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.
The old rules allowed companies like Facebook, Google, Hulu, and any site basically to use up bandwidth on the network without paying for network priority fees. There are people like you and me complaining about slow network performance because the data pipes are too busy with handling video streaming traffic and not throttling heavy users due to net-neutrality rules in place prevented content management.
Why should the ISPs get paid twice for their services? What I mean is this. I'm already paying to use my internet access. I access many sites like Google, Amazon, Netflix. I also pay the vendors in some cases. I also pay for my level of bandwidth I chose to use.
If I were Google or Amazon, I'd also have to pay an ISP for my bandwidth. Otherwise no one would be able to access my site. Now that's priced by the amount of bandwidth used. So if you have 1 hit that uses 1 G, and you have 1000 visitors, then you have to pay for 1000 Gigabytes of bandwidth.
So, I'm paying to access Google, and Google is paying to allow me to access them. And now the ISP's can charge extra to allow me to see Google? Or I have to pay extra to see Joe Basement's blog even though he already pays for his hosting?
Seems to me like there is some potential for double and triple dipping here because the ISP's are ALREADY being paid on both sides of the pipe.
Unless said blogger pays the ISP money. Honestly these blogs have had a terrible net effect in society. So if people can't access them as easily it's time to take out the champagne.
I think that's pretty sweeping. I like the Intercept. DailyKos. Jacobian Magazine. Evonomics.
What you are saying really is that some people don't look at the masthead and understand the difference between an unsourced, uncredible site vs a credible site. But those same people wouldn't make an effort to become informed anyway, so there is no point in censoring them.
But for me the internet is about 20% of my cable bill. What is really banging me is the Cable TV charges. I could easily pay twice as much for internet and come out way ahead if I could get the cable TV shows streamed over the internet like I do with Netflix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
Why should the ISPs get paid twice for their services? What I mean is this. I'm already paying to use my internet access. I access many sites like Google, Amazon, Netflix. I also pay the vendors in some cases. I also pay for my level of bandwidth I chose to use.
If I were Google or Amazon, I'd also have to pay an ISP for my bandwidth. Otherwise no one would be able to access my site. Now that's priced by the amount of bandwidth used. So if you have 1 hit that uses 1 G, and you have 1000 visitors, then you have to pay for 1000 Gigabytes of bandwidth.
So, I'm paying to access Google, and Google is paying to allow me to access them. And now the ISP's can charge extra to allow me to see Google? Or I have to pay extra to see Joe Basement's blog even though he already pays for his hosting?
Seems to me like there is some potential for double and triple dipping here because the ISP's are ALREADY being paid on both sides of the pipe.
Wow, you are so brainwashed by the media it's not even funny and I am independent. I am telling you as a courtesy that you should learn what is behind the scenes before you sound like a puppet of the MSM.
NOPE!! Not brainwashed by any media.. BUT understand it because of LIFE experiences dealing with how COL goes up annually. and yet incomes lags;. as it has for decades..
So do please stick to YOUR corner of Mis-informations ( historically) and take your finger out of your ears that spew things like " Trickle Down" fantasy that has been spun for past half Century..
Not buying what you are selling ... and has ZERO to do with MSM.. It's strictly 40 years of life experience doing taxes/Self employed and keeping up with TAX laws. for past 48 years have made it a point to always do my research.. BACK in the DAY it was harder.. due to lack of computer and digital access.. but did my phone calls and mail requests to find out FACTS!!
Yikes, you people really do get duped by Propaganda and always divert to "Brain Washing" cr@ppo$$a bashing!!
Why should the ISPs get paid twice for their services?
There is no reason to assume that ISPs will use the NN repeal to squeeze more money from customers. This is all speculation on the part of the fear mongers who are trying to rile everyone up about NN. For all we know, the ISPs could use the repeal to start forcing YouTube, Facebook, etc. to pay them, not go after customers. For example, Verizon or Comcast or whatever could use NN to say, "Look, YouTube; you're making a guzillion dollars a year off of our customers. Start paying us for the privilege or we'll block your site."
That, if anything, seems more likely what the ISPs are up to and why the NN repeal was so highly sought after. Of course, I don't know, but I suspect that is the reason. People are forgetting that these Tech Giants (Facebook et. al) have been making astronomical amounts of money from ISP customers without paying the ISPs a dime.
An analogy--imagine you set up a jewelry kiosk inside of the Oculus, one of the most heavily trafficked tourist attractions in the city. You make millions of dollars a year. Yet, in spite of benefiting from the location, you don't pay Westfield anything. You get to enjoy the foot traffic, use up its utilities, take up retail space but you don't pay the company one red cent.
It's the same with what's happening now with Big Tech. They've been using the internet service provided by ISP/cable companies to profit off of for years but they haven't paid them anything. To make matters worse, some of these Big Tech guys are actually costing ISP/cable companies business by allowing their users to post pirated content. Like, right now, as we speak, you can use Verizon's or any other cable company's internet service to get out of paying for their cable service by watching pirated streams and videos on YouTube and other websites.
Again, I can never know why the Telecoms pushed so hard for the NN repeal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because they saw Big Tech as unfairly capitalizing off their customers without giving them a cut and are hoping to be able to use the repeal as a way to force YouTube and others to give them what they feel is a fair share of what Big Tech is making. Not, as everyone is saying, to go after customers.
Last edited by EastFlatbush; 12-17-2017 at 07:13 PM..
There is no reason to assume that ISPs will use the NN repeal to squeeze more money from customers. This is all speculation on the part of the fear mongers who are trying to rile everyone up about NN. For all we know, the ISPs could use the repeal to start forcing YouTube, Facebook, etc. to pay them, not go after customers. .
Then why repeal it if it isn't the goal?
Quote:
That, if anything, seems more likely what the ISPs are up to and why the NN repeal was so highly sought after. Of course, I don't know, but I suspect that is the reason. People are forgetting that these Tech Giants (Facebook et. al) have been making astronomical amounts of money from ISP customers without paying the ISPs a dime.
How do you access Facebook? I access it through my internet provider. My internet provider does not provide those services to me for free. I pay for that service. So they are making not only a dime, but hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars, already.
The content provider also pays their internet provider to host and stream content.
SO how do you surmise that the ISP's aren't making money? What you are proposing is they get additional revenue for value they did nothing to create. Remember, the pipes are already being paid by the content creator and the consumer.
Quote:
It's the same with what's happening now with Big Tech. They've been using the internet service provided by ISP/cable companies to profit off of for years but they haven't paid them anything.
The host paid for their hosting and bandwidth. And I paid the ISP to access it. They got paid. They want to be freeloaders and make money off of someone else's sweat equity.
Quote:
To make matters worse, some of these Big Tech guys are actually costing ISP/cable companies business by allowing their users to post pirated content. Like, right now, as we speak, you can use Verizon's or any other cable company's internet service to get out of paying for their cable service by watching pirated streams and videos on YouTube and other websites.
They can also shut your internet service down if you break the TOS. And I have no sympathy for companies that charge 10x more than what it costs them to serve up, while constantly raises prices. No one who is a C-level exec at these companies are crying poverty... on the other hand, Spectrum has been on strike for 10 months because they want to cut benefits for the working stiffs who work for them, while NYers are paying on average $100 a month for service.
Quote:
Again, I can never know why the Telecoms pushed so hard for the NN repeal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because they saw Big Tech as unfairly capitalizing off their customers without giving them a cut and are hoping to be able to use the repeal as a way to force YouTube and others to give them what they feel is a fair share of what Big Tech is making. Not, as everyone is saying, to go after customers
What you see as unfair, I see as an attempt to freeload off the backs of someone else. It's like a multilevel marketing scheme.
Why should the ISPs get paid twice for their services? What I mean is this. I'm already paying to use my internet access. I access many sites like Google, Amazon, Netflix. I also pay the vendors in some cases. I also pay for my level of bandwidth I chose to use.
If I were Google or Amazon, I'd also have to pay an ISP for my bandwidth. Otherwise no one would be able to access my site. Now that's priced by the amount of bandwidth used. So if you have 1 hit that uses 1 G, and you have 1000 visitors, then you have to pay for 1000 Gigabytes of bandwidth.
So, I'm paying to access Google, and Google is paying to allow me to access them. And now the ISP's can charge extra to allow me to see Google? Or I have to pay extra to see Joe Basement's blog even though he already pays for his hosting?
Seems to me like there is some potential for double and triple dipping here because the ISP's are ALREADY being paid on both sides of the pipe.
You are paying the ISP for "shared" consumer internet access line, you do not have a dedicated internet service. Businesses pay for dedicated service and they cost hundreds and even thousands a month for guaranteed no filtering internet service. Next time you go to your office, go ask your IT dept head how much do they pay a month for internet. Most workplaces only have 300-500Mb/s business lines NOT 1Gb/s. High speed business lines are VERY expensive.
So get that straight, it's a shared tiered internet service with avg advertised speeds with no guarantees.
Content providers are paying a rate for higher packet prioritization if their service uses higher bandwidth and utilization than other services. Netflix, video conference, peer-peer file sharing are very in high network utilization.
If a content provider saturates a network, it has to be capped so that other content won't be delayed. If netflix is capped it will likely have delays and buffering due to network caps.
You do not have un-capped 1000Gb of internet bandwidth. You are paying for 1000Gb of service to the ISP not to the Internet. They are delivering shared internet service to you.
If you have a problem with that, go get yourself a business line. People with no technology experience should not be commenting on technical issues.
Last edited by vision33r; 12-18-2017 at 06:52 AM..
NOPE!! Not brainwashed by any media.. BUT understand it because of LIFE experiences dealing with how COL goes up annually. and yet incomes lags;. as it has for decades..
So do please stick to YOUR corner of Mis-informations ( historically) and take your finger out of your ears that spew things like " Trickle Down" fantasy that has been spun for past half Century..
Not buying what you are selling ... and has ZERO to do with MSM.. It's strictly 40 years of life experience doing taxes/Self employed and keeping up with TAX laws. for past 48 years have made it a point to always do my research.. BACK in the DAY it was harder.. due to lack of computer and digital access.. but did my phone calls and mail requests to find out FACTS!!
Yikes, you people really do get duped by Propaganda and always divert to "Brain Washing" cr@ppo$$a bashing!!
People like you with zero technical knowledge should not be even allowed to comment on a technical issue.
This is just like how many inept IT depts that hires IT consultants like me to tell them that their clueless non-technical managers do not understand their own work.
You have zero clues what the real issue of this case is all about, it shouldn't even make it to front page.
The main reason is that MSM today is digital, it used to be all paper and analog but all mass media are owned by the internet companies today and they do not want the government to tell them what to do.
People like you who are brainwashed by the media, should just stay out and mind matters that you do understand. None of these laws affects you. Why haven't people complain how the AT&T, Verizon, Tmobile, etc can continue to charge people hundreds a month for service while their costs are much lower than hard wire line internet service.
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.
