control upload and download" (no mention of speed, or time, by the way), I have to wonder what good it really is for anyone, including Grandma.
We're being sold literally a fraction of the supposed "speed package" that gets touted.
Also, fair notice. My head is in pain today. If my math is broken anywhere here, please correct me and I'll amend. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Windstream
| Re: Thin. Effing. Air. I'm not sure what you're going on about here. I don't see anything sneaky. The provision in the text (it's not even a bill yet) that you highlighted requires the capping ISP to provide software that allows the USER to control upload & download. I suspect this section is pretty toothless under the "to the extent feasible" provision in the previous paragraph.
Bear in mind that these provisions would ONLY apply if the ISP has a cap. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by amungus:Simple math: 150GB divided by 30 days = 5GB per day of use.
Say you have the 3Mbps service, which is 384KB/sec.
(5 gigabytes) / (384 KBps) = 3.79259259 hours
..........3.79 hours per day of full speed use.
Put another way, (150 gigabytes) / (30 days) = 60.6814815 KBps (continual use). This is probably the ugliest number to consider.
I propose, in all seriousness that we strongly examine that number in bold print above, and below. It is a complete sham. We need serious discussions over use for a household, and for future growth.
Let's look at a cable package at 20Mbps, with a 300GB cap, just to be generous, for those who have something close to that.
20Mbps = 2560 KBps
300GB by 30 = 10GB/day
(300 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.42222222 days
(10 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.13777778 hours
--summary--
DSL @ 3Mbps w/150GB cap = 3.79Hrs/day use, or 60.68KBps
Cable @ 20Mbps w/300GB cap = 1.14Hrs/day use, or 121.36 KBps
Sure, from one perspective, you get a larger file much faster. From another perspective, you cannot sustain your connection for as great a time without concern for hitting a cap.
See the problem here??? It's a total mess, that most people, when viewing the information in this manner start to say "wait, so you sold me a faster connection, that I can't use as often?"
Sure, not everyone uses their connection this way, but when we start hearing about bills introduced that include lingo like "control upload and download" (no mention of speed, or time, by the way), I have to wonder what good it really is for anyone, including Grandma.
We're being sold literally a fraction of the supposed "speed package" that gets touted.
Also, fair notice. My head is in pain today. If my math is broken anywhere here, please correct me and I'll amend.
You're assuming one would use their connection full bore 24/7 which is not true even on a 3 Mbps tier. Vudu HDX uses maybe 8 bps and at $6 a pop for those movies you aren't doing that very much. Netflix tops out at 4800 kbps. And not every Netflix enabled device can do 1080p. | |
|
| | | said by amungus:Also, fair notice. My head is in pain today. If my math is broken anywhere here, please correct me and I'll amend.
Your math appears fine. Having trouble grasping your point, though. Is it that there are data caps? Is it that if a user queues up enough downloads/uploads to saturate their connection that they will eventually hit their cap? I'm guessing a provider would not set a data cap ABOVE the maximum possible.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Thin. Effing. Air. Only that caps are a sham. Sure, they wouldn't set them *above* what's possible at a given speed package, but the use could stand some further attention when broken down as above as a factor of time.
BF69 - my point is not that one would use their connection 24/7, it's that with the caps in the math, one can only use their connection at full theoretical speed levels for a very short amount of time. Assuming the max Netflix stream use, we get into even further limitations on use by time, especially when considering an "average household" where multiple users would be looking to stream more than 1-2hrs. per day. In such use cases, it's not at all difficult to hit just about any cap currently listed by any ISP.
My point is to take a close look at caps, what they mean, and how data vs. time measures up. Having ordinary users track, measure, and restrict themselves seems like an unneeded step in the wrong direction for wired services. The ISP should take measures to lower speeds a little bit at a time if they really are that worried about it - take a user from 20 to 10Mbps in 1Mbps steps or something if there really is some concern with the quantity of data over a span of time (days?). | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | How about... passing a bill that forces all last mile networks to be not-for-profit, and that CEOs have caps to how much they can pay themselves, and of course, like all not-for-profits, all moneys left over have to go back into the network.
and now back to reality, where we all must bow down and worship the all mighty dollar.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
| | campaign contributions I'm really surprised to not see Netflix in his list of campaign funders. Nike, BCBS, lawyers, and Intel top that.
Regulating the meters is going to be hard. When exactly a bit a bit? Do caps include ATM overhead for DSL users? What is the acceptable error margin? Is there going to be an audit on logs? Is traffic information private information that the government shouldn't be seeing? Do ISP subscribers actually care? What if this works and ISPs just raise prices to enhanced revenue? Are we going to pass a price ceiling law then?
I wish we could get to the root of the problem: the monopolies. | |
|
| | at&t directv users should get the same higher cap as at&t directv users should get the same higher cap as U-Verse users. | |
|
Reviews:
·Windstream
| Cap Neutrality One provision I really like in this proposal was not mentioned in the article writeup.
(c) DISCRIMINATION OF CONTENT.— A covered Internet service provider may not, for purposes of measuring data usage or otherwise, provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data. As I read this, it would effectively outlaw attempts to count OTT content against the cap while exempting ISP content. In other words, the capping ISP would have to count bits for their own video product exactly the same way they do Netflix content.
I see this as aimed at Comcast trying to pretend their IP video shouldn't count while Netflix & Amazon Prime content should. Also, I think it would outlaw the latest notion of AT&T to extort protection money from content providers by ensuring that the "protected" content wouldn't count against the cap. | |
|
| | | Re: Cap Neutrality I don't think it would have any affect on At&t's idea. Companies would be paying extra for that instead of someone getting a free ride, which seems to be the aim of the provision. | |
|
| | | | Re: Cap Neutrality Maybe you should read the statement again taking note of:
• Preferential treatment
• Regardless of source and content.
Paying to have it prioritized or not count is preferential treatment that takes into account the source and content of the data. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
|  why not only cap the peak use?
Now with broadband, what I've noticed is that many providers over there still offer discounts during the night:
Many tariff plans have a 10Mbps cap during the daytime, 09:00/21:00, and then a 20Mbps cap during the nighttime, 21:00/09:00. What defines the daytime also depends on how provider does business: a provider that is mostly residential and that has a night-time-extra for every user may define it as 00:00/09:00, whereas one that provides the nighttime extra for a small premium, and, perhaps, also caters to many businesses, may go 21:00/09:00. Cost is about 400 RUB/mo, e.g. 13 USD/mo.
And in Moscow, one of the most expensive cities in the world, with home.corbina.ru, 500 RUB/mo (16 USD/mo) gets you 30Mbps unlimited, or 60 Mbps for 650 RUB/mo (21 USD/mo). Apparently, they don't bother to have daytime/nighttime tariffs in Moscow, probably because it'll cost more to actually implement such features than what it's worth.
In San Jose, where all of these networking technologies are developed by people on H-1Bs? You'd be lucky to get 10Mbps and 10ms to the nearest internet exchange! | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| Common carrier laws I wonder if data traffic could be included in the so-called common carrier laws which require that passenger or freight traffic be carried without discrimination as long as a fee is paid, space is available, and it is safe.
Even though data is not a passenger or freight, it is still traffic that needs transportation and the roads are the cable and fiber lines.
Maybe if the common carrier laws could be applied to data traffic, the end of throttling, packet shaping, and deep packet inspection could come to an end.
In my opinion, I think state PUCs should regulate ISPs as the federal government is the most incompetent regulator. | |
|
| | Good for the goose If they're going to mandate that health insurance companies have to spend a certain percentage of their intake on actually paying for healthcare, how about a similar bill for ISPs, thereby forcing them into upgrades. | |
|
decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 | wow Omg, someone is actually thinking in washington?!?! Kudos to him | |
|
|
|
