The way I see it is that the problem all started with cable offering unlimited bandwidth to residential consumers during the ISDN vs. Cable Internet delivery wars. At that point there was no fiber optics and offering unlimited bandwidth over coax was possible but ISDN providers could not match that service with twisted pair copper.
Jump ahead 20 years and the US cable companies have a near monopoly in Internet delivery to residential customers. Now with all the video streaming, the cable companies are getting hit from multiple directions.
1.) The likes of Netflix and iTunes are stealing viewers and their TV ad eyeball revenue,
2.) Some cable companies now own content, so streaming services are competing with their own pay per view programs, and
3.) Their networks are becoming saturated from so many people streaming video.
Yes you detailed the problem. I'm not sure why people have problems accepting this.
Their brilliant solution is to basically tax Netflix to solve all their problems and restore their bottom line. This provides capital to continue to build out their networks to handle the additional load that the consumers are putting on their infrastructure. The problem of bandwidth hogs has not been addressed at all so casual users are being overcharged because of those bandwidth hogs. The unlimited bandwidth is still an issue that won't be solved until bandwidth becomes metered and regulated like any other utility.
Which makes sense from a corporate perspective, you can't "tax" those that can't pay!
People need to realize that the telcos have been on a building binge for years now. This isn't cheap and even after all of this effort network speeds can often slow to a crawl.
Bottom line is, the way the broadband Internet backbone is supposed to work is that every ISP must accept all packets sent to their router, the cost of which gets paid for by their own subscribers, the requester, not the sender. The sender is already paying for their initial bandwidth through a connection to their own ISP. This is the way it has always been, but now the networks want to change all that and charge to send and receive which would be fine, as long as the person being charged is their own subscriber, not some remote source outside of their network. Metering is the only solution in my opinion. That way everyone pays their fair share.
This is why I'm trying to warn people that net neutrality will end up causing them to pay by the bit. We may even see off peak metering just like we do for the electric services in some locations. The current approach of letting deep pockets pay for access and bandwidth is far better for consumers in the long run.
In a nut shell the days of paying for a "fixed" bandwidth will come to an end with net neutrality.
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.
Please explain how the government creates monopolies. Are you saying that lack of regulation created an environment where growth and market dominance were no longer kept in check?
Please explain how the government creates monopolies. Are you saying that lack of regulation created an environment where growth and market dominance were no longer kept in check?
The government controls who can put up poles, and who can trench up streets in order to put conduits in. They allowed one company to do that with the condition that they'll be heavily regulated. Rate increases had to be approved for, and certain level of service quality had to be maintained.
Please explain how the government creates monopolies. Are you saying that lack of regulation created an environment where growth and market dominance were no longer kept in check?
Ok. But first, please support your assertion that there is no regulation in the ISP market.
The current approach of letting deep pockets pay for access and bandwidth is far better for consumers in the long run.
I would argue that it is not better for consumers. I know you are trying to make your position sound favorable but it is a smoke screen. You are just repeating the party line. There is no logical reason for the people benefitting from the service to not pay for it. I'm sure you would argue that someone who receives assistance from the government needs to pull their own weight and stop freeloading. How can you argue there is any difference when bandwidth hogs get a free ride and Netflix pays? I can tell you why...your talk radio handlers told you so. Why should I have to pay high Internet fees when I use hardly any, and TV streaming junkies pay the same rate? How is that fair?
Ok, not assertion but certainly allusion in the form of a question. Semantics, anyway. Do you or don't you believe that there is no (notable) regulation in the market?
Agree, but even though I hate the 2 party system, there sure are a lot of fools continually voting GOP against the betterment of everyone and the planet.
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
What total twisted BS. The last President (Bush) through a brick into a hornet's nest, his daddy knew better.
The problem is the administration has been bought! The purchase was made by ignorant people that want to freeload on the rest of society. It is no surprise for example that the Free Software crowd is a big proponent of net neutrality. Why? Simple they are the types of people that never pick up the tab.
The common thread I'm seeing here is the insistence from the net neutrality people that they need the same acces to the net as everyone else but don't want to pay for that access. Well screw you, it is time for these people to put on their big boy pants and go out into the world and make a dollar.
Clearly you don't have even the vaguest idea of what net neutrality is. If you did, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "freeloading" and everything to do with honesty and transparency in selling internet service. People (and companies) simply want companies to live up to their contracts for providing access at agreed upon bandwidth regardless of the content. If you still haven't comprehended this, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.
(s) Report to the death panels for immediate euthanasia processing. (/s)
Republicans didn't set up the monopolies that we see in most of this country that is a function of local government. The reality is you actually do see more competition in Europe due to less regulation. Surprise.
Now we all know your drunk. The opposite is the case. Telecom is far more regulated in Europe, which is probably why it's cheaper there. The telecoms are required to offer services under clearly specified terms or they aren't permitted to do business at all.
Now we all know your drunk. The opposite is the case. Telecom is far more regulated in Europe, which is probably why it's cheaper there. The telecoms are required to offer services under clearly specified terms or they aren't permitted to do business at all.
Have you been to Europe recently? Having just been in the UK myself not a month ago, I can say that this is patently, unequivocally untrue. The wireless providers there are shady, pricy, customer non-centric, and misleading as hell.
Phone service is NOT cheaper there than it is in the states, nor is it more reliable. And neither is it "clearly specified" as you say it should be. Now that I have been there and seen it firsthand, I can say this urban legend is just that: myth.
Vodafone, EE, O2, Three—their business practices all make Comcast look like Mother Theresa, and are more what I would expect from a country like India or China. Come to think of it, it was EXACTLY like China. But in China I could at least understand the packaging.
Have you been to Europe recently? Having just been in the UK myself not a month ago, I can say that this is patently, unequivocally untrue. The wireless providers there are shady, pricy, customer non-centric, and misleading as hell.
Phone service is NOT cheaper there than it is in the states, nor is it more reliable. And neither is it "clearly specified" as you say it should be. Now that I have been there and seen it firsthand, I can say this urban legend is just that: myth.
Vodafone, EE, O2, Three—their business practices all make Comcast look like Mother Theresa, and are more what I would expect from a country like India or China. Come to think of it, it was EXACTLY like China. But in China I could at least understand the packaging.
Caveat: in the UK. Not Europe as a whole.
The UK is still digging out of the mess the Thatcherites put them in 3+ decades ago. They also love to mimic politically and economics-wise whatever is trending in the states to the chagrin and pain of the majority of it's constituencies. I have come to believe it's due to having a common language, and because no one wants take the ideas from the "penal colony/lunatic asylum" they created "down under" seriously unless talking about cricket /s.
Obviously you can't read for content!
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
You can't be serious..?!?! :no:
STOP: don't answer that!
I have a better question that maybe with your network infrastructure knowledge guiding you... you won't look so foolish.
Q: Why have none of the streaming companies created routers that act as "peer-to-peer" points? Or say as a price incentive for opt-in customers to allow their computers to be used as nodes?
P2P technology appears it would be well suited to offloading/sending packets far more efficiently for Netflix and other streaming services as an example. Or how about a live broadcast such as Apple Keynotes... or even Apple updates.
"Net Neutrality doesn’t move the needle for consumers, enabling competition is key
"No consumers are seeing higher speeds than before the order was passed; no consumers are paying less for their Internet services than what they were paying for; no consumers are seeing higher volume caps that they had before; and no consumers have additional choice of providers than they had before."
Governments cannot legislate for better customer service, he said, but they can pass laws that increase competition in the market, and this is what will make the most difference to consumers …
Google is keen to rollout its 1Gbps Fiber service to more cities, but is being delayed by the work and legislation involved in doing something as simple as running fiber cables along existing poles, said Medin. The FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a common carrier service has helped, but government agencies need to go further by ensuring that expansion capacity is built into any new infrastructure.
Government promises of a ‘dig once’ policy, where cable conduits are installed alongside all new highways and sewer systems, have not yet been delivered, said Google."
This is what the big telecoms companies are afraid of. Google announced that they'd be rolling out fiber to more cities and so Comcast has stepped up:
Without the reclassification of broadband and trying to make infrastructure expansion more feasible, the existing telecoms have a monopoly and they don't want the government enabling more competition.
Once everyone has fiber, this idea of paying more for bandwidth will sound absurd.
This is a good move by Republicans though because by trying to stifle the internet, take away healthcare provision and so on in the interests of wealthy private parties, they are making it easier for voters next year. Let the free market decide and take your vote elsewhere.
Comments
People need to realize that the telcos have been on a building binge for years now. This isn't cheap and even after all of this effort network speeds can often slow to a crawl.
This is why I'm trying to warn people that net neutrality will end up causing them to pay by the bit. We may even see off peak metering just like we do for the electric services in some locations. The current approach of letting deep pockets pay for access and bandwidth is far better for consumers in the long run.
In a nut shell the days of paying for a "fixed" bandwidth will come to an end with net 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
Exactly why he won't answer it, because he's arguing the opposite.
In a nut shell the days of paying for a "fixed" bandwidth will come to an end with net neutrality.
Do you not realize that what we've had since the start of the internet was Net Neutrality? The regulation is just preserving the status quo.
Please explain how the government creates monopolies. Are you saying that lack of regulation created an environment where growth and market dominance were no longer kept in check?
The government controls who can put up poles, and who can trench up streets in order to put conduits in. They allowed one company to do that with the condition that they'll be heavily regulated. Rate increases had to be approved for, and certain level of service quality had to be maintained.
Ok. But first, please support your assertion that there is no regulation in the ISP market.
I made no assertion.
The current approach of letting deep pockets pay for access and bandwidth is far better for consumers in the long run.
I would argue that it is not better for consumers. I know you are trying to make your position sound favorable but it is a smoke screen. You are just repeating the party line. There is no logical reason for the people benefitting from the service to not pay for it. I'm sure you would argue that someone who receives assistance from the government needs to pull their own weight and stop freeloading. How can you argue there is any difference when bandwidth hogs get a free ride and Netflix pays? I can tell you why...your talk radio handlers told you so. Why should I have to pay high Internet fees when I use hardly any, and TV streaming junkies pay the same rate? How is that fair?
Ok, not assertion but certainly allusion in the form of a question. Semantics, anyway. Do you or don't you believe that there is no (notable) regulation in the market?
People just need to vote out these idiots.
Agree, but even though I hate the 2 party system, there sure are a lot of fools continually voting GOP against the betterment of everyone and the planet.
Obviously you can't read for content!
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
What total twisted BS. The last President (Bush) through a brick into a hornet's nest, his daddy knew better.
Clearly you don't have even the vaguest idea of what net neutrality is. If you did, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "freeloading" and everything to do with honesty and transparency in selling internet service. People (and companies) simply want companies to live up to their contracts for providing access at agreed upon bandwidth regardless of the content. If you still haven't comprehended this, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.
(s) Report to the death panels for immediate euthanasia processing. (/s)
Have you been to Europe recently? Having just been in the UK myself not a month ago, I can say that this is patently, unequivocally untrue. The wireless providers there are shady, pricy, customer non-centric, and misleading as hell.
Phone service is NOT cheaper there than it is in the states, nor is it more reliable. And neither is it "clearly specified" as you say it should be. Now that I have been there and seen it firsthand, I can say this urban legend is just that: myth.
Vodafone, EE, O2, Three—their business practices all make Comcast look like Mother Theresa, and are more what I would expect from a country like India or China. Come to think of it, it was EXACTLY like China. But in China I could at least understand the packaging.
Caveat: in the UK. Not Europe as a whole.
The UK is still digging out of the mess the Thatcherites put them in 3+ decades ago. They also love to mimic politically and economics-wise whatever is trending in the states to the chagrin and pain of the majority of it's constituencies. I have come to believe it's due to having a common language, and because no one wants take the ideas from the "penal colony/lunatic asylum" they created "down under" seriously unless talking about cricket /s.
You can't be serious..?!?! :no:
STOP: don't answer that!
I have a better question that maybe with your network infrastructure knowledge guiding you... you won't look so foolish.
Q: Why have none of the streaming companies created routers that act as "peer-to-peer" points? Or say as a price incentive for opt-in customers to allow their computers to be used as nodes?
P2P technology appears it would be well suited to offloading/sending packets far more efficiently for Netflix and other streaming services as an example. Or how about a live broadcast such as Apple Keynotes... or even Apple updates.
http://9to5google.com/2015/04/14/google-fiber-expansion/
"Net Neutrality doesn’t move the needle for consumers, enabling competition is key
"No consumers are seeing higher speeds than before the order was passed; no consumers are paying less for their Internet services than what they were paying for; no consumers are seeing higher volume caps that they had before; and no consumers have additional choice of providers than they had before."
Governments cannot legislate for better customer service, he said, but they can pass laws that increase competition in the market, and this is what will make the most difference to consumers …
Google is keen to rollout its 1Gbps Fiber service to more cities, but is being delayed by the work and legislation involved in doing something as simple as running fiber cables along existing poles, said Medin. The FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a common carrier service has helped, but government agencies need to go further by ensuring that expansion capacity is built into any new infrastructure.
Government promises of a ‘dig once’ policy, where cable conduits are installed alongside all new highways and sewer systems, have not yet been delivered, said Google."
This is what the big telecoms companies are afraid of. Google announced that they'd be rolling out fiber to more cities and so Comcast has stepped up:
http://bgr.com/2015/04/02/comcast-vs-google-fiber-2gbps-service/
Without the reclassification of broadband and trying to make infrastructure expansion more feasible, the existing telecoms have a monopoly and they don't want the government enabling more competition.
Once everyone has fiber, this idea of paying more for bandwidth will sound absurd.
This is a good move by Republicans though because by trying to stifle the internet, take away healthcare provision and so on in the interests of wealthy private parties, they are making it easier for voters next year. Let the free market decide and take your vote elsewhere.