I operate a small town ISP. Many "Net Neutrality" proposals would simply make successfully running our business impossible.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
God save us all. Especially from the people trying to save us all.
I supported net neutrality in the beginning, but now feel the demands of the purist advocates are becoming unrealistic.
Look for middle ground in this debate - trusting entirely neither the oligarchy of big providers or the false salvation promises of big gov riding to the rescue of the bit-oppressed.
In Australia where bandwidth is expensive, mainly due to our geographic isolation, there is no such thing as "Unlimited Data", well there is but here's how it works.
You go on an "Unlimited Plan" with a set amount of data when you exceed that amount your account gets "shaped" as my plan is now, I am restricted to 64k until my "month" begins against midnight tomorrow.
We also have peak and off peak download limits so my kid's have used 45GB off peak and 35GB peak downloads.
The off peak (4am to 9am) is when you should schedule your bit torrent client to download the latest version of Open Office or Linux Distro.
Leaving the peak open for other users.
The best my local exchange supports without having to pay exorbitant rates is ADSL @ 1.5M, tethering my iPhone is faster but I only get 1GB a month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dockline
I operate a small town ISP. Many "Net Neutrality" proposals would simply make successfully running our business impossible.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
Another outright lie or misrepresentation. Apple has approved VoIP, but AT&T won't allow it on the cell portion of the networks it accesses. Anyone reading this line would think that Apple themselves (even though it's at AT&T's urging), has "banned VoIP" in totality, when in fact they haven't at all.
WRONG. Reread the sentence you have highlighted.
The sentence never said that VoIP is banned in totality,
The sentence clearly states VoIP is banned from the mobile network.
Do not fabricate content which was not in the quote. Manipulative scum.
One example is Rogers in Canada, who (last I knew) were throttling any encrypted traffic and making it very difficult to VPN. This is the kind of stuff that net neutrality advocates are trying to stop.
Yeah, it would be beneficial in that instance but if it was encrypted P2P data, they couldn't tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
They can threaten to block them and charge Google and NBC to prevent that from happening.
I don't think so, Apple can't block Google's apps without getting the FCC involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
I see you haven't read the proposals for net neutrality legislation that are going around. Every proposal I've read has made it clear that net neutrality would only apply to *legal* content. Pirated content is not legal and therefore doesn't fall within net neutrality as the FCC will define it.
But protocols aren't illegal so it's kind of an empty clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Besides, does your internet connection "grind to a halt" when you come home? MIne certainly doesn't, yet I'm certain that a significant percentage of other customers of my ISP pirate heavily.
It used to before my ISP started throttling P2P traffic. If you have a program open that uses certain protocols, your bandwidth is severely limited. As soon as you stop using that protocol, it jumps up to normal. This is only at peak times during the day. I think it's great because it keeps the connection running very quickly all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, cable companies and telcos threaten the existence of the internet. The guys who stole $200 billion from U.S. taxpayers threaten the existence of the internet.
I won't defend the phone companies as I know they are unethical but the technology wasn't there to deliver what they wanted so the money probably just dried up as it does when there's nothing to spend it on but keeping a company growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
With a download cap, they'll go over the limit quite quickly and get charged for the bandwidth they're using. Problem solved!
The reason you switched away from a provider already was due to a bandwidth cap. That isn't the solution because it penalizes legitimate users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Discriminating against different protocols won't work. BItTorrent is being redesigned to work over HTTP.
They can still determine between streaming video and file transfer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
I paid $57/month for a measly 30 Gb/month limit, which was exceeded by downloading 4 HD movies, thereby doubling my bill. That's why I switched ISPs. Does that sound reasonable to you? A 200 GB cap (which I have now) would stop heavy P2P users in their tracks without punishing legitimate users.
But that assumes 200GB per month is manageable by the ISP. If their resources aren't that high, it's not feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Most people in the U.S. have only one or two options for internet. That's the telcos or cable companies.
That's not two options though because each of those categories has multiple competitors.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users.
So charge on a bandwidth basis that's fair and equitable and scales based on line use, and dont heavily oversell your infrastructure.
Quote:
As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
You mean like blizzard (who use bittorrent to distribute updates)? How about Skype (which uses p2p for routing and call transmission)?
Also, dont you see that net neutrality protects small operators like you? It's hard to claim common carrier status if you filter content, opening you up to lawsuits that a small operator may not have the funds to fight.
Artists aren't getting paid [as much as they should be]. It's still better than P2P where they don't get paid at all directly.
[Hey,] if it [weren't for] illegal file-sharing [I wouldn't have found] out about ten or twenty bands, [and as a result], I wouldn't have [gone to any of their concerts] or bought any of their merchandise, which is actually where they get most of their money. [And I also actually buy] the album if it turns out to be one of my favorites.
So charge on a bandwidth basis that's fair and equitable and scales based on line use, and dont heavily oversell your infrastructure.
You mean like blizzard (who use bittorrent to distribute updates)? How about Skype (which uses p2p for routing and call transmission)?
Also, dont you see that net neutrality protects small operators like you? It's hard to claim common carrier status if you filter content, opening you up to lawsuits that a small operator may not have the funds to fight.
Don't forget Jamendo, which is where I got some of my music, which uses P2P for album downloads. (All music is licensed under CC on that site, so it's legal)
I could come up with tons of other examples, just not off the top of my head.
[Hey,] if it [weren't for] illegal file-sharing [I wouldn't have found] out about ten or twenty bands, [and as a result], I wouldn't have [gone to any of their concerts] or bought any of their merchandise, which is actually where they get most of their money. [And I also actually buy] the album if it turns out to be one of my favorites.
Nobody is talking about banning P2P, simply prioritizing network traffic in a way that keeps all users happy and doesn't strain the ISPs.
P2P systems are file transfer protocols. If you get a Blizzard update or audio album, you don't necessarily need it to finish downloading immediately. If however, you are watching a live streaming video on Youtube, Hulu whatever, chances are you'd quite like to watch it in real-time.
I just think it's ok for ISPs to prioritize the traffic depending on needs. There are examples where it's done unfairly like for encrypted traffic but if software gets certificates to identify traffic types but maintain content privacy, it should be ok.
Nobody is talking about banning P2P, simply prioritizing network traffic in a way that keeps all users happy and doesn't strain the ISPs.
P2P systems are file transfer protocols. If you get a Blizzard update or audio album, you don't necessarily need it to finish downloading immediately. If however, you are watching a live streaming video on Youtube, Hulu whatever, chances are you'd quite like to watch it in real-time.
I just think it's ok for ISPs to prioritize the traffic depending on needs. There are examples where it's done unfairly like for encrypted traffic but if software gets certificates to identify traffic types but maintain content privacy, it should be ok.
I'm all for metered Internet pricing, providing the cost per GB is cheap enough for the average person to afford it. I like most average users would see their monthly access bills reduced because we use very few GBs per month.
I don't expect the ISPs would want metered billing unless they could increase the cost per GB at least 20 fold. They elected to go the anti P2P capping route because they know these heavy users are a small fraction of their customer base.
To meter usage at current average bandwidth prices would seriously cut into their cash cow. When you increase charge by 20x to the majority of consumers, who are using the fewest GBs, above the outrageous price they have currently, you'd be biting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm betting the ISPs would rather accept the FCC's brand of net neutrality regulations because it doesn't effect ISP's status quo pricing which is currently gorging the consumer.
As for bandwidth, the U.S. government gave the telcos $200 billion to improve broadband internet in the late 90's. They hoarded it without using the money as it was intended:
No, they didn't get $200B in cash. Had we invested $200B in last mile infrastructure we'd have had it. NII I think requested a couple billion if I remember correctly. Compare this to the rollout costs of FiOS ($18B is a number that I seem to remember). If Verizon pocketed it's share of $200B in ill gotten gains they wouldn't be sucking air trying to afford the FiOS buildout. Something they NEED to do to position themselves strategically.
Also, you remember this thing around 2001? Something bomb?
Plus the article is full of shit. FiOS offers 100Mbps which is faster than the 45Mbps talked about. FiOS FTTP is exactly what broadband in the US should look like rather than the more common FTTN rollouts.
Plus MCI was selling service below costs for years and died from $11B worth of accounting fraud not government regulations.
Quote:
Had they invested the money the way they were supposed to, there would be issues of bandwidth shortage. There would be plenty for everybody. So I have absolutely no sympathy with the "we must manage our network" argument.
Because wireless data service is EXACTLY like FTTP in capacity...
AT&T isn't fighting net neutrality on UVerse but on their cell network. Besides, net neutrality is about not blocking apple. Not the ability to download pirated movies off the net 24/7.
The only thing the telco's dragged their feet on was decent ISDN/DSL to kill the CLECs. Which was great for the cable companies and now we have competition again. The CLECs ultimately would have harmed network growth because they provided no infrastructure expansion. Just DSL over the telco's POTS plants.
ISPs didn't go out of business because of predatory ILECs but because cable started offering broadband and there was no DSL service because why the heck should Vz pay to upgrade their COs so the CLECs could price service down to the bare minimum? No incentive to sink massive capital into something that has little profitability.
On the other hand, FTTP or FTTN is required to compete with Comcast who offers REAL competition through a triple play option on their own cable backbones rather than over the ILEC local loop.
Difference? Cable networks pay for the infrastructure just like the telcos do with the same capital cost requirements and inertia from owning physical hardware unlike a CLEC that owns a little bit of hardware sitting in the ILEC's CO.
In my area there is only one provider of truly fast internet service. DSL is too slow, so I have comcast which costs $45 a month. I do email, internet browsing and 1-2 movie download per month. I'd love the competition that FIOS would bring.
FiOS wouldn't bring lower costs. Just higher bandwidth. That probably doesn't do too much for you...
I switched from Comcast to FiOS. My bill dropped from $50 to $45 at the time for about the same amount of bandwidth. The biggest advantage is that FiOS has been more stable for me so VoIP works better...which ah...let me cut Verizon land line service.
Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.
Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC's expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don't discriminate between different types of information on their networks.
Complete idiocy and obvious pandering to the corporations. If it doesn't get shot down I'll be amazed.
----
In a different matter, I find this chart rather telling:
In a different matter, I find this chart rather telling:
Notice one common theme in the countries the top 5?
Would that be that they are smaller? Yes.
Would that be that their population is more clustered into urban areas? Yes.
Would that be that their populations are smaller? Yes.
Take Korea. 1% of our landmass. 17% of our population.
We can already provide FTTP to 13.8M customers of which 3.7M have been connected. We're at 12% of US customers passed by FTTP. Add in all the DOCSIS 3.0 passed homes and we've got about the same buildout of some of these small top tier countries.
We haven't offered 100Mbps service except to businesses customers (ignoring CableVision's 100Mbps residential offering for the moment) but DOCSIS 3.0 and Verizon's GPON buildout will all support up to 100Mbps.
For now, we can more or less match Japan/Koreas 45-50 Mbps buildout.
Comments
I operate a small town ISP. Many "Net Neutrality" proposals would simply make successfully running our business impossible.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
God save us all. Especially from the people trying to save us all.
I supported net neutrality in the beginning, but now feel the demands of the purist advocates are becoming unrealistic.
Look for middle ground in this debate - trusting entirely neither the oligarchy of big providers or the false salvation promises of big gov riding to the rescue of the bit-oppressed.
Not that sanity always wins debates.
You go on an "Unlimited Plan" with a set amount of data when you exceed that amount your account gets "shaped" as my plan is now, I am restricted to 64k until my "month" begins against midnight tomorrow.
We also have peak and off peak download limits so my kid's have used 45GB off peak and 35GB peak downloads.
The off peak (4am to 9am) is when you should schedule your bit torrent client to download the latest version of Open Office or Linux Distro.
Leaving the peak open for other users.
The best my local exchange supports without having to pay exorbitant rates is ADSL @ 1.5M, tethering my iPhone is faster but I only get 1GB a month.
I operate a small town ISP. Many "Net Neutrality" proposals would simply make successfully running our business impossible.
I have no problem with the concept of information neutrality - an ISP certainly should not try and filter content based on politics, etc.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users. If it costs a lot to serve such users the options are either to charge for the cost basis, or try and limit the costly activity. As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
Bandwidth is expensive for rural ISPs. Pretending bandwidth consumption doesn't matter just isn't real.
Example - should we have "Culinary Neutrality" also? Why do greedy restaurants charge more for caviar than spaghetti?
Net Neutrality may have good intentions - but what is being proposed is going to hurt the vast majority of internet users.
Another outright lie or misrepresentation. Apple has approved VoIP, but AT&T won't allow it on the cell portion of the networks it accesses. Anyone reading this line would think that Apple themselves (even though it's at AT&T's urging), has "banned VoIP" in totality, when in fact they haven't at all.
WRONG. Reread the sentence you have highlighted.
The sentence never said that VoIP is banned in totality,
The sentence clearly states VoIP is banned from the mobile network.
Do not fabricate content which was not in the quote. Manipulative scum.
One example is Rogers in Canada, who (last I knew) were throttling any encrypted traffic and making it very difficult to VPN. This is the kind of stuff that net neutrality advocates are trying to stop.
Yeah, it would be beneficial in that instance but if it was encrypted P2P data, they couldn't tell.
They can threaten to block them and charge Google and NBC to prevent that from happening.
I don't think so, Apple can't block Google's apps without getting the FCC involved.
I see you haven't read the proposals for net neutrality legislation that are going around. Every proposal I've read has made it clear that net neutrality would only apply to *legal* content. Pirated content is not legal and therefore doesn't fall within net neutrality as the FCC will define it.
But protocols aren't illegal so it's kind of an empty clause.
Besides, does your internet connection "grind to a halt" when you come home? MIne certainly doesn't, yet I'm certain that a significant percentage of other customers of my ISP pirate heavily.
It used to before my ISP started throttling P2P traffic. If you have a program open that uses certain protocols, your bandwidth is severely limited. As soon as you stop using that protocol, it jumps up to normal. This is only at peak times during the day. I think it's great because it keeps the connection running very quickly all the time.
Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, BSA, cable companies and telcos threaten the existence of the internet. The guys who stole $200 billion from U.S. taxpayers threaten the existence of the internet.
I won't defend the phone companies as I know they are unethical but the technology wasn't there to deliver what they wanted so the money probably just dried up as it does when there's nothing to spend it on but keeping a company growing.
With a download cap, they'll go over the limit quite quickly and get charged for the bandwidth they're using. Problem solved!
The reason you switched away from a provider already was due to a bandwidth cap. That isn't the solution because it penalizes legitimate users.
Discriminating against different protocols won't work. BItTorrent is being redesigned to work over HTTP.
They can still determine between streaming video and file transfer.
I paid $57/month for a measly 30 Gb/month limit, which was exceeded by downloading 4 HD movies, thereby doubling my bill. That's why I switched ISPs. Does that sound reasonable to you? A 200 GB cap (which I have now) would stop heavy P2P users in their tracks without punishing legitimate users.
But that assumes 200GB per month is manageable by the ISP. If their resources aren't that high, it's not feasible.
Most people in the U.S. have only one or two options for internet. That's the telcos or cable companies.
That's not two options though because each of those categories has multiple competitors.
But technology neutrality simply ignores both technical and economic realities. A heavy P2P user can use more bandwidth than a 100 typical users.
So charge on a bandwidth basis that's fair and equitable and scales based on line use, and dont heavily oversell your infrastructure.
As another poster has correctly pointed out, the vast majority of P2P activity is illegal file sharing of stolen intellectual property. Reputable companies like Amazon or Apple that sell downloads operate real server farms - they don't try something shady like P2P.
You mean like blizzard (who use bittorrent to distribute updates)? How about Skype (which uses p2p for routing and call transmission)?
Also, dont you see that net neutrality protects small operators like you? It's hard to claim common carrier status if you filter content, opening you up to lawsuits that a small operator may not have the funds to fight.
Artists aren't getting paid [as much as they should be]. It's still better than P2P where they don't get paid at all directly.
[Hey,] if it [weren't for] illegal file-sharing [I wouldn't have found] out about ten or twenty bands, [and as a result], I wouldn't have [gone to any of their concerts] or bought any of their merchandise, which is actually where they get most of their money. [And I also actually buy] the album if it turns out to be one of my favorites.
Illegal file sharers spend the most on legal media.
So charge on a bandwidth basis that's fair and equitable and scales based on line use, and dont heavily oversell your infrastructure.
You mean like blizzard (who use bittorrent to distribute updates)? How about Skype (which uses p2p for routing and call transmission)?
Also, dont you see that net neutrality protects small operators like you? It's hard to claim common carrier status if you filter content, opening you up to lawsuits that a small operator may not have the funds to fight.
Don't forget Jamendo, which is where I got some of my music, which uses P2P for album downloads. (All music is licensed under CC on that site, so it's legal)
I could come up with tons of other examples, just not off the top of my head.
[Hey,] if it [weren't for] illegal file-sharing [I wouldn't have found] out about ten or twenty bands, [and as a result], I wouldn't have [gone to any of their concerts] or bought any of their merchandise, which is actually where they get most of their money. [And I also actually buy] the album if it turns out to be one of my favorites.
Nobody is talking about banning P2P, simply prioritizing network traffic in a way that keeps all users happy and doesn't strain the ISPs.
P2P systems are file transfer protocols. If you get a Blizzard update or audio album, you don't necessarily need it to finish downloading immediately. If however, you are watching a live streaming video on Youtube, Hulu whatever, chances are you'd quite like to watch it in real-time.
I just think it's ok for ISPs to prioritize the traffic depending on needs. There are examples where it's done unfairly like for encrypted traffic but if software gets certificates to identify traffic types but maintain content privacy, it should be ok.
Nobody is talking about banning P2P, simply prioritizing network traffic in a way that keeps all users happy and doesn't strain the ISPs.
P2P systems are file transfer protocols. If you get a Blizzard update or audio album, you don't necessarily need it to finish downloading immediately. If however, you are watching a live streaming video on Youtube, Hulu whatever, chances are you'd quite like to watch it in real-time.
I just think it's ok for ISPs to prioritize the traffic depending on needs. There are examples where it's done unfairly like for encrypted traffic but if software gets certificates to identify traffic types but maintain content privacy, it should be ok.
ISP's should not throttle anything, period.
I don't expect the ISPs would want metered billing unless they could increase the cost per GB at least 20 fold. They elected to go the anti P2P capping route because they know these heavy users are a small fraction of their customer base.
To meter usage at current average bandwidth prices would seriously cut into their cash cow. When you increase charge by 20x to the majority of consumers, who are using the fewest GBs, above the outrageous price they have currently, you'd be biting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm betting the ISPs would rather accept the FCC's brand of net neutrality regulations because it doesn't effect ISP's status quo pricing which is currently gorging the consumer.
As for bandwidth, the U.S. government gave the telcos $200 billion to improve broadband internet in the late 90's. They hoarded it without using the money as it was intended:
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
No, they didn't get $200B in cash. Had we invested $200B in last mile infrastructure we'd have had it. NII I think requested a couple billion if I remember correctly. Compare this to the rollout costs of FiOS ($18B is a number that I seem to remember). If Verizon pocketed it's share of $200B in ill gotten gains they wouldn't be sucking air trying to afford the FiOS buildout. Something they NEED to do to position themselves strategically.
Also, you remember this thing around 2001? Something bomb?
Plus the article is full of shit. FiOS offers 100Mbps which is faster than the 45Mbps talked about. FiOS FTTP is exactly what broadband in the US should look like rather than the more common FTTN rollouts.
Plus MCI was selling service below costs for years and died from $11B worth of accounting fraud not government regulations.
Had they invested the money the way they were supposed to, there would be issues of bandwidth shortage. There would be plenty for everybody. So I have absolutely no sympathy with the "we must manage our network" argument.
Because wireless data service is EXACTLY like FTTP in capacity...
AT&T isn't fighting net neutrality on UVerse but on their cell network. Besides, net neutrality is about not blocking apple. Not the ability to download pirated movies off the net 24/7.
The only thing the telco's dragged their feet on was decent ISDN/DSL to kill the CLECs. Which was great for the cable companies and now we have competition again. The CLECs ultimately would have harmed network growth because they provided no infrastructure expansion. Just DSL over the telco's POTS plants.
ISPs didn't go out of business because of predatory ILECs but because cable started offering broadband and there was no DSL service because why the heck should Vz pay to upgrade their COs so the CLECs could price service down to the bare minimum? No incentive to sink massive capital into something that has little profitability.
On the other hand, FTTP or FTTN is required to compete with Comcast who offers REAL competition through a triple play option on their own cable backbones rather than over the ILEC local loop.
Difference? Cable networks pay for the infrastructure just like the telcos do with the same capital cost requirements and inertia from owning physical hardware unlike a CLEC that owns a little bit of hardware sitting in the ILEC's CO.
In my area there is only one provider of truly fast internet service. DSL is too slow, so I have comcast which costs $45 a month. I do email, internet browsing and 1-2 movie download per month. I'd love the competition that FIOS would bring.
FiOS wouldn't bring lower costs. Just higher bandwidth. That probably doesn't do too much for you...
I switched from Comcast to FiOS. My bill dropped from $50 to $45 at the time for about the same amount of bandwidth. The biggest advantage is that FiOS has been more stable for me so VoIP works better...which ah...let me cut Verizon land line service.
GOP senators declare war on Net neutrality
Six Republican senators have introduced an amendment that would block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its recently announced Net neutrality policy.
Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced the amendment to an appropriations bill. It would prevent the FCC from getting funding for any initiative to uphold Net neutrality. According to The Hill, the co-sponsors are Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).
The move appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the FCC's expected new policy to ensure that Internet service providers don't discriminate between different types of information on their networks.
Complete idiocy and obvious pandering to the corporations. If it doesn't get shot down I'll be amazed.
----
In a different matter, I find this chart rather telling:
In a different matter, I find this chart rather telling:
Notice one common theme in the countries the top 5?
Would that be that they are smaller? Yes.
Would that be that their population is more clustered into urban areas? Yes.
Would that be that their populations are smaller? Yes.
Take Korea. 1% of our landmass. 17% of our population.
We can already provide FTTP to 13.8M customers of which 3.7M have been connected. We're at 12% of US customers passed by FTTP. Add in all the DOCSIS 3.0 passed homes and we've got about the same buildout of some of these small top tier countries.
We haven't offered 100Mbps service except to businesses customers (ignoring CableVision's 100Mbps residential offering for the moment) but DOCSIS 3.0 and Verizon's GPON buildout will all support up to 100Mbps.
For now, we can more or less match Japan/Koreas 45-50 Mbps buildout.
It's definitely not about wireless.
Europe is lagging behind the US in fiber optics network build-out --- and they are lagging badly.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...way/65951.aspx
We watch TV on our iPhones and we don't drop calls. Period.
You are also stuck with a much more expensive iphone plans with fewer minutes.
You are also stuck with a much more expensive iphone plans with fewer minutes.
We're used to send MMS -- if only you could know how pretty they are on iPhone! -- so we actually don't need our voice minutes.
P.S. SMS/MMS are, surely, unlimited. Just asking myself, can it be other way??