And ftr, I never said I wanted some kind of government takeover.
[/quote]
Government involved = government take over.
Government “regulation” = government take over.
This shit is not going to be pretty. I really can’t understand how people can look at what happened at the IRS, not understand that it will be their team persecuted eventually, and actually invite this level of government into their lives.
Maybe I’m weird. [/quote]
Carrying this line of reasoning out should we dissolve the SEC and let the market “govern” financial instruments? Should we dissolve the FDA and let the free market “govern” the drugs we take and the food we eat? How about the IRS or DOJ?
Were you practicing in the early 2000s during the Enron/Worldcom scandals (I can’t remember your exact age)? Do you agree with the SOX Act and the creation of the PCAOB to regulate our industry?
Clinton got a BJ in office, Bush is evil (lol), Obama isn’t even American (lol), etc… The Oval Office has done a considerable amount of damage to free market so should we just dissolve the office of the President of the United States? Congress passed the ACA so…
Stop being absurd with slippery slope false equivalencies and I’ll actually address your questions.
You sound like a gun control advocate when it gets mentioned that criminals don’t follow laws.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Carrying this line of reasoning out should we dissolve the SEC and let the market “govern” financial instruments? Should we dissolve the FDA and let the free market “govern” the drugs we take and the food we eat? How about the IRS or DOJ?
Were you practicing in the early 2000s during the Enron/Worldcom scandals (I can’t remember your exact age)? Do you agree with the SOX Act and the creation of the PCAOB to regulate our industry?
[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Stop being absurd with slippery slope false equivalencies and I’ll actually address your questions. [/quote]
These are not slippery slope false equivalencies. I did not compare any of these things to Net Neutrality. I pointed out areas where most people would agree government interventions is at a minimum the lesser of two evils.
All I’m suggesting is the internet may be one of those things.
And you sound like an old crotchety conservative with their fingers in their ears screaming, “Government is evil. Government is evil. nanananan.”
Christ Beans, I’m just trying to have a conversation about:
A.) What exactly Net Neutrality is
B.) What if anything needs to be done.
Aside from my original post where I said something about potentially agreeing with Obama, I’ve never once said government IS the solution. I’m simply arguing my perspective, which is the end user shouldn’t have their speed throttled because ___ ISP controls the flow of data and ___company shouldn’t have to pay a fee because ____ ISP is coercing them to do so.
Did you read the Blog that talks about the internet being a natural monopoly? I was hoping you would comment as you understand the economics better than I do.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I did not compare any of these things to Net Neutrality. I pointed out areas where most people would agree government interventions is at a minimum the lesser of two evils. [/quote]
You used a bunch of sensationalist examples of reactionary institutions and rules put in place to try and say that my position of inviting government into our lives might not be the best idea.
And I’m suggesting that at $50-100 a month this isn’t comparable to any of the shit you listed. We’ll also ignore that:
If government does nothing, worst case scenario is end users end up with slower speeds for content from providers that don’t like certain ISP’s. These customers then have an option to change ISP’s, or switch to a content providers that does value its consumer and works with an ISP. Assuming the ISP does the manipulation that it doesn’t’ do at the moment.
If government gets involved, the best case scenario is end users end up paying, what equals a tax, to a government backed quazi-monopoly ISP who is told what it can and can’t allow over its network and at what speeds it can allow this content.
One nipple slip during a superbowl left cable TV in a 30 year regression. A product we all HAVE to pay for, is strictly regulated in its content by an uninterested 3rd party that isn’t responsible for its policy. This is what you’re asking to happen to the internet.
[quote]
And you sound like an old crotchety conservative with their fingers in their ears screaming, “Government is evil. Government is evil. nanananan.”[/quote]
I’ll take that.
[quote]Christ Beans, I’m just trying to have a conversation about:
A.) What exactly Net Neutrality is
B.) What if anything needs to be done.
Aside from my original post where I said something about potentially agreeing with Obama, I’ve never once said government IS the solution. I’m simply arguing my perspective, which is the end user shouldn’t have their speed throttled because ___ ISP controls the flow of data and ___company shouldn’t have to pay a fee because ____ ISP is coercing them to do so. [/quote]
Why are you so worried about Netflix and Google’s pocketbooks?
No lol, I really wanted to stop arguing about this, but you bastards keep bringing me back in.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You used a bunch of sensationalist examples of reactionary institutions and rules put in place to try and say that my position of inviting government into our lives might not be the best idea. [/quote]
I used a bunch of relevant examples of government intervention to point out sometimes the Market doesn’t regulate itself. Like Arthur Anderson for example. They did a great job of regulating themselves.
I also don’t disagree with your position. I’m just not set on my position yet.
[quote]
And I’m suggesting that at $50-100 a month this isn’t comparable to any of the shit you listed. [/quote]
I don’t follow. $50-$100 on top of the $50-$100 I already pay for an agreed upon service? Or $50-100 per person companies like Netflix will have to pay to avoid speed throttling?
I truly do not follow.
Personal example, I live in rural MD so my choice is Satellite or what’s called Verizon Home Fusion (it’s basically a cell phone on my house). I pay about $135 for 30g of data a month. So if I’m understanding you correctly I shouldn’t complain if my minuscule 30g of data is throttled because I want to watch Netflix (Another $25 a month or whatever it is)? I should just accept an additional $50-$100 to ensure data flow speed?
No thanks.
Not to mention the price of every online subscription will go up.
[quote]
We’ll also ignore that:
If government does nothing, worst case scenario is end users end up with slower speeds for content from providers that don’t like certain ISP’s. These customers then have an option to change ISP’s, or switch to a content providers that does value its consumer and works with an ISP. Assuming the ISP does the manipulation that it doesn’t’ do at the moment. [/quote]
I would agree with you if we were talking about a market with an over abundance of competition. Most places, as I pointed out earlier, have 1-3 ISP choices if they’re lucky. I already pay for the internet at an agreed upon speed without any stipulations as to what I will use it for. Why should I the end user have to go out of my way to find different content?
Also, as I’ve pointed out, ISPs have been caught throttling speed. IT HAS HAPPENED.
[quote]
2) If government gets involved, the best case scenario is end users end up paying, what equals a tax, to a government backed quazi-monopoly ISP who is told what it can and can’t allow over its network and at what speeds it can allow this content. [/quote]
There are a handful of national & even regional ISPs, it is already a monopoly. Best case scenario end users end up paying an additional fee or fees to ensure their data reached them faster than dial up speeds.
[quote]
One nipple slip during a superbowl left cable TV in a 30 year regression. A product we all HAVE to pay for, is strictly regulated in its content by an uninterested 3rd party that isn’t responsible for its policy. This is what you’re asking to happen to the internet. [/quote]
Really, why do you say that? The FCC has relaxed rules in my recent memory. Watch an episode of South Park at mid-night and you’ll hear things you wouldn’t have even 5 years ago.
I’m asking for the internet to remain a level playing field not one where 2 or 3 ISPs control the flow of data across the entire Unites States that also happens to provide content of their own.
Hell, do what the SEC did and restrict what ISPs can offer much like what services public audit firms can offer to audit clients.
You understand ISPs like Comcast have a stake in what content flows through their infrastructure. It’s a conflict of interest interest and they control the speed of data. They have a vested interest in end users viewing NBC content, for example, rather than Netflix.
[quote]
Why are you so worried about Netflix and Google’s pocketbooks? [/quote]
Lol, actually I’m not. I’m more concerned with the Ma and Pa e-commerce companies that are going to be fucked by a “speed” fee that ISPs can now charge.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Did you read the Blog that talks about the internet being a natural monopoly? I was hoping you would comment as you understand the economics better than I do. [/quote]
No lol, I really wanted to stop arguing about this, but you bastards keep bringing me back in.
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
This is how I’ve always assumed it worked. If the pipeline from the ISP to the customers is overloaded, EVERYTHING slows down.
Why would Comcast pick one person to screw over the other? This is like picking a certain group of people out of a traffic jam and letting them speed by on the shoulder while everybody else is jammed up.
[/quote]
No, it’s more like letting cars and light trucks speed by while the oversized load caravan takes up two lanes.[/quote]
Not sure if I follow what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting the oversized load be allowed to move faster because it requires more road space? Or are you suggesting you hold the caravan up so the smaller cars can speed by because they take up less space and there is more of them?
Either way, it doesn’t seem to match up with beans example.
He suggested the lone, small load (“one dude is downloading adobe which takes 10”), which I assume is analogous to cars and light trucks, be the one that gets slowed down to 5 so the rest of the users (“one person watching HD movies which takes 10 resources for Comcast, At the same time someone is playing call of duty which takes 5, and 12 people are watching porn which takes 5 total”) which is analogous to the oversized caravan, is allowed to continue unhindered because it occupies the majority of Comcast’s resources vs Adobe guy.
[/quote]
Getting off topic to explain an analogy, but flip it around and it makes sense. One load (the oversized truck and its caravan) is taking up many of the roadway resources as it requires multiple lanes and vehicles, while many small cars could use the same resources and travel much faster.
Ever seen a carpool lane or a sign banning trucks from the left lane? The roadways are segregated by the amount of resources they use.
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[/quote]
I disagree only because in this case each customer paid the same amount for the same service and the ISP is purposefully prioritizing clients after that, which imo is BS.
Now if ISPs want to introduce some kind of tiered system where you pay for a “gaming” package or a “streaming” package that get’s priority for a premium, fine.
I used a bunch of relevant examples of government intervention to point out sometimes the Market doesn’t regulate itself. Like Arthur Anderson for example. They did a great job of regulating themselves. [/quote]
And of course, nothing bad ever happens again… I mean we didn’t just go through a situation in 2008 already having a plethora of regulations in place.
I’m NOT saying have no rules. I AM saying take your head out of the sand thinking regulations = all problems go away. People create work arounds.
[quote]I don’t follow. $50-$100 on top of the $50-$100 I already pay for an agreed upon service? Or $50-100 per person companies like Netflix will have to pay to avoid speed throttling?
I truly do not follow. [/quote]
As it is now, people pay 50-100 a month for internet, unless you live in the boondocks, then you pay 135. (Your examples aren’t comparable to $100 a month for a luxury. The FDA making sure your bread doesn’t kill you =/= jerking off to xnxx.)
If government gets involved, expect that to go up, and choices for providers to go down. (I have a client trying to break into the ISP market. It isn’t easy. Layers of government regulation, price fixing, taxation and content overview… Nope, not going to happen.)
No, you should bitch to Netflix and expect them to pay for their strain on the system to get you the movies you pay them for at a reasonable speed. And if Netflix wants to be a cunt about it, get Amazon Prime. If they are cunts, I’ll give you the name of some VC people that would love to start a company that isn’t a cunt and will get you your movies.
You’re other option is to move the fuck out fo the sticks if internet is that important to you.
Yes, went government prevents Comcast from charging Netflix the fee it deserves, you and I will be the ones footing the bill. I agree.
[quote]
Also, as I’ve pointed out, ISPs have been caught throttling speed. IT HAS HAPPENED. [/quote]
According to one of the parties getting heat right now. Not according to the 3rd party in hmm’s link.
[quote]
There are a handful of national & even regional ISPs, it is already a monopoly.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. It’s a hard market to break into, but there are people trying, trust me.
Add regulation and it will be even harder to break in.
[quote]
Really, why do you say that? The FCC has relaxed rules in my recent memory. Watch an episode of South Park at mid-night and you’ll hear things you wouldn’t have even 5 years ago. [/quote]
You’re making my point. The FCC.
Wait until the internet has it’s own FCC, and they can tell you want you are allowed to view on the internet, at what times, and oh yeah, you’re still paying for it.
[quote]I’m asking for the internet to remain a level playing field not one where 2 or 3 ISPs control the flow of data across the entire Unites States that also happens to provide content of their own.
Hell, do what the SEC did and restrict what ISPs can offer much like what services public audit firms can offer to audit clients. [/quote]
You want a “level playing field”? And expect government restrictions to provide that? lmao.
Yes, and Netflix has a vested interest in government stepping in and lightening the load on their wallet… Stop assuming Netflix and the Google and shit are innocent players here that can’t pay their own way.
[quote]
Lol, actually I’m not. I’m more concerned with the Ma and Pa e-commerce companies that are going to be fucked by a “speed” fee that ISPs can now charge. [/quote]
So… You do this by asking for regulations that entrench massive, established business that already have advantages over the ma & pa?
That is crying the corner store shut down while pushing your Wal-Mart cart around the store.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[/quote]
I disagree only because in this case each customer paid the same amount for the same service and the ISP is purposefully prioritizing clients after that, which imo is BS.
Now if ISPs want to introduce some kind of tiered system where you pay for a “gaming” package or a “streaming” package that get’s priority for a premium, fine. [/quote]
Let me translate your quote:
“Netflix shouldn’t have to pay for the use of the network, I should!”
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[/quote]
I disagree only because in this case each customer paid the same amount for the same service and the ISP is purposefully prioritizing clients after that, which imo is BS.
Now if ISPs want to introduce some kind of tiered system where you pay for a “gaming” package or a “streaming” package that get’s priority for a premium, fine. [/quote]
They already do. Most have speed tiers and in your case they have data tiers. Same thing by a different name.
Let’s put it another way. If we both pay for a gym membership, do you get unlimited use of the equipment, or is it within the gym owners rights to ensure you aren’t curling in the only squat rack every day during peak hours? There’s limited resources. It’s the business owners decision to determine how to appropriate them when can’t accommodate 100% of demands 100% of the time.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And this regulation will ensure that remains the case. [/quote]
Possibly. Their isn’t that much competition now so I don’t see the issue.
[quote]
According to the blog, this doesn’t happen, and you’re supporting legislation based on “feels”, because nothing you describe here actually happens. [/quote]
What blog?
I’m not necessarily supporting legislation, I’m trying to understand the issue and the purpose of the legislation.
[quote]
Secondly, Netflix certainly has a choice.[/quote]
How so? If I use Comcast and Netflix isn’t Netflix forced to deal with Comcast since they’r emy provider?
[quote]
Third, this is still no different than what happens with my clients, and the government hasn’t tried to step in and regulate my fees. [/quote]
Sure it is. You can’t force your clients to pay a fee to expedite your services. An ISP basically can through speed manipulation.
Perhaps they do. You would know better than me on this.
Lol, I more so mean’t I’m not sure where we really disagree. I agree it’s fun otherwise I’d be elsewhere.
[quote]
No, more likely because you’re feeling your way through this one. You want the legislation to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but may in the future. [/quote]
Like I said in a previous post, I think some legislation is good (wall-street) and some if bad (price of mile) and I’m not sure where this one falls, yet.
[quote]
lol, what?
How on Earth does a B2B contract between Netflix and Comcast = American’s have no freedom of choice?
I’m not sure where you’re going here man, but this is silly. [/quote]
Lol…
That is not what I said, I was talking about a very specific situation. A situation where Netflix is forced into a corner much like those that do not have insurance and don’t want Obamacare (they have no choice). Like I said, if I use Comcast and Netflix then Netflix has no choice except to deal with Comcast if they want to continue to have me as a client. It’s a rock and hard place situation for Netflix.
My issue is that an ISP, such as Comcast, gains an unfair advantage because they control the speed of data transmission and they offer content of their own. They have control of the market and unless you’re willing to play by their rules you’re business is negatively affected. For example, if Comcast (which is owned by NBC if I’m not mistaken) and Netflix both offer streaming of say the Pats game, but NBC.com streams at 50mb/s and Netflix streams at 10kb/s due to speed manipulation who on God’s green earth is going to use Netflix? No one of course.
I don’t know how accurate this is:
however, if it’s accurate content providers have very little choice in what ISPs they deal with. [/quote]
Why is this Comcast’s problem? Why must they supply equal access to a competitor?
The crux here is that Netflix does not have a viable business model. The consumer has enjoyed cheap content and for fear of losing it is asking for government intervention. The only real value in Netflix is the content rights they have with major producers. They have nearly zero infrastructure and are entirely dependent on others to distribute their product. Instead of attacking the ISP’s, why don’t you attack Netflix and the producers for the exclusive rights deals?
Netflix hit the market by storm with their DVD by mail business, but the TV by internet without your own network is not a sustainable business model.
Every digital cable and satellite company is fully capable of supplying the exact same content as Netflix if they had the agreements in place with producers and broadcasters. In fact, if it wasn’t for government intervention in the first place, you’d probably have a much more competitive ISP/cable environment than we do now. If AT&T wasn’t forced to break up in the 80’s, they would almost certainly have stronger DSL and fiber networks now. If Dish and DirecTV were allowed to merge satellite would be a much larger threat in urban areas and the company would have the bandwidth to support more internet traffic. If AT&T had T-mobiles spectrum they could supply more wireless data. Finally it looks like at least the AT&T buyout of DirecTV will happen, but all that’s really going to do is get NFL Sunday Ticket into more households (why aren’t we raging against that monopoly?)
The lines between cable/internet/wireless are very blurred right now and quite possibly will be non-existent in 15 years. You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.
[quote]tedro wrote:
You want more competitiion? Work with your municipality to allow more content providers. Urge them to negotiate with providers on network upgrades. Work with neighbors or an HOA to get cable or fiber to rural areas and support mergers in the wireless and satellite markets so that those players have the bandwidth to supply you the data you want.[/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And of course, nothing bad ever happens again… I mean we didn’t just go through a situation in 2008 already having a plethora of regulations in place. [/quote]
Lol, who is being sensationalist now. Of course bad things still happen. Did I say Washington would fix this 100%? I’ll save you a few key strokes, no I didn’t.
I never said regulation solves all the problems…
[quote]
As it is now, people pay 50-100 a month for internet, unless you live in the boondocks, then you pay 135. (Your examples aren’t comparable to $100 a month for a luxury. The FDA making sure your bread doesn’t kill you =/= jerking off to xnxx.) [/quote]
Come on Beans, don’t act like all the FDA does is regulate a $2 loaf of bread. How about the FDA making sure your $500 prescription drug doesn’t kill you?
This issue isn’t strictly about luxuries. There are business ramifications to consider.
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[quote]
No, you should bitch to Netflix and expect them to pay for their strain on the system to get you the movies you pay them for at a reasonable speed. And if Netflix wants to be a cunt about it, get Amazon Prime. If they are cunts, I’ll give you the name of some VC people that would love to start a company that isn’t a cunt and will get you your movies. [/quote]
Netflix already does (they pay Level 3 and other’s) and I already pay for access to the interent (I pay Verizon or Comcast).
The point I think you are missing is that the larger ISPs will dictate what content providers I can chose from if I want un-throttled data flow by coercing the Amazon’s, Google’s, and Netflix into paying a fee or slowing down their service.
Lol… True I suppose. Isn’t really the point though.
[quote]
According to one of the parties getting heat right now. Not according to the 3rd party in hmm’s link. [/quote]
"United States[edit]
In 2007, Comcast was caught interfering with peer-to-peer traffic. Specifically, it falsified packets of data that fooled users and their peer-to-peer programs into thinking they were transferring files.[13] Comcast initially denied that it interfered with its subscribersâ?? uploads, but later admitted it.[14] The FCC held a hearing and concluded that Comcast violated the principles of the Internet Policy Statement because Comcastâ??s â??discriminatory and arbitrary practice unduly squelched the dynamic benefits of an open and accessible Internet and did not constitute reasonable network management.â??[15] The FCC also provided clear guidelines to any ISP wishing to engage in reasonable network management. The FCC suggested ways that Comcast could have achieved its goal of stopping network congestion, including capping the average userâ??s capacity and charging the most aggressive users overage fees, throttling back the connections of all high capacity users, or negotiating directly with the application providers and developing new technologies.[16]
However, in 2008, Comcast amended their Acceptable Usage Policy and placed a specific 250 GB monthly cap. Comcast has also announced a new bandwidth-throttling plan. The scheme includes a two-class system of Priority-best-effort and best-effort where â??sustained use of 70% of your up or downstream throughput triggers the BE state, at which point you’ll find your traffic priority lowered until your usage drops to 50% of your provisioned upstream or downstream bandwidth for “a period of approximately 15 minutes”. A throttled Comcast user being placed in a BE state “may or may not result in the user’s traffic being delayed or, in extreme cases, dropped before PBE traffic is dropped”. Comcast explained to the FCC that â??If there is no congestion, packets from a user in a BE state should have little trouble getting on the bus when they arrive at the bus stop. If, on the other hand, there is congestion in a particular instance, the bus may become filled by packets in a PBE state before any BE packets can get on. In that situation, the BE packets would have to wait for the next bus that is not filled by PBE packets".[17]
US cell phone ISP’s have also increasingly resorted to bandwidth throttling in their networks. Verizon and AT&T even applied such throttling to data plans advertised as “unlimited”, unleashing pushback from the FCC and the FTC respectively.[18]"
[quote]
No, it isn’t. It’s a hard market to break into, but there are people trying, trust me.
Add regulation and it will be even harder to break in. [/quote]
Like I previously posted and what the one blog points out is that the market is headed directly towards a 1-3 company monopoly.
[quote]
You’re making my point. The FCC.
Wait until the internet has it’s own FCC, and they can tell you want you are allowed to view on the internet, at what times, and oh yeah, you’re still paying for it. [/quote]
I agree, that is an issue.
No… I want protection from 1 or 2 massive conglomerates (Verizon & Comcast for example) dictating how the internet works because it suits them and their bank accounts.
[quote]
Yes, and Netflix has a vested interest in government stepping in and lightening the load on their wallet… Stop assuming Netflix and the Google and shit are innocent players here that can’t pay their own way. [/quote]
I never made this assumption. You’ve made the assumption this entire thread that that is what I think. It isn’t. They do pay their way, see the blog you point me to. They pay companies like Level 3 for access to ISPs. They should have to abide by the agreements they sign. Same as ISPs.
Again, no. I am not asking for regulation that forces an ISP to transfer any and all data. If regulation is the only choice then I want regulation that protects third parties, that rely on the internet to do business, from unfair business practices (coercion) by the ISPs.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[/quote]
I disagree only because in this case each customer paid the same amount for the same service and the ISP is purposefully prioritizing clients after that, which imo is BS.
Now if ISPs want to introduce some kind of tiered system where you pay for a “gaming” package or a “streaming” package that get’s priority for a premium, fine. [/quote]
Let me translate your quote:
“Netflix shouldn’t have to pay for the use of the network, I should!”[/quote]
Netflix already pays for use of the network… Jesus. Read Hmmmm link.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies!
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, who is being sensationalist now. Of course bad things still happen. Did I say Washington would fix this 100%? I’ll save you a few key strokes, no I didn’t. [/quote]
You’re missing the point.
Look at gun “control”. One law infringing on the second amendment didn’t stop shootings, so the passed another. Guess what, still didn’t stop it, so they passed another… So on and so forth, and people in CA, NY, NJ & CT have to suck of a local LEO in order to think about buying a fucking nerf gun.
[quote]
I never said regulation solves all the problems… [/quote]
You sure seem to think it will stop evil Comcast from hurting consumers by not being able to regulate its own traffic.
[quote]
Come on Beans, don’t act like all the FDA does is regulate a $2 loaf of bread. How about the FDA making sure your $500 prescription drug doesn’t kill you? [/quote]
This further makes my point for me. FDA does things a bit more important than making sure you or I can watch a weekend marathon of Lord of the Rings in HD while sitting in our underwear.
Yes, and you have your fingers in your ears for about 80% of them.
[quote]
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet. [/quote]
I’ve said as much like 400 times now, including where you just cut it out of my post. I see it with a certain client every day I work. I don’t need to read a blog. And again, for the 400th time: inviting Big Brother into the mix is only going to make it worse.
I’ll type it again.
Asking the government to jump into the game and “regulate” the internet will only make those 1-3 ISP’s you are so afraid of, more entrenched, and further insure they are the only options you have.
And again.
Government will create the monopoly.
[quote]
Netflix already does (they pay Level 3 and other’s) and I already pay for access to the interent (I pay Verizon or Comcast).
The point I think you are missing is that the larger ISPs will dictate what content providers I can chose from if I want un-throttled data flow by coercing the Amazon’s, Google’s, and Netflix into paying a fee or slowing down their service. [/quote]
Good. The point you are missing is that is GOOD for you, good for the consumer. You want Netflix and Google to pay for its usage. Because the only other option is YOU pay for it. Someone is fucking paying for it, and it won’t be the ISP.
[quote]
The FCC suggested ways that Comcast could have achieved its goal of stopping network congestion, including capping the average userâ??s capacity and charging the most aggressive users overage fees, throttling back the connections of all high capacity users, or negotiating directly with the application providers and developing new technologies.[16][/quote]
lmao. Thank you again, for proving my point.
Government’s solution = fuck the end users and make sure the businesses pocket books are nice and fat.
[quote]
Like I previously posted and what the one blog points out is that the market is headed directly towards a 1-3 company monopoly. [/quote]
Your blog is written by a moron then, who has no idea what is going on.
[quote]
[quote]
You’re making my point. The FCC.
Wait until the internet has it’s own FCC, and they can tell you want you are allowed to view on the internet, at what times, and oh yeah, you’re still paying for it. [/quote]
I agree, that is an issue. [/quote]
But one you’re cool with as long as Weekend At BErnies doesn’t buffer for some neckbeard in rural Alabama?
[quote]
No… I want protection from 1 or 2 massive conglomerates (Verizon & Comcast for example) dictating how the internet works because it suits them and their bank accounts. [/quote]
Then asking government to get involved may not be the best idea.
[quote]
Again, no. I am not asking for regulation that forces an ISP to transfer any and all data.[/quote]
Lol, yes, you are. And all at the same speed no less, irrelevant of how that fucks up a user’s experience.
So… Netflix takes up 70% of Comcast’s resources on a Saturday… You want to make sure Comcast can’t charge them more…
Sounds like you certainly want coercion, just not by the ISP’s, but the content providers.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It is already difficult for a new ISP to break into the market per the blog you haven’t read yet.
[/quote]
It’s difficult for an ISP to break into the market precisely because of government regulation over cable and telephone companies![/quote]
[quote]tedro wrote:
Not really, when it comes to private business a company should without question be allowed to decide which customers are more valuable and in what proportions.
[/quote]
I disagree only because in this case each customer paid the same amount for the same service and the ISP is purposefully prioritizing clients after that, which imo is BS.
Now if ISPs want to introduce some kind of tiered system where you pay for a “gaming” package or a “streaming” package that get’s priority for a premium, fine. [/quote]
They already do. Most have speed tiers and in your case they have data tiers. Same thing by a different name.
Let’s put it another way. If we both pay for a gym membership, do you get unlimited use of the equipment, or is it within the gym owners rights to ensure you aren’t curling in the only squat rack every day during peak hours? There’s limited resources. It’s the business owners decision to determine how to appropriate them when can’t accommodate 100% of demands 100% of the time.
[/quote]
If speed tiers exist and are part of an agreement between ISPs and content providers then fine. I wasn’t aware of that.
If we both have the same gym membership and there aren’t membership rules in place that stop me from curling in the squat rack, then ya I should get to curl in the squat rack (no matter how douche it is). I paid a fee to use the gym within the gym rules. If the owner changes the rules or arbitrarily tells me I can’t do something then I should get to opt out. The owner isn’t honoring the agreement (use of his equipment within the gym’s rules).
Is Netflix in break of their contract with Comcast I suppose is the question?