Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
did he pay someone off for that degree?? seriously!
You missed it.
He's against it because OBAMACARE! Therefor it's evil, socialism, death panels, etc.
Let me offer a slightly different analogy than Cruz did. Ted Cruz is the P.T. Barnum of the Senate, highly skilled at crafting a message for the suckers.
(And before anyone steps in, yes, I know Barnum most likely did not say "There's a sucker born every minute")
I don't understand what is wrong with an ISP providing better speed to those willing to pay for it?
Do I not get a better meal by being willing to pay more for it? Are we to charge the same for a tuna sandwich as a steak dinner?
Is there any fee for product or service that does not already work this way? Oh yeah, health insurance. Good job boys.
OK so I was hoping to read he entire thread before injecting my own two cents, but no longer. This is not directed specifically to the person I am quoting.
The intetrnet was going along just fine until the big isp's decided they want to stuff their pockets even fuller.
So far, EVERYONE gets all the bandwidth they pay for. If a business has a DS3 connection, the are paying beaucoup bucks for it and that's what they get. I pay 40 bucks a month for T1 down 256k up and that's what I get. Smartphone users pay 80 bucks a month for 5 gigs datga and then get rate limited after that because the cell providers do not have the infrastructure at present to allow what we land based users get.
As I understand it (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that the big ISPs want to charge ALL end users, be it Netflix or Cisco, or City Data) for all data they transmit from their source to the end user destination IF that data crosses from source ISP to destination ISP. Kinda like saying that when you drive from San Francisco to San Jose, you should pay a toll for driving though South SF and San Mateo, and Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara.
Do not be deceived. The internet was working fine and the isp's were making plenty of money. They just want more, greedy SOB's that they are.
I don't understand what is wrong with an ISP providing better speed to those willing to pay for it?
It's a common carrier situation, way predating the Internet. If there is one railway serving a town with two lumber mills and the railroad owner favors one lumber mill over the other, the market for lumber gets lopsided. This is particularly worrisome if the railroad owner would like to get into the lumber mill business himself - he will be able to price competitors right out.
So he wants to regulate the internet but is confusing some people by saying to keep it 'free and open.'
Free and open to access, which is very much not in the interests of Com-Cast, Verizon etc. NetFlix is transmitting an IP packet that contains a chunk of a movie and making money of it. I am sending an email to my mother and not making a dime. The cost per IP packet is of course the same. Under net neutrality, the carriers can't shake down NetFlix to have them pay more for their IP packet, and the carriers hate that.
It's a common carrier situation, way predating the Internet. If there is one railway serving a town with two lumber mills and the railroad owner favors one lumber mill over the other, the market for lumber gets lopsided. This is particularly worrisome if the railroad owner would like to get into the lumber mill business himself - he will be able to price competitors right out.
The way to prevent that is exactly what they did to Ma Bell in the 1980's. Get cable providers out of the ISP business. Its nothing more than a form of trust busting - and though TR is not exactly popular with Republican revisionists, there was something to a lot of what he stood for.
At one time, you had a choice of providers - cable or DSL. That no longer seems to be the case.
11-10-2014, 12:28 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RecentlyMoved
is there ANYONE (aside from internet providers) who are actually opposed to this??
THINK before you speak.
Only those too stupid to understand the topic.
They hear government and Obama and automatically oppose it, oblivious to the fact that sane people are trying to stop all of us from getting screwed. And you can guarantee that if Verizon and Comcast get their way, these same people will be right here complaining that government didn't step in and stop them.
Free and open to access, which is very much not in the interests of Com-Cast, Verizon etc. NetFlix is transmitting an IP packet that contains a chunk of a movie and making money of it. I am sending an email to my mother and not making a dime. The cost per IP packet is of course the same. Under net neutrality, the carriers can't shake down NetFlix to have them pay more for their IP packet, and the carriers hate that.
Aren't the data rates where the differences between a movie and an email become apparent? When your email packets are slow to accumulate you just get a cup of coffee and grumble about slow internet. When you come back with your coffee, there's that email. When it's a movie you can't watch it at all and go do something else - and that problem is more common with streaming because there are waaaaay more packets making one up than making up that email to mom.
As far as I know (which I may not - always a possibility ) delivering all those packets that make up a movie to all those people who want to stream at 9 pm when everyone else is also streaming - that requires significantly better equipment from the ISP than making sure your email gets there in one piece. That costs them more money, and since netflix's business depends on your moving being watchable without a bunch of buffering halts, it's in their best interest to provide some of that money to get the faster service.
Now some regulation is certainly required to prevent the problems that mowhawk was talking about - the digital protection racket where if you don't want to pay they turn you down to the glacial setting. But there are other ways to do that, and I suspect better ones than what is being proposed here - because what is being proposed basically removes a lot of the incentive to seek better and better data rates. As internet usage continues to grow, you will see the negative effects of this by having universally slow and sucky internet.
How can one ISP control their competitor's content speed? By being the cable company. Ok, sure, that you can get rid of, just like breaking up Ma Bell. We don't get that problem where I live because there is no cable - internet comes via DSL and it's just not a problem.
One could easily regulate the get what you pay for aspect of this using existing tort law that prevents companies from advertising a pound of coffee for sale when they only deliver to you 10 oz. Same goes really for getting the cable providers out of the ISP business. That can be done without regulating the internet as a utility.
I agree with you though, that if you pay for 1.5 Mbps that is what you should get. I just have no problem with those who want 2 Mbps having to pay a premium for it.
Well, ISP's can indeed control data speed. It is called "rate limiting" and it is done by configuration of the back room equipment. I used to do that kind of thing when I was a network engineer.
To my fellow conservatives on the board: This is a tough one for me, what you day about the FCC may be true, but know this: Last week Ebay paid Verizon several million dollars in exchange for throttling down the upload rate of 11 Main (alibaba) and auctiva (a site that allows large sellers to list items easily across multiple sites).
Without the government, this is may be your future on the web.
The way to prevent that is exactly what they did to Ma Bell in the 1980's. Get cable providers out of the ISP business. Its nothing more than a form of trust busting - and though TR is not exactly popular with Republican revisionists, there was something to a lot of what he stood for.
At one time, you had a choice of providers - cable or DSL. That no longer seems to be the case.
That would be busting free enterprise. Cable companies are going the way of buggy whips and their infrastructure is already obsolete. HBO offering live streaming subscription services is one of the first indicators of this. Let's say a subscriber to internet services from a cable operator orders HBO live streaming direct from HBO. But the cable operator already offers HBO as an add on to their subscription services. Next thing you know, your exclusive subscription to HBO streaming spends all it's time buffering.
This is actually going on already.
Netflix has recently begun paying both Comcast and Verizon to improve network performance and carry its video streams at higher bandwidths, but so far only Comcast has reciprocated with better service. Not only has Verizon’s performance become dramatically worse, the company has continued to try and foist the blame for the problem on Netflix, claiming that the online streaming giant is deliberately degrading performance by attempting to stuff data down specific congested Verizon pipes. Verizon caught throttling Netflix traffic even after its pays for more bandwidth | ExtremeTech
the future of media delivery is live streaming over broadband. Control of the broadband is crucial for future access. It's either the people control delivery or the ISPs do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
seriously!
) delivering all those packets that make up a movie to all those people who want to stream at 9 pm when everyone else is also streaming - that requires significantly better equipment from the ISP than making sure your email gets there in one piece. That costs them more money, and since netflix's business depends on your moving being watchable without a bunch of buffering halts, it's in their best interest to provide some of that money to get the faster service.
