Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Stoney on December 20, 2010, 09:22:17 AM
-
Gents,
I'm having trouble cutting through a lot of the static over this issue. Is there someone who can post a politically neutral, basic synopsis of the issue so I can understand exactly what this means?
-
In a nutshell it means that data flow on the internet cannot be discriminated.
The current problem is that companies that are ISP's like AT&T want to be able to shut off data flow to certain parties if its convenient for their business.
The best example now is Netflix vs. ISP . Netflix has a massive bandwith usage since they stream movies. Netflix pays their ISP for access to the net. That ISP in turn is connected to a big ISP which has the backbone access to the internet (a company like AT&T). ISP pays AT&T a connection fee for that link.
AT&T thinks that since the data is flowing through their lines, that they should have the right to lower the bandwith or shut it off altogether in order to benefit AT&T's direct customers. In short, they say that those that pay AT&T directly should have priority and everyone else gets what's left. They argue that netflix is profiting greatly from using AT&T's infrastructure while paying AT&T nothing.. regardless of the fact that ISP pays AT&T a fee for the connection. From what I understand that fee is sort of a 'bulk' rate which is standard between ISP's but netflix is not an ISP and is gaining a lot of money.
More fuel to the fire is AT&T wants to get into the movie streaming market too so it bites them to see netflix using their infrastructure to compete against AT&T's online movie services.
So AT&T wants to either charge netflix or the ISP a big fee to compensate for that or if possible, lobby so that congress allows them to degrade netflix's bandwith in order to benefit AT&T's own movie service.
Net neutrality is all about not allowing these big companies to monopolize who has access to the net as well as not allowing these big companies to decide who has the right to get full speed or degraded speed.
If congress gives them that right, the internet can literally collapse as companies will begin charging fees like crazy until no competitor remains on the net other than themselves.... which is precisely what the big telecom companies have done with cable tv and phone service.
-
In a nutshell it means that data flow on the internet cannot be discriminated.
The current problem is that companies that are ISP's like AT&T want to be able to shut off data flow to certain parties if its convenient for their business.
The best example now is Netflix vs. ISP . Netflix has a massive bandwith usage since they stream movies. Netflix pays their ISP for access to the net. That ISP in turn is connected to a big ISP which has the backbone access to the internet (a company like AT&T). ISP pays AT&T a connection fee for that link.
AT&T thinks that since the data is flowing through their lines, that they should have the right to lower the bandwith or shut it off altogether in order to benefit AT&T's direct customers. In short, they say that those that pay AT&T directly should have priority and everyone else gets what's left. They argue that netflix is profiting greatly from using AT&T's infrastructure while paying AT&T nothing.. regardless of the fact that ISP pays AT&T a fee for the connection. From what I understand that fee is sort of a 'bulk' rate which is standard between ISP's but netflix is not an ISP and is gaining a lot of money.
More fuel to the fire is AT&T wants to get into the movie streaming market too so it bites them to see netflix using their infrastructure to compete against AT&T's online movie services.
So AT&T wants to either charge netflix or the ISP a big fee to compensate for that or if possible, lobby so that congress allows them to degrade netflix's bandwith in order to benefit AT&T's own movie service.
Net neutrality is all about not allowing these big companies to monopolize who has access to the net as well as not allowing these big companies to decide who has the right to get full speed or degraded speed.
If congress gives them that right, the internet can literally collapse as companies will begin charging fees like crazy until no competitor remains on the net other than themselves.... which is precisely what the big telecom companies have done with cable tv and phone service.
From what I've read the problem Netflix is having is not with AT&T. See the following link.
http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/2010/12/8-things-to-know-about-netflix-vs-comcast/ (http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/2010/12/8-things-to-know-about-netflix-vs-comcast/)
Could have missed the AT&T angle and if I have I would like to read it.
-
Aye, im just using AT&T as its the only big name ISP i could think of.
Regardless, AT&T is pushing to get net neutrality removed so using them in the example is not too far off :P
-
In a nutshell it means that data flow on the internet cannot be discriminated.
The current problem is that companies that are ISP's like AT&T want to be able to shut off data flow to certain parties if its convenient for their business.
The best example now is Netflix vs. ISP . Netflix has a massive bandwith usage since they stream movies. Netflix pays their ISP for access to the net. That ISP in turn is connected to a big ISP which has the backbone access to the internet (a company like AT&T). ISP pays AT&T a connection fee for that link.
AT&T thinks that since the data is flowing through their lines, that they should have the right to lower the bandwith or shut it off altogether in order to benefit AT&T's direct customers. In short, they say that those that pay AT&T directly should have priority and everyone else gets what's left. They argue that netflix is profiting greatly from using AT&T's infrastructure while paying AT&T nothing.. regardless of the fact that ISP pays AT&T a fee for the connection. From what I understand that fee is sort of a 'bulk' rate which is standard between ISP's but netflix is not an ISP and is gaining a lot of money.
More fuel to the fire is AT&T wants to get into the movie streaming market too so it bites them to see netflix using their infrastructure to compete against AT&T's online movie services.
So AT&T wants to either charge netflix or the ISP a big fee to compensate for that or if possible, lobby so that congress allows them to degrade netflix's bandwith in order to benefit AT&T's own movie service.
Net neutrality is all about not allowing these big companies to monopolize who has access to the net as well as not allowing these big companies to decide who has the right to get full speed or degraded speed.
If congress gives them that right, the internet can literally collapse as companies will begin charging fees like crazy until no competitor remains on the net other than themselves.... which is precisely what the big telecom companies have done with cable tv and phone service.
Seems to me the best option would be to separate the two. Either you can be a ISP or a streaming site. But not both. Allowing both will only encourage monopolies which is usually bad for the consumer.
As an example, look at your local cable provider. I know where I am for a while we had the choice of Comcast..or Comcast. There was no alternative. Thats how it is at my mothers house in Fla now.
You either deal with their rates and minimal services for maximum pay, or you dont get cable. those are/were your choices unless you went Satt.
Thats how it was for us. Thats how it is for my mother. Enter Verizon into my area. Boy oh boy its amazing the things they are willing to let you have for the same price even as a basic package.
My mother is still stuck with comcast as her only alternative. And she hardly gets any channels as part of her package.
Comcast knows its the monopoly and they do what they do because they can. There is no real competition. You either accept their terms or get nothing at all. and my 74 year old mother doesnt want to deal with Satellite sooo shes pretty much stuck.
When ISPs are allowed to become streaming video sites. They have the ability to squash out the competition. to become the monopoly. Or to reduce the bandwith and/or charge the video streaming sites to such an extent that those sites are no longer viable at a consumer friendly price.
-
That makes sense however the problem is that all the ISP's that make up the US internet backbone are the big telecoms that deal in every form of media: tv, movies, music, etc.
Just like with cable, all brand name companies that offer it are owned by these big telecoms. In Florida, comcast,brighthouse, charter, etc are all owned by Time Warner/AOL or similar super-corporations.
Hopefully the new civilian space industry will within the decade make satellite internet available to the masses with good speeds and have the same effect satellite TV had on breaking the cable monopolies.
-
That makes sense however the problem is that all the ISP's that make up the US internet backbone are the big telecoms that deal in every form of media: tv, movies, music, etc.
Just like with cable, all brand name companies that offer it are owned by these big telecoms. In Florida, comcast,brighthouse, charter, etc are all owned by Time Warner/AOL or similar super-corporations.
Hopefully the new civilian space industry will within the decade make satellite internet available to the masses with good speeds and have the same effect satellite TV had on breaking the cable monopolies.
Wouldnt be the first time mega conglomerates were broken up.
Anyone remember "The Bell system"?
-
Tac, I need to augment what you have already said.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that all the ISP's are having to pay to upgrade thier networks in order to satisfy the Netflix load, as an example. Those ISP's are looking for someone to pay for those upgrades. Raising prices to all the end users will happen if they are not able to figure out how to get some type of subsidy from those services which are placing extreme loads on thier networks.
Do not take what I am offering as being for or against this mess. Personally, I wish Netflix, Youtube and other such services would die. It certainly would make my life easier.
-
Tac, I need to augment what you have already said.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that all the ISP's are having to pay to upgrade thier networks in order to satisfy the Netflix load, as an example. Those ISP's are looking for someone to pay for those upgrades. Raising prices to all the end users will happen if they are not able to figure out how to get some type of subsidy from those services which are placing extreme loads on thier networks.
Do not take what I am offering as being for or against this mess. Personally, I wish Netflix, Youtube and other such services would die. It certainly would make my life easier.
Yes but they can do that merely by charging the ISP through which Netflix connects to the backbone and that ISP should be passing the cost increase to Netflix. Instead they want legal right to block anyone and everyone they want in order to channel paying customers to their own brand services. That's the real mess imo.
From my understanding the backbone ISP wants netflix to pay them directly what is essentially 'protection' money while at the same time universally increasing the connection fee to the local ISP netflix uses to connect to the backbone. I may not understand exactly what is going on there but I do understand the backbone ISP is also trying to launch a rival service to netflix so there's a big conflict of interest there.
-
Part of the problem stems from the fact that all the ISP's are having to pay to upgrade thier networks in order to satisfy the Netflix load, as an example. Those ISP's are looking for someone to pay for those upgrades. Raising prices to all the end users will happen if they are not able to figure out how to get some type of subsidy from those services which are placing extreme loads on thier networks.
If you look at the current dark fiber capacity in US, you can easily see that consumers already subsidized all the upgrades for at least a decade into the future. There's no shortage in the 'last mile' segment either (except in rural areas).
Due to all current and future services, bandwidth usage is bound to rapidly increase with Netflix or without, that's given. Big players just like to have their cake and eat it too.
Look at the Bell/ATT monster...
-
I am under the pretense that businesses will need to buy bandwidth to get favorable connection speeds. Meaning that big names like Fox, ABC, Google can dish out more money and ensure faster connection to their sites, whereas smaller sites would suffer (HTC Creations). Is this a correct assumption or do I need to slap the guy who described it to me? :headscratch:
-
If you look at the current dark fiber capacity in US, you can easily see that consumers already subsidized all the upgrades for at least a decade into the future. There's no shortage in the 'last mile' segment either (except in rural areas).
Due to all current and future services, bandwidth usage is bound to rapidly increase with Netflix or without, that's given. Big players just like to have their cake and eat it too.
Look at the Bell/ATT monster...
I would disagree with the amount of dark fiber in the field. There is very little, most the fiber is in use.
The problem is two fold. First there is so much old fiber in the field. When it was made and spliced 8+ years ago it was made and spliced to the highest standards of the day and able to handle anything you threw at it. Today the transmit/receive equipment being made can send data faster than these old fibers can handle so the equipment has to be slowed down to match the fibers max bandwidth.
The other side of the coin is the new fiber is of such high quality the old equipment (and most of it is 5+ years old) doesn't send/receive fast enough to even come close to the new fibers max bandwidth.
It's easy to say "just upgrade the fiber and equipment" but not so easy to do. It would take 10 years to replace the old fiber and hundreds of billions of dollars to replace the fiber and equipment and what would you have at the end, the same thing you have now. A backbone of fiber and equipment thats 10 years behind the times and no longer meets the need.
What's the solution? I don't know but I don't think we'll find it with the technology we're currently using. Something new will have to be developed. Fiber Optics is yesterday's technology and will never meet tomorrows needs.
-
AnsibleNet :devil :pray
-
I would disagree with the amount of dark fiber in the field. There is very little, most the fiber is in use.
Allied Fiber alone could cover 25% and that's not counting their new nationwide ring project. Just because some service providers are short on their own capacity due to unwillingness to invest, doesn't mean there isn't any dark fiber to buy or lease. Furthermore, dark fiber build up is currently outpacing bandwidth growth.
You just have to look a bit further than usual tier 1 suspects to see there's plenty.
-
See Rule #14
-
EDIT: Possible Rule 14 Violation
-Penguin
-
I am warning everyone. This topic is difficult to discuss without dragging politics into it.
So, be forewarned, if you do, you will be suspended from the board for one week.
-
one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.
Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast.
-
one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.
Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast.
Thats what my understanding of it was.
On a related note, the internet is not a big truck. The internet is not something you can just dump something on. The internet is a series of tubes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
-
one of the bad sides of no net neutrality could be the parterning deals ISP makes with major companies.
Say you use verizon. Verizon makes an agreement with microsoft to be a ISP partner. Suddenly your access to google gets very slow, and youtube drags, but your speed to Bing and MS video goes lightning fast.
This was what I was curious about. Seems like anti-trust laws would be in play here. What are the drawbacks of some of the proposed net neutrality rules. I read something about "Ma Bell" type regulatory practices, but again, hard to cut through the political static on some of this...
-
I dont recall as my head was somewhere else back then..LOL
But How did it work when MCI went and used southwestern bells lines in the 80's??
Did SWB charge MCI for use?? or were the lines used by MCI free of charge??I think this was before southwestern bell had to be broken up into what became AT&T..
Wouldnt the same line of thinking apply here also?
SKUZZY???
-
I dont recall as my head was somewhere else back then..LOL
But How did it work when MCI went and used southwestern bells lines in the 80's??
Did SWB charge MCI for use?? or were the lines used by MCI free of charge??I think this was before southwestern bell had to be broken up into what became AT&T..
Wouldnt the same line of thinking apply here also?
SKUZZY???
I believe the regulatory rules that were in place stated that the Baby Bells were allowed to use Ma Bells infrastructure to provide service. Ironically, SBC, which used to be a baby bell, eventually bought up AT&T and a couple of other baby bells. So now, we pretty much have a different Ma Bell.
-
You need some sort of middle ground or consumer internet prices will go through the roof. And competition to keep pricing down only works as long as there are competitors. ISPs need to be able to manage traffic, you cannot build the infrastructure to provision full CIR at full line speeds (ie designed to operate at 100% capacity) - but you need to be able to control what gets through when there is contention.
Outside of the USA ISPs already do this and there are no peering issues like most of you seem to think will happen.
-
"Did SWB charge MCI for use??"
All LEC companies did and the access fees were big and as a result
there was not a lot of money made on LD calls. The bug money was
(and still is) made from providing complex services to businesses and
corporations.
-
A restructuring of how all the access points on the Internet needs to be done. The current structure allows any given service to simply put an ISP out of business by allowing users to flood the network with data from the remote service. It is not fair to the ISP to have to upgrade their network to be able to handle a remote companies network load.
ISP's are already being sued for trying to limit that flow so their networks do not suffer from DoS (denial of service) to other services.
Basically, we have an unsustainable business model.
A potential solution is for each and every company to pay for their guaranteed outbound bandwidth and only the outbound bandwidth. No inbound traffic would impact the specified outbound bandwidth. In this model, Level3 would pay Comcast for a specific amount of bandwidth into their network. Comcast would pay Level3 for its outbound bandwidth as well.
Now the onus for Netflix performance into Comcasts network falls to Level3, who is Netflix's ISP. If Netflix wants more bandwidth into Comcast, then Level3 can pay Comcast for it and charge it back to Netflix.
This model allows both small and large ISP's to compete fairly, which is why it will never be adopted. So that is why I did not go into extreme detail about how it would work. No sense in wasting time on an idea that will never happen.
-
^ neat solution :aok
-
Tac, I need to augment what you have already said.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that all the ISP's are having to pay to upgrade thier networks in order to satisfy the Netflix load, as an example. Those ISP's are looking for someone to pay for those upgrades. Raising prices to all the end users will happen if they are not able to figure out how to get some type of subsidy from those services which are placing extreme loads on thier networks.
Do not take what I am offering as being for or against this mess. Personally, I wish Netflix, Youtube and other such services would die. It certainly would make my life easier.
The other possibility, if the FCC, etc becomes more involved than they already are, is they won't doany more upgrades, because it's impossible to get their investment back. How many innovations did you see in the decades beFORE the ATT breakup, when prices, etc were set by a regulatory committee?
-
I was listening to a guy in the business yesterday, and he was pointing out the grief that is caused to providers by people doing UPloading (can't say I understand the technical reasons of it) But that a lot of ISP's are tracking it and sending warnings to users. (probably a good way to catch file-piraters also)
-
This model allows both small and large ISP's to compete fairly, which is why it will never be adopted. So that is why I did not go into extreme detail about how it would work. No sense in wasting time on an idea that will never happen.
What would prevent this from being adopted?
-
What would prevent this from being adopted?
lobbying power of the big companies.
-
What would prevent this from being adopted?
All the large ISP's. They have worked hard killing off the small ISP's. Anything that could introduce potential parity into this business would be viewed as a danger to their monopolies (where applicable).
Companies like Netflix, who depend on the current billing practices, would be screaming about it as well.
-
Basically, we have an unsustainable business model.
That's a key point. Should be interesting to see how it works out in the next few years,
-
That's a key point. Should be interesting to see how it works out in the next few years,
We do not have to wait. It has been playing itself out for years. A company invests millions of dollars into its infrastructure only to have a Netflix open up and then they have to invest millions more, without any growth, in order to be able to deliver the service.
What happens when the next high demand service gets online? The ISP sells or merges with another one. Process repeats itself until there is only one or two ISP's left in the U.S., at which time they double or triple the price to the end-user. ta-da.
That is what will happen if we just sit about waiting for it.
-
Good points gents! I just hope some sort bi-partisan middle ground can be reached to minimize the lobbyist tactics. When does this get voted on?
-
Am I confused, or have I also heard net neutrality referring to flat charges to end users?
My first thought when hearing the phrase is that Mr J. Auff, the guy down the street whose constant P2P file sharing uses enormous bandwidth, will get charged the same as the little old lady whose only use is checking email once a day. The usual pricing structure around here is based on potential speed, not based on bandwidth usage.
-
I just hope some sort bi-partisan middle ground can be reached to minimize the lobbyist tactics.
Somehow, wishing this seems appropriate during the season of Santa, elves, and New Year's resolutions....
-
I am warning everyone. This topic is difficult to discuss without dragging politics into it.
So, be forewarned, if you do, you will be suspended from the board for four weeks.
I was not aware of Polly ticks..... I thought Polly had fleas. Those dang birds.
-
I can't see why the providers are obligated to carry bandwidth hogs such as netflix without being compensated by netflix for their load on the system.
They OWN the fiber - they installed and maintain the lines to their customers homes, they should have the right to do with it as they please - then let the consumer make the final call - not our over reaching government.
-
A restructuring of how all the access points on the Internet needs to be done. The current structure allows any given service to simply put an ISP out of business by allowing users to flood the network with data from the remote service. It is not fair to the ISP to have to upgrade their network to be able to handle a remote companies network load.
ISP's are already being sued for trying to limit that flow so their networks do not suffer from DoS (denial of service) to other services.
Basically, we have an unsustainable business model.
A potential solution is for each and every company to pay for their guaranteed outbound bandwidth and only the outbound bandwidth. No inbound traffic would impact the specified outbound bandwidth. In this model, Level3 would pay Comcast for a specific amount of bandwidth into their network. Comcast would pay Level3 for its outbound bandwidth as well.
Now the onus for Netflix performance into Comcasts network falls to Level3, who is Netflix's ISP. If Netflix wants more bandwidth into Comcast, then Level3 can pay Comcast for it and charge it back to Netflix.
This model allows both small and large ISP's to compete fairly, which is why it will never be adopted. So that is why I did not go into extreme detail about how it would work. No sense in wasting time on an idea that will never happen.
what Skuzzy said ^^
-
When does this get voted on?
Yesterday. The FCC approved the plan set before them. (Pretty sure said plan hasn't been made public yet)
-
Am I confused, or have I also heard net neutrality referring to flat charges to end users?
My first thought when hearing the phrase is that Mr J. Auff, the guy down the street whose constant P2P file sharing uses enormous bandwidth, will get charged the same as the little old lady whose only use is checking email once a day. The usual pricing structure around here is based on potential speed, not based on bandwidth usage.
The whole 'net neutrality' issue is really based on one problem. ISP's having to eat the cost of upgrading their network infrastructure to be able to carry services they do not derive any financial benefit from. Everything else is a derivative of that base issue.
-
Am I confused, or have I also heard net neutrality referring to flat charges to end users?
My first thought when hearing the phrase is that Mr J. Auff, the guy down the street whose constant P2P file sharing uses enormous bandwidth, will get charged the same as the little old lady whose only use is checking email once a day. The usual pricing structure around here is based on potential speed, not based on bandwidth usage.
So.. would you be for or against that type of practice? In their infancy, a lot of ISPs had unlimited bandwidth plans, but they also had limited bandwidth plans. Similar to cell phones, you could have a cheaper plan, but only be able to use so many 'minutes'.. or 'bytes' of data. In this case, the little old lady might save some money. Kind of reminds me of old Local Bulletin board systems. Every couple of weeks, I had to call a 900 number to reload the points I needed for access (that is until the sysop gave me free access for hacking into his system while he watched. Helped him to close a lot of backdoors LOL)
My problem with this reasoning is that if something is advertised as 'unlimited' and I subscribe to it, I don't want to be penalized for using too much, as I bought into it BECAUSE of the 'unlimited' advertising. Kind of like AH. I pay my $15/month just like everyone else here. If I play.. say.. 100 hours one month, I don't want to be charged an extra fee because I played too much!
-
My first thought when hearing the phrase is that Mr J. Auff, the guy down the street whose constant P2P file sharing uses enormous bandwidth, will get charged the same as the little old lady whose only use is checking email once a day. The usual pricing structure around here is based on potential speed, not based on bandwidth usage.
Over here (NZ) and in a lot of countries outside the USA it's based on bandwidth usage. But that creates another problem - peak periods. ISPs find at peaks periods utlisation goes through the roof while off-peak it drops to virtually nothing. BTW CIR=Commited Information Rate, what the ISP guarantees you will get if the smelly brown stuff hits the fan. IIRC NZ consumer internet is ~35:1 on contention, for every 1Mb of bandwidth there are 35 users. Sounds bad but it works well, as most of those 35 are the little old ladies checking their email. My ADSL connection at home is 15Mbps down 1Mbp up, and I can get my full 15Mbps no problem. Occasionally during peak periods it might drop to 5Mbps throughput, but that is rare.
Generally this only applies to consumers, business plans are usually much more pricey but have a CIR that matches their connection speed.
ALL the ISPs here use traffic management, interestingly the cheaper the ISP the cheaper their traffic management solution is and it tends to be a crappy experience for anything but browsing. So you can buy cheap internet plans and be happy if you're just checking email and surfing. Or if you want gaming you go to the decent ISP who know's what they're doing and get awesome performance - this has given the smaller guys some space to play in. Take my ISP for example, I can ring their help desk and talk to a guy that knows WTF he's doing. I had a problem last year with int'l routing going via a carrier that prioritized icmp packets to make their performance look better 'on paper' but in reality they sucked, rung up the help desk, explained what I'd found - help desk guy is like 'sure we'll pop you onto a different international route' : problem solved.
You'd be surprised at how much ISP equipment is produced to give ISPs the capability to deliver tiered services depending on what the customer wants.
-
My bias:
Prices ought to reflect actual cost, which lets people make informed decisions about risk (or cost) and benefit. That should apply to big companies, small companies, and consumers.
If flood insurance were priced based on actuarial cost instead of some politically acceptable number, very few people would choose to live in areas likely to get flooded. Those who chose to do so would have been paying their share of the actual risk, meaning less for the tax payer to pick up.
If something like Skuzzy's outline or the NZ system were in place, then you'd basically get what you paid for - and you'd only be paying for what you got. It allows niche providers to survive when they might get buried by megacorp. Also, we wouldn't pay for Netflix related ISP upgrades, except to the degree that we actually used that kind of bandwidth. The little old ladies wouldn't be stuck subsidizing the kid who was P2P downloading every movie he could find whether he wanted to watch them or not. And the kid (or his parents) might get surprised with a bill that encouraged them to change their behavior.
It's an approach based on something called "signaling theory", and it seems to me that a great degree of economic problems could be solved by allowing prices to reflect actual costs - and then relying on people to make the judgments that make the best sense for them as individuals. Anything that distorts the actual costs (subsidies, collusion between corporations, monopolistic behavior) causes inefficient allocation of resources and reduces the amount of good stuff the economy can produce for all of us.
-
Just to make sure I am not misreading your post; You do realize there are real costs associated with the amount of data being moved, over a connection, at any given point in time?
I ask that question as there are a high number of people who really believe there are no costs associated with any amount of data being moved around on the Internet.
-
WHat do the satellite providers fall under with their FAP(fair access policy)...they only allow you to download and upload a certain amount in any 30 day rolling period.If you go over it,they throttle you down,and if still abused,they have at their discretion the ability to cut you loose..
-
Just to make sure I am not misreading your post; You do realize there are real costs associated with the amount of data being moved, over a connection, at any given point in time?
I ask that question as there are a high number of people who really believe there are no costs associated with any amount of data being moved around on the Internet.
What resource do you need to move it? Electricity? I could see that. Am I right?
-Penguin
-
See Rule #14
-
WHat do the satellite providers fall under with their FAP(fair access policy)...they only allow you to download and upload a certain amount in any 30 day rolling period.If you go over it,they throttle you down,and if still abused,they have at their discretion the ability to cut you loose..
ISPs (terrestrial) can and do the same.
-
Skuzzy -
yeah, that's actually my point. It seems to me that if people were bearing their own freight better, then the cost structure of the net would more likely work itself out without specific intervention. So if the Netflixes (Netfli? Netfluxes?) payed in ways proportionate to their actual usage of outgoing bandwidth, and if end users payed according to their incoming bandwidth, then neutrality would be less of a political issue.
In another framework - when it's "all you can eat", the average guy ends up paying extra to cover the cost of the gluttons. Or, back when water wasn't metered very few people thought twice about letting the hose run down the driveway for hours. Or, when bonuses are only calculated based on short term sales, commodities traders couldn't care less about long term consequences. Or, (as I said above) when flood insurance rates are kept artificially low, buyers don't appreciate just how high the risk of flooding is.
I just think that in for people to make good rational decisions about how to spend their money, the prices they see need to have realistic relationship to the actual cost of the products in question.
-
See Rule #14
-
Just to make sure I am not misreading your post; You do realize there are real costs associated with the amount of data being moved, over a connection, at any given point in time?
I ask that question as there are a high number of people who really believe there are no costs associated with any amount of data being moved around on the Internet.
To that end, (dial-up here, really have no clue)Do ISP's not charge more for users who consume huge amounts of bandwidth? (have to assume movie downloaders are the prime culprit) If the system doesn't work that way, they need to put down the keyboard and study econ 101.....prolly more behind this than I know....at least I hope there is
-
Very interesting discussion! I am glad the OP brought up the question because to be honest, I wasn't aware of the issue really.
-
*post deleted
Wow :O
I mean that in a good way.
-
To that end, (dial-up here, really have no clue)Do ISP's not charge more for users who consume huge amounts of bandwidth? (have to assume movie downloaders are the prime culprit) If the system doesn't work that way, they need to put down the keyboard and study econ 101.....prolly more behind this than I know....at least I hope there is
Charging every customer per byte would create too much overhead. What most ISPs do is overselling. They calculate certain amount per customer, most burn less, few more, it averages out. Consumer in principle has nothing against the caps, if reasonable. Comcast 250GB vs attempted TW 40GB caps, for example.
New rules really do not protect consumer, nor freedom of information, it's just a turf war among big ISPs. The only thing which would help the competition is to prohibit big players to be content providers as well (Comcast NBC merger, Time Warner etc).