The categorization of Comcast vs. Netflix is false and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality anyway. It is untrue to say that Comcast (and other ISP's) throttled Netflix until they paid up. In 2013, Netflix switched from a CDN provider (Akamai) and decided instead to be their own CDN and peer directly with a backbone provider called Cogent, to deliver video bits to Comcast and other ISPs. They did this because Cogent offered them a cheap deal. Unfortunately for Netflix, you get what you pay for -- Cogent's links were saturated with so much traffic that they were not able to handle the growing demand for Netflix, particularly with their new high-bandwidth HD streams. That is why speeds to many customers dropped. Most graphs show 5 of the 8 biggest national ISPs had concurrent bandwdith drops for Netflix upon switching to Cogent. So, how to fix this? By agreeing to peer directly with Comcast and other ISPs, and cut Cogent out of the middle, Netflix was able to deliver bits faster to their customers than they were before because they bypassed the congested links that were in the paths of their customers. That congestion was entirely on Netflix and Cogent, and had nothing to do with ISP's. And while Netflix is paying ISP's for service delivery now, they are no longer paying Cogent, and the prices to the ISP's are comparable. Meaning it does not cost Netflix anymore to peer directly with an ISP and provide better service for their customers. Cogent is no longer paying ISPs for these bits either in their peering agreement, since they are no longer flowing through. So all around, the only loser was Cogent, who was simply cut out of the path of the customer, because their offering sucked. No one is making any more money or paying anymore to anyone. Free market at its finest, no fast lanes, and nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Read more at http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflix-isp-newdata.html
Apple has also become its own CDN and recently launched this for iCloud and all of its iTunes services. See some good articles here and here.
Apple has spent 100 million with local isp's to prioritize its iTunes and iCloud traffic already. The according to the articles and many more have in place the ability to move MASSIVE amounts of data with the infrastructure and deals with ISP's they have already put into place. They know how to play the game.
I see some comments on here that are very inflammatory, one person tries to calmly state their views and someone else rails on them. Tallest skil was actually the calmest one here.
I'm gonna try to talk about this calmly. So, I usually prefer net neutrality, but after seeing all of the comments I wonder about a few scenarios. Imagine if net neutrality goes through, and everyone gets the same treatment, and then Netflix is so happy about it that they decide to start streaming 8k? People across the nation start consuming it and Netflix accounts for 90% if Internet usage and the whole country/worlds Internet starts to slow down.
Essentially Netflix doesn't create content or worry about delivery, they are very much a middle man. If they just sit back and let the Internet companies increase their speed and capacity, they'll make more money.
As I write this, I still lean towards net neutrality - no fast lanes, no fees for anyone including Netflix - because it's bit Netflixs fault if the people choose to use their service. If people want to use the Internet to watch movies, let them. The cable companies may need to put a cap on the end user, but then at least the end user can decide what they're paying for, and someone who doesn't need the data won't pay for it, as opposed to the cable company deciding behind closed doors with arbitrary companies you may not be in need of. What if you don't realize that Kerry's video service payed for fast service and you never use them? That's money you'll never make use of, that will slow down the services you like. Get rid of fees for the behind the scenes companies, get rid of fast lanes, that's the best way to let the user decide how they want to use their Internet.
A dozen services actually do constitute 90% of Internet traffic.
The center of the confusion about net neutrality occurs because "net neutrality" is not about you and me, the end user. It is about the relationship between the data intense content providers and the heavily invested infrastructure developers.
Why would I (an internet provider) spend massive amounts of capital, fleshing out infrastructure, when content providers (like netflix), can clog the network with massive amounts of bandwidth and not have to pay extra for their heavy use... thus requiring the infrastructure developers to spend ever more money improving the bandwidth to accommodate. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure development.
Its a lot like heavy trucks on the road breaking up the asphalt. Who pays for the repair? The guy in the prius?
This is exactly why ATT decided to delay their fiber development, until the dust settles and the issue becomes clear.
I used to think that the Title II utility definition was appropriate for the internet, but that is a 70 year old regulatory instrument that does not fit the present situation.
Some regulation is necessary, so that the quest for profit does not override the quality of service (and we end users are not screwed). But that regulation must be light enough to encourage both infrastructure development and content development.
Both Service providers & Content providers need to know that they are going to be able to profit from their investments. Otherwise they will just close up shop.
There is absolutely nothing in the net neutrality proposals that affects how much an ISP can charge its customers. If you don't have net neutrality, every web site in existence is going to be held hostage by the ISPs. I can see it now: getting an email from each of the major ISPs telling me if I want my web sites to be in the "fast lane", I have to pay so much per year, otherwise the sites from the big companies will have priority.
The web was created out of ARPANET which was created with our tax dollars. The ISPs didn't create the internet on their own.
And I'm not worried about the profits of the big ISPs. Verizon had revenues of $31.4 billion in the 3rd quarter. AT&T had U.S. revenues of almost $129 billion in 2013. Time-Warner cable had revenue of $22 billion. Comcast has 26.9 million cable customers and in the 3rd quarter, high speed internet revenue grew by 9.6%. Have you seen what current phone plans cost these days? It's absurd. But there's nothing in the proposals to change that.
I really have to wonder how much of these objections to net-neutrality are based on the fact that the latest proposal came from Obama and not from Republicans. I agree 100% with what's in that Obama proposal. IMO, it's the only thing that's fair.
Now having said that, I do agree that there's an issue with sites like Netflix and YouTube generating the need for so much bandwidth. But rather than cutting special deals, I'd rather see a fee for any commercial sites that generate traffic higher than "X" that gets split among the ISPs for the sole purpose of expanding infrastructure. But that shouldn't put those sites in the "fast lane". It should improve speed for everyone.
But Netflix isn't clogging the network by randomly sending video... Broadband customers...who are paying for service... are clogging the networks with Netflix.
If I am paying for a broadband I should be able to download everything at the same speed at least as far as my provider goes.
Netflix (and others of similar ilk) make their income by providing high bandwidth data... This usage is costly. Of course we pay for that service, but the infrastructure has to be in place. There needs to be some mechanism in place for ensuring the development of infrastructure that supports that bandwidth. We the end user are not the only players in this game. It's rather complex, and light regulation is as necessary as market forces.
Name a utility that citizens of the United States don't have to pay for simply because it's regulated by the government.
Obviously you can't read for content.
Besides, weren't the deregulation of electric utilities supposed to lead to lower electric bills due to "competition" in the free market? That never happened. If anything, there's ample statistical evidence for those types of markets that private companies failed to deliver on their promises to paying customers.
Honestly I never understood the need to offer competition in the electrical supply business. At least not to consumers. It is a feel good liberal approach to a utility.
Plus, think of all the paying customers for internet connections in the U.S. that don't actually get anywhere near the upload/download speed that the company claims they'll get. I guess that's considered acceptable simply because those companies are turning a buck, right?
Nope! The problem here is that net neutrality will make things worst, not better as the freeloaders will have equal access to the net. The volume of data will go up and the performance of the networks will go down.
As for those network access rates very few are guaranteed rates, but rather rates up to a certain value. At the right point in the day you may very well get the max rate. The problem is that the networks can not deliver those rates to every customer at the same time. This is where network management comes into play. Without a focus on management the high priority services would suffer.
The ISPs better be careful what they wish for. Apple, the wealthiest corporation in the world, has enough resources to innovate its own form of light speed data and voice network to put to shame all others if they dare mess with Apple's content delivery.
Sanitary regulations for restaurants is not just about consumer safety. It's also about economic sanity.
What cesspool did you crawl out of? Sanitary regulations do nothing to assure the economic viability of a restaurant.
A higher level of consumer confidence will always lead to greater sales.
Actually high quality food at reasonable prices will lead to higher sales. Mess with those two components and your restaurant won't be around long. More restaurants have failed by serving low quality food than have been closed by any regulatory authority.
It's a regulation that improves the market.
I'm not here to say regulation of the restaurant industry isn't needed, I just think your comments above are complete idiocy.
Well, net neutrality adds a 15.6% tax to Internet services, so unless you like even more taxes, I suggest you don't worry about that. Because Redbox Instant no longer exists, in case you'd hadn't noticed.
Where did you get that figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is certainly the case. In most communities though, the community itself has set up a preferred Internet company with exclusive access to the community. This right there has caused more competition problems than anything.
I was about to mention that, but you got to it first. Municipalities lease the rights to a given provider who then implements and maintains the required infrastructure. In that sense they are treated like a utility.
This point of view is so stupid as to cause one to wonder if you even realize how highly regulated the industry is already.
Would you rather AT&T or Verizon control your service
The ISP are not controlling your service hey are rather making sure that the heavy users of their facility pay their fair share. It is not unlike the trucking industry and the high taxes they pay for access to the roads. Those high fees no more control deliveries to your home than the fees that Netflix has to pay.
based upon how much money other conglomerates are willing to pay them?
Actually if you are trying to say Netflix is a conglomerate you have basically blown any credibility you might have had out of the water. At best they are a startup with a service that consumes massive amounts of bandwidth that somebody has to pay for. In that regard it is most rational to charge Netflix for that bandwidth as they are the ones burdening the network.
And what about the small startup--or next big thing--that can't pay what the big guys pay to not be throttled? We need net neutrality to allow innovation and competition.
"before he was appointed as chairman of the FCC, he was actually lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry."
Exactly. And Ted Cruz has taken big bucks from Comcast to spread misinformation. BOTH the right and left should agree on this. But money talks. Those poor little cable companies, won't someone think of what they want!
That's called corruption, and as always hides behind lies and cynical plays on emotion. Throw the words "freedom" and "babies" and "puppies" in there.
What is conveniently being ignored by this article and other pro-neutrality screeds is that the proponents also want price regulation just like traditional utility rates. They want state commerce commissions setting the price of broadband access. That’s a recipe for stagnation... just like traditional utilities have stagnated. Why invest millions or billions if your rate of return is dictated by politicians.
So go ahead and demand net neutrality but remember, you’re going to get a lot more than you asked for along with it.
Actually no it is about making sure that heavy users of a companies infrastructure pay for that usage.
Wrong. The consumers are the users. This is about the ISPs wanting to be able to charge both the consumer and the content providers and squeezing revenue out of both ends.
There are reasons most countries have a largely public road transportation infrastructure and why heavy users are not penalised because it is for the greater good of society not to. If you allow the charging of the content providers they will increase their prices to cover costs and the consumer will ultimately be the one who pays - and they already are.
Of course they're incapable. How do you know whether raw chicken has been left out unrefrigerated or whether someone used a knife on raw poultry and then used that same knife to cut your sandwich resulting in salmonella poisoning?
You will know when you are rushed to the hospital or have to invest large quantities of Imodium, The thing here is inspections seldom catch such screw ups. Even if you have an inspector stationed at the restaurant mistakes will happen, it is human nature. Make enough mistakes and people will no longer return to a restaurant.
The fact is health departments do not close down that many restaurants. More close due to word of mouth than anything.
How would you know whether the refrigerator where the meat is stored is at the right temperature or whether the frozen food has freezer burn or whether the kitchen is infested with mice or not? Or whether grease from the range hood isn't dripping back into your food?
Actually at one restaurant the waitress out and told me the freezer was on the blink thus no ice cream????????????. Ethical behavior isn't an impossibility and unethical behavior is often very hard to catch.
The other way to look at this is that returns take deliveries in bulk. Often critters come along for the ride, keeping a restaurant clear of such critter is an ongoing task. It becomes a problem when that task is neglected.
While there may be many health rules for restaurants that are overkill and unnecessary and some inspectors apply the rules inconsistently and drive the owners crazy, restaurant health inspections have kept thousands of people from getting sick and it has also without a doubt, saved some lives. I won't eat in a restaurant that doesn't have an "A" rating.
An "A" rating from whom?
Your perspective here is confusing. I fully support food preparation standards and the like. Inspections by the health department are certainly important but all of that regulation does not assure safe food. It is the personal willingness of the workers in the restaurant to assure that good practices are followed. Without that commitment you have no guarantee of high quality food.
I take it you've never watched "Restaurant Impossible" or "Bar Rescue" among other such shows. What's remarkable is that these bar and restaurant owners have seen these shows, requested help and frequently STILL haven't cleaned the place up before the show arrives. While some of the "drama" on these shows may be instigated by producers, I don't think they come in and make the kitchen disgusting before they arrive to shoot.
The appearance of a kitchen doesn't correlate to the quality of the food. When I was young and foolish one of the best places to eat locally (bar food) was a strip joint. Let's face it a strip joint isn't always associated with high quality food but here is the thing, if the person in the kitchen takes a personal interest in his job you will get good results. All the regulation in the world won't make up for the need for the process owners to do their job correctly.
I've also travels a bit and frankly the same thoughts apply. I've seen people get sick from food in highly regulated countries while nothing happens on the various Caribbean islands I've visited. In the end it is up to the people delivering to do a decent job with food prep.
The ISP are not controlling your service hey are rather making sure that the heavy users of their facility pay their fair share. It is not unlike the trucking industry and the high taxes they pay for access to the roads. Those high fees no more control deliveries to your home than the fees that Netflix has to pay.
Historically the cable companies were primarily in the business of selling TV service to homes. Then the Internet came along so they started selling that too. When the Internet started streaming high quality TV entertainment, that is where the conflict started because it meant that the cable companies were facilitating their own competition.
The only solution, in my viewpoint, is to force the cable companies to spin off their Internet delivery business and the phone business and have those new entities lease bandwidth to the last mile from the cable companies. A secondary benefit is that it could also allow any new CDN to lease bandwidth from those same cable companies. This sort of arrangement would eliminate any conflict of interest because any data could travel down the pipe. The main problem seems to be the combination of services, TV, phone, Internet and content creation plus a last mile monopoly.
The end user always wants more of anything for less cost. As I am sure someone famous said “There is no free lunch.”
There are basically two ways to connect, wired and wireless. Wired connections depend on the media for speed, copper is not as fast as coax that is not as fast as fiber. The cost goes up as the capability for speed increases. Wireless depends on spectrum limits for speed. As speed goes up cost goes up for increased infrastructure. There are ways to optimize each media but in the end “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?”
If connections are provided by a regulated entity then guarantees can be provided as to the available bandwidth. The infrastructure cost is recovered by tariffed rates both from end user terminal connections and content providers for quantity of content.
If content is provided by unregulated providers then the end user can purchase what is wanted. The content provider charges the the end user for the content to be provided and for the bandwidth to deliver it. The content provider pays the transport entity for that bandwidth. Thus the end user that wants email and web browsing will contract for those services at a lower cost than the one that wants to stream movies. The costs could be geared to both speed and quantity of content.
If I want to have email, web browsing, streaming 10 movies a month then I could shop for the supplier that will charge the least for that service. If I find that I can get 8 movies a month for much less than 10 movies I can adjust my “needs” to meet my budget.
Everyone that connects to the net is an end user, me and Netflix. I would expect my cost to be much less than Netflix’s cost. But it is up to each of us to manage our budget.
All locations will have connection based on physical and cost constraints. If I live atop a mountain in Colorado I doubt I could afford a fiber connection. So, everyone will not have the same experience. If I have a copper facility only available then I must accept the speeds available to me. But the regulating entity would have the charge of reviewing requested connection speeds and have the transport provider update infrastructure. Prior to the regulating entity forcing the update the transport provider can respond to requests from content providers for upgrades. With the additional income from the content provider, upgraded transport could be a strong driver.
All of this is a light brush to a very complex issue. What we have has evolved from long outdated events and a forward looking approach is going to be difficult, time consuming and expensive.
Where do you get your information regarding AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc., etc., did not pay for the establishment and maintenance of their respective infrastructure or are you just assuming it because of the expense? The fact is that the COMPANIES pay out of THEIR OWN POCKET to put in the infrastructure, ie., long lines, cable, copper, fiber, wireless, satellite, pole, undergrounds, etc., etc., then are required, by LAW, to allow others to utilize them, paying a 'toll' as you would expect, for the use. Who do you think maintains them? HHS?
Everything the Federal Government touches, sooner or later, gets screwed up and controlled, far too often in the case of the current bunch of rats, to the detriment of FREEDOM and LIBERTY and costs 10x what it should have cost to be accomplished. The $2B+ spent on the O-Care web site is a prime example of gross incompetence, graft, corruption and greed by all involved. Is that too harsh? Run the numbers for yourself. Even $20M would be outrageous, much less 1,000 TIMES that amount.
This is ALL about CONTROL and nothing less. Wake up while there is still time. Let the natural, free market do its job. It always had and it always will, so long as there is FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
@wizard69 you are all over the place. I brought up food regulation as an example everybody would agree with and you are not certain that you agree with it or not. You say merely that word of mouth will close down restaurants. In fact that's not certain, a restaurant with a passing trade in tourists can be crap and the new customers, continually churning, will never know. However the reason for regulation is to stop serious health problems. A restaurant may close down after killing somebody but that somebody is still dead.
Net neutrality doesn't stop the providers charging more for fibre ( thus why would it stop a buildout?) nor does it stop limitations on bandwidth to consumers if they exceed a certain amour of use per month, or day,or hour.
The neutrality bit is for content providers. Those providers take their own costs to build their own data centres but the providers shouldn't charge them to not slow down the transfer. User/Receiver pays. The opposite of snail mail.
That system allows Apple to spend money on data centres without worrying that the service will be hobbled unless they pay the providers their fee. It allows Apple TV provide content. Icloud to store data quickly. . Beats music to work without stutter. All of these could otherwise be stymied by the providers, replaced by their own service or that of the company that pays the most. Not good for consumers.
If net neutrality is stymied or opposed by Cruz then Apple, Google, MS et al. Should go all guns blazing against him. Wall to wall advertising on why this is a bad idea. All these companies have deep pockets, better to stop this now.
A bit of a one-sided article - very cynical toward business interests and the customer's ability to improve themselves so they can afford it all. Ideally, the ISPs would kill neutrality, start charging for improved access and diminish those services people refuse to pony up for%u2026 the customer would decide to work an extra 10 hours a week, get a pay raise, and better job. The ISP would notice the extra money floating around and offer improved services that never before would have been possible such as round-the-clock Game of Thrones Seasons 5-7 (secretly already done) at 5k with interactive army control. The entire industry would notice the new levels of mainstream and then make available all the hidden Serenity episodes, 'real' Star Wars Eps 1-3 (hidden by Lucas because he hated the fan backlash and simply released the Disney versions), and countless other great TV and movies held back due to hostile and petty audience participation. Everything in the entertainment world then becomes amazing, though people are now paying $500/month for 'entertainment data'. The only losers are those dirty-hippies who would rather spend time with their family and friends than work and watch incredible entertainment for every waking hour of their lives. And this has been a fair and balanced report of the situation.
Comments
The categorization of Comcast vs. Netflix is false and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality anyway. It is untrue to say that Comcast (and other ISP's) throttled Netflix until they paid up. In 2013, Netflix switched from a CDN provider (Akamai) and decided instead to be their own CDN and peer directly with a backbone provider called Cogent, to deliver video bits to Comcast and other ISPs. They did this because Cogent offered them a cheap deal. Unfortunately for Netflix, you get what you pay for -- Cogent's links were saturated with so much traffic that they were not able to handle the growing demand for Netflix, particularly with their new high-bandwidth HD streams. That is why speeds to many customers dropped. Most graphs show 5 of the 8 biggest national ISPs had concurrent bandwdith drops for Netflix upon switching to Cogent. So, how to fix this? By agreeing to peer directly with Comcast and other ISPs, and cut Cogent out of the middle, Netflix was able to deliver bits faster to their customers than they were before because they bypassed the congested links that were in the paths of their customers. That congestion was entirely on Netflix and Cogent, and had nothing to do with ISP's. And while Netflix is paying ISP's for service delivery now, they are no longer paying Cogent, and the prices to the ISP's are comparable. Meaning it does not cost Netflix anymore to peer directly with an ISP and provide better service for their customers. Cogent is no longer paying ISPs for these bits either in their peering agreement, since they are no longer flowing through. So all around, the only loser was Cogent, who was simply cut out of the path of the customer, because their offering sucked. No one is making any more money or paying anymore to anyone. Free market at its finest, no fast lanes, and nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Read more at http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflix-isp-newdata.html
Apple has also become its own CDN and recently launched this for iCloud and all of its iTunes services. See some good articles here and here.
Apple has spent 100 million with local isp's to prioritize its iTunes and iCloud traffic already. The according to the articles and many more have in place the ability to move MASSIVE amounts of data with the infrastructure and deals with ISP's they have already put into place. They know how to play the game.
A dozen services actually do constitute 90% of Internet traffic.
The center of the confusion about net neutrality occurs because "net neutrality" is not about you and me, the end user. It is about the relationship between the data intense content providers and the heavily invested infrastructure developers.
Why would I (an internet provider) spend massive amounts of capital, fleshing out infrastructure, when content providers (like netflix), can clog the network with massive amounts of bandwidth and not have to pay extra for their heavy use... thus requiring the infrastructure developers to spend ever more money improving the bandwidth to accommodate. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure development.
Its a lot like heavy trucks on the road breaking up the asphalt. Who pays for the repair? The guy in the prius?
This is exactly why ATT decided to delay their fiber development, until the dust settles and the issue becomes clear.
I used to think that the Title II utility definition was appropriate for the internet, but that is a 70 year old regulatory instrument that does not fit the present situation.
Some regulation is necessary, so that the quest for profit does not override the quality of service (and we end users are not screwed). But that regulation must be light enough to encourage both infrastructure development and content development.
Both Service providers & Content providers need to know that they are going to be able to profit from their investments. Otherwise they will just close up shop.
There is absolutely nothing in the net neutrality proposals that affects how much an ISP can charge its customers. If you don't have net neutrality, every web site in existence is going to be held hostage by the ISPs. I can see it now: getting an email from each of the major ISPs telling me if I want my web sites to be in the "fast lane", I have to pay so much per year, otherwise the sites from the big companies will have priority.
The web was created out of ARPANET which was created with our tax dollars. The ISPs didn't create the internet on their own.
And I'm not worried about the profits of the big ISPs. Verizon had revenues of $31.4 billion in the 3rd quarter. AT&T had U.S. revenues of almost $129 billion in 2013. Time-Warner cable had revenue of $22 billion. Comcast has 26.9 million cable customers and in the 3rd quarter, high speed internet revenue grew by 9.6%. Have you seen what current phone plans cost these days? It's absurd. But there's nothing in the proposals to change that.
I really have to wonder how much of these objections to net-neutrality are based on the fact that the latest proposal came from Obama and not from Republicans. I agree 100% with what's in that Obama proposal. IMO, it's the only thing that's fair.
Now having said that, I do agree that there's an issue with sites like Netflix and YouTube generating the need for so much bandwidth. But rather than cutting special deals, I'd rather see a fee for any commercial sites that generate traffic higher than "X" that gets split among the ISPs for the sole purpose of expanding infrastructure. But that shouldn't put those sites in the "fast lane". It should improve speed for everyone.
But Netflix isn't clogging the network by randomly sending video... Broadband customers...who are paying for service... are clogging the networks with Netflix.
If I am paying for a broadband I should be able to download everything at the same speed at least as far as my provider goes.
Netflix (and others of similar ilk) make their income by providing high bandwidth data... This usage is costly. Of course we pay for that service, but the infrastructure has to be in place. There needs to be some mechanism in place for ensuring the development of infrastructure that supports that bandwidth. We the end user are not the only players in this game. It's rather complex, and light regulation is as necessary as market forces.
Obviously you can't read for content. Honestly I never understood the need to offer competition in the electrical supply business. At least not to consumers. It is a feel good liberal approach to a utility.
Nope! The problem here is that net neutrality will make things worst, not better as the freeloaders will have equal access to the net. The volume of data will go up and the performance of the networks will go down.
As for those network access rates very few are guaranteed rates, but rather rates up to a certain value. At the right point in the day you may very well get the max rate. The problem is that the networks can not deliver those rates to every customer at the same time. This is where network management comes into play. Without a focus on management the high priority services would suffer.
Well, net neutrality adds a 15.6% tax to Internet services, so unless you like even more taxes, I suggest you don't worry about that. Because Redbox Instant no longer exists, in case you'd hadn't noticed.
Where did you get that figure?
This is certainly the case. In most communities though, the community itself has set up a preferred Internet company with exclusive access to the community. This right there has caused more competition problems than anything.
I was about to mention that, but you got to it first. Municipalities lease the rights to a given provider who then implements and maintains the required infrastructure. In that sense they are treated like a utility.
Ha! Nearly all politicians have received contributions from Comcast. Don't be a putz: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000461&type=P&state=&sort=N&cycle=2014
And that's been going on for years.
What is conveniently being ignored by this article and other pro-neutrality screeds is that the proponents also want price regulation just like traditional utility rates. They want state commerce commissions setting the price of broadband access. That’s a recipe for stagnation... just like traditional utilities have stagnated. Why invest millions or billions if your rate of return is dictated by politicians.
So go ahead and demand net neutrality but remember, you’re going to get a lot more than you asked for along with it.
Actually no it is about making sure that heavy users of a companies infrastructure pay for that usage.
Wrong. The consumers are the users. This is about the ISPs wanting to be able to charge both the consumer and the content providers and squeezing revenue out of both ends.
There are reasons most countries have a largely public road transportation infrastructure and why heavy users are not penalised because it is for the greater good of society not to. If you allow the charging of the content providers they will increase their prices to cover costs and the consumer will ultimately be the one who pays - and they already are.
You will know when you are rushed to the hospital or have to invest large quantities of Imodium, The thing here is inspections seldom catch such screw ups. Even if you have an inspector stationed at the restaurant mistakes will happen, it is human nature. Make enough mistakes and people will no longer return to a restaurant.
The fact is health departments do not close down that many restaurants. More close due to word of mouth than anything. Actually at one restaurant the waitress out and told me the freezer was on the blink thus no ice cream????????????. Ethical behavior isn't an impossibility and unethical behavior is often very hard to catch.
The other way to look at this is that returns take deliveries in bulk. Often critters come along for the ride, keeping a restaurant clear of such critter is an ongoing task. It becomes a problem when that task is neglected. An "A" rating from whom?
Your perspective here is confusing. I fully support food preparation standards and the like. Inspections by the health department are certainly important but all of that regulation does not assure safe food. It is the personal willingness of the workers in the restaurant to assure that good practices are followed. Without that commitment you have no guarantee of high quality food.
The appearance of a kitchen doesn't correlate to the quality of the food. When I was young and foolish one of the best places to eat locally (bar food) was a strip joint. Let's face it a strip joint isn't always associated with high quality food but here is the thing, if the person in the kitchen takes a personal interest in his job you will get good results. All the regulation in the world won't make up for the need for the process owners to do their job correctly.
I've also travels a bit and frankly the same thoughts apply. I've seen people get sick from food in highly regulated countries while nothing happens on the various Caribbean islands I've visited. In the end it is up to the people delivering to do a decent job with food prep.
The ISP are not controlling your service hey are rather making sure that the heavy users of their facility pay their fair share. It is not unlike the trucking industry and the high taxes they pay for access to the roads. Those high fees no more control deliveries to your home than the fees that Netflix has to pay.
Historically the cable companies were primarily in the business of selling TV service to homes. Then the Internet came along so they started selling that too. When the Internet started streaming high quality TV entertainment, that is where the conflict started because it meant that the cable companies were facilitating their own competition.
The only solution, in my viewpoint, is to force the cable companies to spin off their Internet delivery business and the phone business and have those new entities lease bandwidth to the last mile from the cable companies. A secondary benefit is that it could also allow any new CDN to lease bandwidth from those same cable companies. This sort of arrangement would eliminate any conflict of interest because any data could travel down the pipe. The main problem seems to be the combination of services, TV, phone, Internet and content creation plus a last mile monopoly.
The heavy users are the consumers not Netflix.
Net Neutrality, who does it affect?
The end user always wants more of anything for less cost. As I am sure someone famous said “There is no free lunch.”
There are basically two ways to connect, wired and wireless. Wired connections depend on the media for speed, copper is not as fast as coax that is not as fast as fiber. The cost goes up as the capability for speed increases. Wireless depends on spectrum limits for speed. As speed goes up cost goes up for increased infrastructure. There are ways to optimize each media but in the end “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?”
If connections are provided by a regulated entity then guarantees can be provided as to the available bandwidth. The infrastructure cost is recovered by tariffed rates both from end user terminal connections and content providers for quantity of content.
If content is provided by unregulated providers then the end user can purchase what is wanted. The content provider charges the the end user for the content to be provided and for the bandwidth to deliver it. The content provider pays the transport entity for that bandwidth. Thus the end user that wants email and web browsing will contract for those services at a lower cost than the one that wants to stream movies. The costs could be geared to both speed and quantity of content.
If I want to have email, web browsing, streaming 10 movies a month then I could shop for the supplier that will charge the least for that service. If I find that I can get 8 movies a month for much less than 10 movies I can adjust my “needs” to meet my budget.
Everyone that connects to the net is an end user, me and Netflix. I would expect my cost to be much less than Netflix’s cost. But it is up to each of us to manage our budget.
All locations will have connection based on physical and cost constraints. If I live atop a mountain in Colorado I doubt I could afford a fiber connection. So, everyone will not have the same experience. If I have a copper facility only available then I must accept the speeds available to me. But the regulating entity would have the charge of reviewing requested connection speeds and have the transport provider update infrastructure. Prior to the regulating entity forcing the update the transport provider can respond to requests from content providers for upgrades. With the additional income from the content provider, upgraded transport could be a strong driver.
All of this is a light brush to a very complex issue. What we have has evolved from long outdated events and a forward looking approach is going to be difficult, time consuming and expensive.
Where do you get your information regarding AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc., etc., did not pay for the establishment and maintenance of their respective infrastructure or are you just assuming it because of the expense? The fact is that the COMPANIES pay out of THEIR OWN POCKET to put in the infrastructure, ie., long lines, cable, copper, fiber, wireless, satellite, pole, undergrounds, etc., etc., then are required, by LAW, to allow others to utilize them, paying a 'toll' as you would expect, for the use. Who do you think maintains them? HHS?
Everything the Federal Government touches, sooner or later, gets screwed up and controlled, far too often in the case of the current bunch of rats, to the detriment of FREEDOM and LIBERTY and costs 10x what it should have cost to be accomplished. The $2B+ spent on the O-Care web site is a prime example of gross incompetence, graft, corruption and greed by all involved. Is that too harsh? Run the numbers for yourself. Even $20M would be outrageous, much less 1,000 TIMES that amount.
This is ALL about CONTROL and nothing less. Wake up while there is still time. Let the natural, free market do its job. It always had and it always will, so long as there is FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
George Orwell was off by 30 years.
Net neutrality doesn't stop the providers charging more for fibre ( thus why would it stop a buildout?) nor does it stop limitations on bandwidth to consumers if they exceed a certain amour of use per month, or day,or hour.
The neutrality bit is for content providers. Those providers take their own costs to build their own data centres but the providers shouldn't charge them to not slow down the transfer. User/Receiver pays. The opposite of snail mail.
That system allows Apple to spend money on data centres without worrying that the service will be hobbled unless they pay the providers their fee. It allows Apple TV provide content. Icloud to store data quickly. . Beats music to work without stutter. All of these could otherwise be stymied by the providers, replaced by their own service or that of the company that pays the most. Not good for consumers.
If net neutrality is stymied or opposed by Cruz then Apple, Google, MS et al. Should go all guns blazing against him. Wall to wall advertising on why this is a bad idea. All these companies have deep pockets, better to stop this now.
A bit of a …[repeated accidentally]...