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.
If I fill up my pool and you fill up a bath tub should the water company split the total between us and charge us the same amount? You're going to pay almost as much as me to fill my pool. That's what you are asking for here.
Net neutrality is important but that only applies to equal access to sites and services. If you can't afford a fire hose to fill up your pool that's your own problem and if I want to fill my pool with a fire hose I should pay for it.
There's nothing wrong with how the internet is setup or administered. This system has not stifleed innovation in the least and has only fundamentally changed the way the world operates. Cruz and his ISP backers want to change that. I could care less about your pool analgy as the fundamental notion of all data being treated equal is the foundation of the internet.and it has worked wonderfully.
Exactly, go back and look at the sequence of posts, the person I was replying too is apparently under the impression they shouldn't have to pay for the fire hose.
Yea I don't get your analogy. Like I said the system isn't broken but since ISP have sued the government to get a tiered system, we have to decide how we want the internet of the future to look.
I could care less about your pool analgy as the fundamental notion of all data being treated equal is the foundation of the internet.and it has worked wonderfully.
I care about it because if you want to watch Netflix 24/7 I shouldn't have to pay for it. The ISP's need to be compensated for the ever increasing use of bandwidth. The only fair and economically viable solution to do that and maintain NN is to charge the ISP's customer for what they are using.
The public has become conditioned to expect "unlimited" plans, in the past the ISP has been able to oversell their services and offer that because they knew most of their customers were going to be surfing a few websites and getting their email. That's changed with advent of high bandwidth services. The pricing needs to evolve with it.
I'm not sure where you get the impression that NN somehow means you get a free ride to suck up all the bandwidth you want but that is not the case. You are either going to have accept tiered pricing on the consumer end or kiss NN goodbye.
Actually there is very big point to be made here, the specific proposal by Obama would classify ISP's under the same law phone companies are regulated under. While that law would achieve net neutrality it also triggers hefty fees, specifically the USF you find on your phone bill.
Correct my if I am wrong (which is a distinct possibility) but I believe that the telcos are not regulated in terms of their ISP businesses or their cell phone businesses. I'm pretty sure their DSL businesses are also unregulated. This was certainly true when I worked for SBC in the period 2000-2005.
The net neutrality issue dose not apply to end user connectivity. EVERY end user, from little ol' me to Cisco Systems, gets exactly what we pay for,
The issue is entirely about what happens on the internet cloud. The real fear is that content providers like Comcast and AT&T and Time Warner can use their ISP side to restrict access between their customers and those content providers who are competitors. And for those who dont know, it aint all that hard to do so. Rate limiting is one thing that ironically Cisco Systems promotes as a reason for customers to buy Cisco products. Maybe why that's why Cisco's John Cambers slams net neutrality - because he sells equipment to those who want to restrict content competitors. I also note that Chanber's examples are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Using the internet to run a businesses' core operations over the internet? Say what?
Funny how this issue does not easily divide between corporate and individual interests, and right and left ideological interests.
...have sued the government to get a tiered system,
There is distinct difference between a tiered system of prioritization where the burden falls on the content provider they are pushing for and a tiered system on the consumer end that I am suggesting which provides equal access to all sites and services.
When you understand the difference then get back to me.
I hate to say it, but when ever Obama is for something I worry about what his true motives are. He is an idealist and like all idealists he believes that he knows what is really best for the rest of us. The cost doesn't matter because the ends justify the means.
The man tends to lie when it's a cause he believes in. There is a reason so many do not trust the Fed.....
I hate to say it, but when ever Obama is for something I worry about what his true motives are.
By proposing they be reclassified under Title II you can tell what his motives are. I paid for enough Obamaphones with the USF charges on my phone bill, I don't need to pay for the "Obamanet" with USF charges on my internet bill.
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.
