Apparently, you don't see that your first sentence and second sentence are connected!
The reason for this quid pro quo is because many of the incumbent carriers were quasi-(local) monopolies. Moreover, they got much of their legacy bandwidth assets for basically free (now they do have to bid for it), and were asked to share a bit of it.
Asked, and forced are 2 very different things. It was a worse solution to a bad mistake.
I work automation and as such am familiar with many different types of networks. They all have issues but the primary one is that at some point you will try to pump more bits through a pipe than it can handle. That may cause you to reconfigure the network or otherwise adjust to free up bandwidth. This is no different than what the telcos have to do to support operations like Netflix.
Where I live in a competitive environment more than one company has built fibre networks through the city, and cable operators also sell Internet. Speeds are 100Mb default.
You should read you contracts because most consumers are not guaranteed those speeds.
That's paid for by consumers paying more for fibre rather than copper wire connections. If you are happy with 1-10 Mb/s you can get that. Cheaper.
Yep and you still aren't going to get those speeds all the time.
No reason to double charge the consumer and provider.
There is no double charging going on. The consumer pays for his connection as does the provider. The provider pays extra to avoid being throttled due to network activity. This isn't rocket science.
You are basically rehashing republican talking points. You have no clue.
Actually everything I've said has basis in fact! Grab yourself some online education in network technologies. This crap is simple to understand, it has nothing to do with some of the republican non sense coming out of Washington it is pretty obvious stuff.
Typical Republican thinking. Get the money from someone else. No new taxes. You want to increase military spending, but there is no money for it, so lets close down public education and take their money to build bombs. If the citizens want a bigger military then let them pay for it. None of this rob Peter to pay Paul nonsense.
If video streamers want to stream 24/7, let them pay for it themselves.
Totally agree with this.
Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republicans.
Actually everything I've said has basis in fact! Grab yourself some online education in network technologies. This crap is simple to understand, it has nothing to do with some of the republican non sense coming out of Washington it is pretty obvious stuff.
So I guess the vast majority of tech companies need to get an education too, because you're smarter than all of them.
You can accuse Obama of a lot of things, but 'ignorance' is not one of them.
This president through his in action in the Middle East and several other fronts has lead us nearer to a new world war than any president before him since the last world war. That is pretty ignorant behavior especially in a world with multiplying nuclear capabilities.
Compared to Bush and his lackeys, and most especially today's Congress, the guy's an Einstein. (But that may not be, in an absolute sense, saying all that much given how far down the low end of the scale goes).
The man has been wrong on so many issues it doesn't even pay to list them all. Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
Great comment. The wingnuts on this board won't address it though because it can't be refuted.
Funny enough, I think that short to mid term, it will make Internet service a bit more expensive (cause companies won't be able to charge their big content producers for stratified service levels). With the price of providing the data pipe falling constantly because tech is less expensive for the same coverage and more throughput (the reason why there is a consolidation on the equipment maker side (Nortel - bought by Alcatel which fusions with Lucent and then possibly gobbles up Nokia!); being a data pipe provider alone will not be a big profit center in the future.
But, what we lose on the ISP, we gain on the service and content side; that's were the big gains are. Without net neutrality, big content producers could have a massive pricing advantage on smaller upstarts, reducing content diversity and offer and increasing prices.
You can accuse Obama of a lot of things, but 'ignorance' is not one of them.
This president through his in action in the Middle East and several other fronts has lead us nearer to a new world war than any president before him since the last world war. That is pretty ignorant behavior especially in a world with multiplying nuclear capabilities.
Compared to Bush and his lackeys, and most especially today's Congress, the guy's an Einstein. (But that may not be, in an absolute sense, saying all that much given how far down the low end of the scale goes).
The man has been wrong on so many issues it doesn't even pay to list them all. Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
Yikes. I actually thought that you might have a quasi-cogent response. My mistake.
This president through his in action in the Middle East and several other fronts has lead us nearer to a new world war than any president before him since the last world war. That is pretty ignorant behavior especially in a world with multiplying nuclear capabilities.
The man has been wrong on so many issues it doesn't even pay to list them all. Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
Right... And not the one before who basically created the worse strategic decisiosn since the early 1900 decisions that led to WWI ... Inflaming the whole region and creating a breading ground for a massive secterian conflict for no good reason at all.... No, not that guy... That guy is totally not the one at fault... (sic)
Your opinion is not supported in any way by even a small group of those that have a serious knowledge of geopolitics anywhere outside the US (and by most inside too,) Off course, GOP voters will say differently...
The only reason we have this issue is because... There is a lack of competition to provide Internet connectivity.
If consumers had more ISPs to choose from, these pricing proposals would evaporate.
Exactly. And since government is largely responsible for creating these monopolies which undermine competition in the first place, then it logically follows that adding more government intervention to the mix will not bring less of the problem we have today. We need to reduce government's role in business, increase customer awareness and activity, and start shining a light on shitty business practices. THAT will change Comcast (or kill their stranglehold on American internet) faster than any proposal from the FCC, ruling from the courts, or legislation on the hill.
Your post is so full of bullshit, that I find it somewhat laughable you accuse others of it.
1) I have no idea what the lack of "aggressiveness" to use military force has resulted in. Perhaps you can elucidate, instead spouting off silly political talking point? I do know what the aggressive use of military force by the previous admin resulted in: a fractured, violent Middle East, expanded Al Qaida, the creation of ISIS, and a resurgent Iran.
The Middle East was fractured well before any of the recent presidents took office. To believe otherwise is a denial of history. However this president created the mess that is now there
2) You say "If you want change here you need to demand that your communities support competition." That is completely vacuous. This story is Exibit A as to why (hint: politicians can be easily bought off). Moreover, if you admit they're monopolies, all other economic arguments you're making subsequently amount to a hill of beans.
Why? In most locations the local communities set up the monopolies, it makes sense to demand change with these community leaders. So the question is if politicians are as easily bought off as you imply how will we see a positive result from more regulation?
3) Absent regulation, a monopolist has no incentive to make sure that "services most people want get through." What the heck do you mean by that anyway?
Try a little harder will you. Look around your community, what do most people get out of their internet connection. It is pretty simple, E-Mail, web and streaming services. Net neutrality will have a negative impact on streaming service simply because in many locations the bandwidth has to be managed. Managing it in favor of the streaming services makes sense because that is what people want these days from their net connection.
What do you know about "services most people want"? What do you mean by "get through"? Dial up also "got through"....
Again this isn't rocket science, if you can't understand what I write doing it over won't help.
4) See sentence 4 in point #2 above. Moreover, you have zero arguments for why it will be "bad news." You're just asserting that with the equivalent of stoping your foot.
It is a summation of what I'm trying to say, net neutrality is bad news!
With the price of providing the data pipe falling constantly because tech is less expensive for the same coverage and more throughput [...] being a data pipe provider alone will not be a big profit center in the future.
These cable television companies aren't really all that big when it comes to networks.
AT&T, CenturyLink, Cogent, Deutsche Telekom, GTT , Level 3 Communications, NTT Communications, OpenTransit, Sprint, Tata Communications, Seabone, Telefonica, TeliaSonera, Verizon, XO Communications, Zayo Group
These are the tier 1 providers and none of them except AT&T and Verizon sell any consumer level TV service and they are really minor players in that industry. All the cable companies get their bandwidth from these big broadband providers (above) who apparently know how to make a profit by being a dumb pipe. Cable companies are simply defending their legacy TV delivery business model in the light of competition from TV streamers. That is the only issue at hand. Defending their turf.
Instead of insulting people, you should tell us why courts are unimportant. (Indeed, it's ironic, since that's exactly what ATT and Comcast are planning on).
I find that insulting people often gets them to think about the non sense they post. The courts are important but they are not the place to make laws. Nor is the presidency a place to make laws. That is the domain of the legislative branches.
Also, you'll be well-served if you looked up the difference between "law" and "regulation."
The is no law authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet. This is a big problem for this country.
Incidentally, what is solution that you would have proposed for the 'bad mistake'?
It most certainly wouldn't be make someone else pay for my poor judgement. if another company wants to compete then let them build a better network. Isn't Google doing just that? Why couldn't it be done before?
Comments
Asked, and forced are 2 very different things. It was a worse solution to a bad mistake.
Actually everything I've said has basis in fact! Grab yourself some online education in network technologies. This crap is simple to understand, it has nothing to do with some of the republican non sense coming out of Washington it is pretty obvious stuff.
Typical Republican thinking. Get the money from someone else. No new taxes. You want to increase military spending, but there is no money for it, so lets close down public education and take their money to build bombs. If the citizens want a bigger military then let them pay for it. None of this rob Peter to pay Paul nonsense.
If video streamers want to stream 24/7, let them pay for it themselves.
Totally agree with this.
Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republicans.
Ok, 'forced.' So what? That was the quid pro quo.
Incidentally, what is solution that you would have proposed for the 'bad mistake'?
Actually everything I've said has basis in fact! Grab yourself some online education in network technologies. This crap is simple to understand, it has nothing to do with some of the republican non sense coming out of Washington it is pretty obvious stuff.
So I guess the vast majority of tech companies need to get an education too, because you're smarter than all of them.
Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republicans.
That is complete bullsh¡t and has nothing to do with this topic.
I've read a lot of dumb things on these boards, but this one utterly takes the cake. (Fwiw, I am not a Republican).
The man has been wrong on so many issues it doesn't even pay to list them all. Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
Great comment. The wingnuts on this board won't address it though because it can't be refuted.
Funny enough, I think that short to mid term, it will make Internet service a bit more expensive (cause companies won't be able to charge their big content producers for stratified service levels). With the price of providing the data pipe falling constantly because tech is less expensive for the same coverage and more throughput (the reason why there is a consolidation on the equipment maker side (Nortel - bought by Alcatel which fusions with Lucent and then possibly gobbles up Nokia!); being a data pipe provider alone will not be a big profit center in the future.
But, what we lose on the ISP, we gain on the service and content side; that's were the big gains are. Without net neutrality, big content producers could have a massive pricing advantage on smaller upstarts, reducing content diversity and offer and increasing prices.
I've read a lot of dumb things on these boards, but this one utterly takes the cake. (Fwiw, I am not a Republican).
Really? You're telling me the Republican/Tea Party isn't full of rampant racism? Good one.
The reason I typed that quote was because of wizard69 using "dog whistle" words, such as spending too much on social issues and freeloaders.
Yikes. I actually thought that you might have a quasi-cogent response. My mistake.
This president through his in action in the Middle East and several other fronts has lead us nearer to a new world war than any president before him since the last world war. That is pretty ignorant behavior especially in a world with multiplying nuclear capabilities.
The man has been wrong on so many issues it doesn't even pay to list them all. Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
Right... And not the one before who basically created the worse strategic decisiosn since the early 1900 decisions that led to WWI ... Inflaming the whole region and creating a breading ground for a massive secterian conflict for no good reason at all.... No, not that guy... That guy is totally not the one at fault... (sic)
Your opinion is not supported in any way by even a small group of those that have a serious knowledge of geopolitics anywhere outside the US (and by most inside too,) Off course, GOP voters will say differently...
Ok. Time to move on from this thread. The
looneys havejackassery* has taken over both sides....*attribtuion to SolipsismY.
Frankly he has the mentality of a third world dictator and as such should be accorded similar respect.
And more racism.
The only reason we have this issue is because... There is a lack of competition to provide Internet connectivity.
If consumers had more ISPs to choose from, these pricing proposals would evaporate.
Exactly. And since government is largely responsible for creating these monopolies which undermine competition in the first place, then it logically follows that adding more government intervention to the mix will not bring less of the problem we have today. We need to reduce government's role in business, increase customer awareness and activity, and start shining a light on shitty business practices. THAT will change Comcast (or kill their stranglehold on American internet) faster than any proposal from the FCC, ruling from the courts, or legislation on the hill.
The Middle East was fractured well before any of the recent presidents took office. To believe otherwise is a denial of history. However this president created the mess that is now there Why? In most locations the local communities set up the monopolies, it makes sense to demand change with these community leaders. So the question is if politicians are as easily bought off as you imply how will we see a positive result from more regulation? Try a little harder will you. Look around your community, what do most people get out of their internet connection. It is pretty simple, E-Mail, web and streaming services. Net neutrality will have a negative impact on streaming service simply because in many locations the bandwidth has to be managed. Managing it in favor of the streaming services makes sense because that is what people want these days from their net connection. Again this isn't rocket science, if you can't understand what I write doing it over won't help. It is a summation of what I'm trying to say, net neutrality is bad news!
Still haven't explained why the vast majority of tech firms are in favor of Neutrality.
This is simple: it costs them less.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
With the price of providing the data pipe falling constantly because tech is less expensive for the same coverage and more throughput [...] being a data pipe provider alone will not be a big profit center in the future.
These cable television companies aren't really all that big when it comes to networks.
AT&T, CenturyLink, Cogent, Deutsche Telekom, GTT , Level 3 Communications, NTT Communications, OpenTransit, Sprint, Tata Communications, Seabone, Telefonica, TeliaSonera, Verizon, XO Communications, Zayo Group
These are the tier 1 providers and none of them except AT&T and Verizon sell any consumer level TV service and they are really minor players in that industry. All the cable companies get their bandwidth from these big broadband providers (above) who apparently know how to make a profit by being a dumb pipe. Cable companies are simply defending their legacy TV delivery business model in the light of competition from TV streamers. That is the only issue at hand. Defending their turf.
The is no law authorizing the FCC to regulate the Internet. This is a big problem for this country.
It most certainly wouldn't be make someone else pay for my poor judgement. if another company wants to compete then let them build a better network. Isn't Google doing just that? Why couldn't it be done before?