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.
I am neutral on net neutrality. The only thing that kinda pushes me away from it is this.
Netflix accounts for 20% of internet bandwidth usage in the United States. Should Netflix be able to consume that much of a resource they neither built nor maintain?
I am neutral on net neutrality. The only thing that kinda pushes me away from it is this.
Netflix accounts for 20% of internet bandwidth usage in the United States. Should Netflix be able to consume that much of a resource they neither built nor maintain?
It’s a hard question.
So those who use Netflix pay 20% of the bill. It should be of the variable part of the bill as everyone should pay for the service which is a large part of the cost.
Be a fun calculation as you determine how to deal with the overheads.
Comparing Net Neutrality to cable TV w/o Premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) is the easiest way to explain what NN is. Doing away with NN is setting us up to pay more for extra access to every corner of the web, for no reason other than it's a money-grab for internet providers. How does that benefit you as a consumer unless you're excited about parting with money you used to keep? Do you receive a benefit from paying more for HBO?
After Stanford parsed the responses to the FCC's request of comments on Net Neutrality (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2...trality-repeal), almost every response that was unique and written out was in favor of NN (99.7% to be exact). That doesn't include any pre-filled out responses that were added as a co-sign, so almost everyone who able to formulate their own thoughts on the NN, was in favor of keeping it. Hardly anyone who was opposed to it was able to formulate a reason that it should end.
So with that in mind, maybe our local CD Conservatives can do a better job of explaining why we should be pushing for an internet that runs on cable TV's Premium Channels model ?
I do not adhere to political labels, but my best response would be that the free market is best at resolving free market issues, not government intrusion into the free market.
Cable companies are an excellent example as they are having to become far more competitive with alternatives such as satellite and Internet TV. That competitiveness has led to many, many affordable solutions to access the entertainment I desire to watch.
Last edited by Mad_Jasper; 10-17-2018 at 04:15 PM..
I do not adhere to political labels, but my best response would be that the free market is best at resolving free market issues, not government intrusion into the free market.
Cable companies are an excellent example as they are having to become far more competitive with alternatives such as satellite and Internet TV. That competitiveness has led to many, many affordable solutions to access the entertainment I desire to watch.
Not really. Perhaps in some places but not in most. The problem is that the cable people are the principle internet provider as well. So you drop back on cable they still get you on the internet side. And it is the internet side which is expensive for a reasonable plan.
And our primary cable guy has gone no where but up on cable. Lots of people get satellite for the sports channels but otherwise it is not common.
So those who use Netflix pay 20% of the bill. It should be of the variable part of the bill as everyone should pay for the service which is a large part of the cost.
Be a fun calculation as you determine how to deal with the overheads.
The calculations would be the thing. It’s predicted that in 4 years video traffic will account for 80% of internet activity. I would imagine most of that will come from FANG. AT&T will be using a bunch too but since they built a great deal if the internet backbone, they get a break.
And for those saying 5G is the future so none of this matters.....cable companies and at&t carry most of the cell back haul in this country so you’re right back at square one.
Comparing Net Neutrality to cable TV w/o Premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) is the easiest way to explain what NN is. Doing away with NN is setting us up to pay more for extra access to every corner of the web, for no reason other than it's a money-grab for internet providers. How does that benefit you as a consumer unless you're excited about parting with money you used to keep? Do you receive a benefit from paying more for HBO?
After Stanford parsed the responses to the FCC's request of comments on Net Neutrality (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2...trality-repeal), almost every response that was unique and written out was in favor of NN (99.7% to be exact). That doesn't include any pre-filled out responses that were added as a co-sign, so almost everyone who able to formulate their own thoughts on the NN, was in favor of keeping it. Hardly anyone who was opposed to it was able to formulate a reason that it should end.
So with that in mind, maybe our local CD Conservatives can do a better job of explaining why we should be pushing for an internet that runs on cable TV's Premium Channels model ?
The "Cable TV" analogy is a strawman and a scare tactic that's almost as old as the Internet itself.
There are thousands of ISPs across 200+ sovereign nations, the vast majority of which nave no "net neutrality" laws, including the USA from the beginning of time to 2014 and again from 2017 to the present.
Not one ISP has tried to regulate the Internet like "Cable TV."
This is not a real argument and has no place in a serious discussion.
Not really. Perhaps in some places but not in most. The problem is that the cable people are the principle internet provider as well. So you drop back on cable they still get you on the internet side. And it is the internet side which is expensive for a reasonable plan.
And our primary cable guy has gone no where but up on cable. Lots of people get satellite for the sports channels but otherwise it is not common.
In areas where there is no competition, yes. But the reason there is no competition is mostly because of government intrusion into the free market. I am not talking about regulations per se, but rather when the government makes protectionist policies or burdensome regulations that prevent competition or favor a corporate entity, i.e., NYC and yellow cabs.
That is pretty much nonsense. The customer of the internet provider is the end user. The internet provider can perfectly well charge high usage customers for their high usage. And there are in fact lots of techniques to keep high volume streaming sources from tying up networks. So the simple thing is to treat it as a utility and charge the end users for excessive traffic.
As Google has recently demonstrated it is not cost competitive to provide home linkage by wire or fiber. So places like Las Vegas and many others basically have a single provider of quality broadband. There may be some competition as 5G comes in but that is still years away most places.
And of course the internet providers would love to charge for preset packages. Thereby making you buy things you have no interest in. Does not work with net neutrality but does without it.
Internet providers have many more clients than just end user consumers...your remark demonstrates you know nothing about this space.
Internet providers have many more clients than just end user consumers...your remark demonstrates you know nothing about this space.
I actually own one of the early internet patents. Been doing internet stuff since the early 70s.
And you?
I also did tons of corporate analysis and ran a team doing the protocol negotiatiions...
And you?
Backbone is much more a processing thing. Hugely broad band back bones are easily established. For a good part of it all you need is access to high voltage power lines. and such. And much of the processing is easily decentralized. Having a couple of thousand spinning copies of a movie is no big deal.
And where the cloud ends up is still up in the air. It is simple and cheap to build large facilities with mammoth processing capability. Alexa is a fine example. The only way to tell it is not on site is the delays. And decentralization will eventually mostly fix them.
So share your immense wisdom with us. Tells us all about these "other" clients who are going to dominate central to point internet. Should be fascinating.
Or is this simply another of those areas where you are getting your guidance from the lunatic right?
I am neutral on net neutrality. The only thing that kinda pushes me away from it is this.
Netflix accounts for 20% of internet bandwidth usage in the United States. Should Netflix be able to consume that much of a resource they neither built nor maintain?
It’s a hard question.
Netflix most certainly pays for bandwidth. Should AT&T look deep into our traffic and charge more for a IP packet coming from Netflix than for a packet that contains an amusing cat macro? More to the point - seeing as AT&T is likely to have an actual monopoly in the areas they serve - should AT&T have the power to make Netflix's service better or worse?
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.
