tylersdad

Apple expected to ship 100M 6.1" LCD iPhone units priced at $700-$800 in late 2018

tylersdad

February 2018

Why are other smartphone manufacturers, such as Samsung, Google, and LG, able to keep their premium OLED phones under $850 and Apple is not?

We've seen from past reports that the difference in the cost of OLED and LCD isn't hundreds of dollars.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reveals Net Neutrality repeal plan, vote on Dec. 14

tylersdad

November 2017

michael madsen said:

kerpow said:

Good. We don't need the government involved in managing the Internet. Everyone worried about this wrecking the Internet are seeing imaginary monsters in the dark.

But we do! If the government doesn't manage it, some big companies will. The difference is that the first option is (hopefully) for the benefit of the people living in the country, whereas the latter will benefit only the ISP's themselves.

tylersdad said:
Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't.

If the ISP's didn't violate Net Neutrality prior to this regulation, why does it need removal now?

tylersdad said:
If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs.
And if all the ISP's do?

Several ISPs, including AT&T and Comcast, have indicated that they prefer the regulations stay in place. That should give you some indication what they plan to do once net neutrality is voted down. Additionally, ISPs had the opportunity to charge extra prior to the net neutrality vote. They didn’t. That should be another clear indicator.

I was actually in favor of net neutrality until the old FCC board declared Internet access a right and wanted to increase the universal coverage fee.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reveals Net Neutrality repeal plan, vote on Dec. 14

tylersdad

November 2017

1STnTENDERBITS said:

tylersdad said:

hattig said:

Bad luck America.

Services are going to be tiered to hell and back as soon as they can do that.

Oh, I'm sure the dross will still be available for all to see, and 'approved content' will be on the cheaper tiers as well.

But most service providers exist in localised monopolies, so without competition they will gauge you if you want streaming services they don't provide themselves, or news sources that aren't favoured, and so on. Oh, you want to do online gaming? That's only available on the $100pm tier.

Services are already tiered. I pay extra for faster connectivity. If I want to lower my monthly bill, I can choose a lower plan.

Let's be clear: Prior to this decision, ISPs were allowed to do exactly what you describe, but they didn't. If an ISP does, you just switch ISPs.

From you're comment, it's pretty clear you don't understand the subject matter. Your speed may be tiered but your traffic is not. That's what you're missing.
Example: Tylersdad has a 25 Mbps (Tier 1) connection and pays $50/month. For $10 more per month, he can get a 50 Mbps (Tier 2) connection. For $20 more than Tier 2 he can get 75 Mbps for $80 per month. That's tiered service. That has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Here's what the repeal of net neutrality can get you:
Tylersdad likes to stream movies to his Apple TV, likes to watch Netflix on his iPad, and game through his Steam account on his iMac. Under net neutrality, no matter what he's doing he gets the same speed at the same cost. Without net neutrality, ISP can charge for tiered access to traffic -different from tiered service- based on sites, type of traffic, or any other parameter they decide. So in this new paradigm, if Tylersdad wants to stream movies on his Apple TV he has to pay $50 bucks for basic internet package (BIP) + $15 for Tier 1 streaming. Tier 1 covers streaming to ATV, Roku, Fire Sticks, etc. but does not include Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming. For that you need to move up to Tier 2 streaming which is $25 extra. Tylersdad likes Steam. Can't stream things like Steam or Youtube on rinky dink Tier 2 though. You gotta step up to Tier 3 Popular Traffic for an extra $50 per month. Oh, and certain sites can only be accessed from Tier 3 traffic. Sites like Apple.com or Appleinsider.com. Mind you that's on top of your basic internet charge.

To be fair, my example is a bit of hyperbole but nothing in it is out of the realm of possibility without net neutrality. Again, net neutrality is about your traffic, not your overall speed.
Here's a visual representation.

Based on your reply it’s clear you prefer to deal in hyperbole, exaggeration, and strawman arguments. The fact is, ISPs had decades to do precisely what you describe. They didn’t.

If they did, they would lose customers and the free market would likely respond with ISPs that don’t have such ridiculous pricing.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reveals Net Neutrality repeal plan, vote on Dec. 14

tylersdad

November 2017

While I agree with the concept of net neutrality, the prior FCC board took their authority too far when they declared that Internet access is a right and people should pay extra taxes on their Internet service to pay for those who can't afford Internet service.