mickeyd
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Looks to me like we have net neutrality now. I really don't care.
The typical counter-argument is that it doesn't make sense to charge people for hogging bandwidth when there is excess bandwidth available. The fact of the matter, though, is that resource-hogging services are those that make it necessary to incur the high cost of expanding capacity in the first place.
The problem is that past trial balloons aiming toward metered service have indicated that standing at the ready is a PR firestorm that would hurt service providers far more than perpetuating the unfairness you outlined. I don't think there is any viable path out of that, not even through government regulation. It isn't as if light users would band together into a class-action suit demanding fairness in pricing.
I don't know about that. Regardless the situation, I would always think that "limitations" are "suffered". :shrug:Yes that is what this is about, but I don't think 'suffer' is the correct phrase.
Except, as ArkTinkerer alluded to, it actually does the opposite. It makes it even more expensive to complete against Netflix and the other entrenched suppliers, since upstarts cannot afford to establish the multitude of points of presence that Netflix can.Compare it to a highway. The big communication companies want to build 'lexus lanes' for content providers that would pay higher transmission fees. The problem is, AFAIK, it really is a zero sum game. Everyone else would be left in the clogged regular highway. It really would hamper new startups and competition to the established content providers. That's is why net neutrality, by keeping all lanes open, helps with free and open commerce.
So what do you see that update including? I ask because the reasoning you give seems to imply that much more draconian regulation would be necessary to either ensure that there are multiple new competitors offering similarly-priced and similarly-spec'ed high-speed Internet service, or ensure that boundaries are built up around the incumbents so they cannot use unfairly exploit the excessive power that they have.I agree that the laws covering a communication utility need to be updated to reflect modern technology. What we have today is meant to control simple cable TV companies that serve a small number of people who can't get broadcast TV, not huge entertainment and media organizations have huge conflicts of interest and near monopolistic powers.
I think this was a bad set of examples. Back when I was growing up, there was one and only one source for coverage of Olympic games - and I mean one - one channel, one feed, period. Today's Olympic coverage alludes to so much more offered to the viewer than was offered fifty years ago.For example, coverage of Olympics sports
This is a characterization of the reality. You pay for a service. You don't have to use every bit of the service. Back to my "fifty years ago" touchstone: My parents subscribed to the newspaper. They probably read two or three sections and threw the other sections away. They never complained that they were "having to pay extra for things one wants". It simply isn't the case. We pay for the offering that fits our needs best, even if that includes a sports section within which we have absolutely no interest.Another limitation, of sorts, is having to pay for things one does not want while having to pay extra for things one wants.
That would be nice, but do you really think the American consumer is willing to pay the costs associated with more competition? I say "costs" because there is no reason to believe that more competition will lower prices. We had three suppliers where I used to live: Comcast, Verizon and RCN. Our prices weren't better than where there was only one supplier. Competition doesn't always have the desired effect. In this case, it could just result in having more telephone phones more crowded with more wires.What we need is more competition, pure and simple.
I only have one choice here. Let's compare my bill, with one choice, to your bill, with two choices. I bet they're not much different.I am somewhat lucky in that I have FIOS fiber in my neighborhood so I have a choice from a duopoly. That's not enough. Academic studies show a market needs at least three competitors to have reasonable levels of competition. But, it is better than most friends who have no practical choice for internet and TV except for the cable company.
Neither do the new laws. No laws will make that happen if consumers' behaviors don't change.The old laws do not allow for competition and need to be changed to allow it.
Well, unfortunately for you, that's what the rules passed this past week will ban.I am all for charging the content provides that use up the vast majority of the bandwidth to pay for the use of it... kinda like making trucks pay more in taxes to support the road system...
You're quibbling about the method. Unless you specify how many lanes each highway must have, it is meaningless. So is that your plan? Are you going to have these new rules dictate the capital investments that the service providers have to engage in? Are you going to order them to add new transmission assets?But, I do not think that service providers should provide 'fast lanes' to these hogs.... just like the highway system, the trucks are on the same lanes as the cars....
Let's not go there. That's a characterization of the situation crafted specifically to make it sounds like something bad was going on. Let's stick with the actual facts expressed straight and direct. And let's talk not forget that the what the customer "wants" means, in business, what the customer is willing to pay extra for. If you want other customer preferences to hold sway in the marketplace, then you are going to have to have government impose it in the public interest. And we're back to where we started, with 50% support and 50% opposition to the idea.I also do not think that the service providers should throttle back content that we (their paying customers) want to see....
Again, that is not actually what happened. It's a red herring.IOW, if I am paying for 50 mbs it should not matter what 50 I am requesting... If I want to watch the Amazon or Netflix content, then the cable providers should not slow them down so their content is faster...
Excessive consumption during peak times has an impact on the quality of service that reasonable network management delivers to all customers.Why the term "data hog"? I don't get it. The analogy with trucks is flawed too. It's not like large amounts of data wear out the fiber strands.
Again: That's a mischaracterization. Effectively, that didn't happen. Conclusions based on that assumption are flawed.Prioritization was a barrier to startups. New services would be disadvantaged by telecoms which deliberately slowed down certain services unless they got paid.
Like this one.This practice has become more common in recent years.
I understand why they would: Roughly have of our nation objects to government interfering with business exploiting whatever opportunities they can. Consumers speak with a single, very loud voice when they're complaining as consumers, but when it comes time to impose consumer protections, half of Americans support the exact opposite of what would benefit themselves as consumers.Unless one has financial interests in these businesses, it's hard to see why any individual would support the continuation of extortionate practices.
As I said previously, my concern is that the gov't will manage the internet as well as they manage most things. Right on into the ground.The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.
There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.
I'm sure every organization and individual has concerns.Here's a quote from a letter that the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote to the FCC. They have been big proponents of Net Neutrality, but even they are warning about the way the FCC is implementing it.
As I said previously, my concern is that the gov't will manage the internet as well as they manage most things. Right on into the ground.
Well, since you phrased it in such an evenhanded way, I see your point.Unless one has financial interests in these businesses, it's hard to see why any individual would support the continuation of extortionate practices.
Looks to me like we have net neutrality now. I really don't care.
Charging extra for the quantity of data, both currently and under FCC Proceeding 14-28 is just fine. Charging extra for what happens to be inside of the data packets or the source or destination subnet is not OK.
When I worked at Megacorp back in the 90's we had a private network that covered the entire US and carried data and voice over IP. We prioritized voice packets over data due to Qos issues. Voice was not tolerant of delay as it was easily perceived. I don't know if the ISP's still do this or not but it was an example of giving priority to different packets based upon content.