Posted on 11/25/2017 6:25:22 AM PST by tired&retired
Content providers like Netflix want net neutrality so that they don't have to pay higher costs onto their customers.
Content distributors like cable companies want to be able to have the flexibility to charge different rates to different users in order to manage their costs in maintaining the necessary infrastructure to support the traffic flow.
If all of the lobbying was on one side or the other this would no longer be an issue.
BTW, we consumers have little or no say in how this will be resolved. Whichever side provides the most money to politicians will be the side that prevails.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/ can show you a bunch of options. Don't know what is available for the specific area you're in. Frankly, there's almost always two options that most people don't consider: the cellular data network and Hughes satellite-based coverage. If you haven't, take a look at this video I suggested earlier: https://youtu.be/07C1Ds8Nuqo
Where we have only ONE CHOICE for high speed internet, I might add. That's largely true for the 9.4 MILLION people who live here too.
Probably most of your problems is the result of franchises granted by the local government. When they deployed FIOS in our area, Comcast wasn't thrilled (and fought against it) because they lost their monopoly. It's my understanding that Comcast has seriously improved around here because they face competition. Maybe not customer service improvements, but infrastructure improvements. That's likely to happen wherever competition happens.
(I remember back in the early 90s when I was stationed in Warner Robbins GA, we actually had a choice with cable providers...and as as result, both were pretty good)
The solution is never government. The solution is competition.
In my mind, they shouldn't be (there's a world of difference between the fault tolerance of TCP Port 25 and UDP port 5060, as an example). However, I can just envision some bureaucrat or some administrative law judge accepting that they should. And that would seriously screw things up.
We agree on your posts 102 & 103. I’ll take that! :-) Thanks for the discourse. Need to get some things done around the house today. Have a great rest of your weekend!
Well, after twenty years of building cable systems I can assure you we received $0 in government subsidies. Sure, we had tax accountants like every other company. I had an interesting conversation with a tax assessor for a large city. He wanted us to pay higher property taxes on our plant because we were raising our rates and we were depreciating our capital costs. I asked him if other large companies in town were “donating” there revenues and if the principle of depreciation was somehow changed for us?
We paid franchise fees and a full range of telephony taxes to local, state and federal agencies.
And, it was all funded through bonds and very large bank loans. This was back in the 80’s and I am sure you will recall what the prime rate was back then.
It’s amusing, you lump cable tv in with Satellite. In the next breath people would complain about 54 channels and nothing on. Ha ha.
So, it’s programming that you wonder about? If you live in an area that large in the US there are probably two or three sources of internet. Cable, fits, and wireless come to mind. Programming costs more. If you want the same channels as cable tv, why would you think they would be cheaper anywhere else? Do you think the cable company gets HBO for free? Back in the day the margin on HBO for the cable company was about $3/month. That needed to cover the cost of the cable boxes. It was not a big moneymaker.
But to come back to my original point, the Comcast’s of the world were building out cities with cable at a cost of about $102k per urban mile. In the medium sized city I managed there was 7 thousand miles of cable built. These are 1990 prices and fiber was just starting to be used.
So, we built it. We paid the fees and taxes. We maintained it. We rebuilt it when a hurricane tore it down. We policed it to stop thieves.
After all that, the people in this country pretty much want to say thank you, but I want it for free. Does that seem fair?
Let the government build a cable system. Then they can give it away. Trust me, the local municipal electric companies have built cable and fiber into their systems. They sure as hell are not giving it away.
I've read every post on this thread, no one's said they want anything for free. What is wanted is more choices in connectivity and providers, competition and lower prices (which competition would assuredly bring.)
It’s amusing, you lump cable tv in with Satellite. In the next breath people would complain about 54 channels and nothing on. Ha ha.
Actually, the Bruce Springsteen song was 57 Channels (And Nothin' On) but I digress.
bump for later
My first impression is that if Airbnb, Google parent Alphabet, Amazon, Dropbox, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, and Spotify are against it- it might actually be a good thing. I have no love for the other companies either: AT&T, Verizon Charter, Comcast, etc....
But here is what I’ve been deciphering from this debate: In the end the consumer will end up paying more for “better access”. My initial gut reaction is that it’s unfair. But thinking more closely at this here is where it might not be a bad idea. The tech Giants have gotten a free ride, sort of speak, and once they reach their pinnacles of success, believe me they don’t make it easier for their smaller competitors. The very idea that if the consumer or them (tech Giants) would have to start paying for prioritization, it could lead to lower usage of the internet- even if its a small percentage. That would greatly affect them and they’re scared of that. The overall usage might not drop but usage to their sites (i.e. Google owns Youtube) might. People might go to other alternatives (i.e. smaller competitors - smaller versions of Youtube or Facebook that most people don’t currently know about or would not otherwise use if not faced with looking for cheaper alternatives). The bottom-line, if the cost of using the “highway” went up due to everyone using the same road, people will naturally look for less expensive (or less congested) alternatives. The more I think about it.....it might not be such a bad idea. Too much power and influence is held in so few tech companies. Something has to change.
.
“Net Neutrality” at its foundational level is pure theft of private investment.
Those that create communication infrastructure should retain substantial control of their property.
If they cannot do that, the internet will die.
.
BINGO !!!
.
.
Would you like to go back to using a 56K modem?
If you make investments worthless, there will be no inventments.
.
Satellite Internet access? Cellular internet access? Neither of these can compete with wired cable or dsl for stability, reliability, and speed.
I’d like to know that as well. Are the local govts getting kickbacks from the isps to keep their monopolies? That is as important as the net neutrality issue here.
Google, Netflix and Facebook don't push their content onto the net - their users request it.
If the ISPs want to be paid for the bandwidth they should charge the user, not the content provider.
This is just an attempt by the ISPs to profit from content that they didn't create. Classic free-rider behavior.
The ISP's are already paid for the bandwidth. Thats one of the main points here. The price I pay for my internet includes 1Tb of Data that I initiate (stream/receive) and bring onto Comcast's network.
Nowhere in Comcrap's user agreement does it say I have to pay extra for consuming video data over voice or email data.
Data is data according to the Comcast user agreement.
Comcast knew they couldn't go after their users to pay more because of the user agreement (without modifying it anyway) so instead they went after Netflix, as one example.
Mr. Comcast: "Gee Mr. Netflix -- nice service you have here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it and you couldn't reach our users anymore. What to do, what to do, right? Hey, I have an idea. You can pay us to protect your traffic from magically disappearing once it hits our network so it makes it to your customers. How about that?"
Mr. Netflix: (silence...) Writes extortion check to Mr. Comcast.
Mr Comcast: "Thanks Mr. Netflix, see you same time next month!"
No when you have a company like Netflix eating up a great deal of the bandwith to the detriment of others then they need to pay for that also.
Those companies are getting a free ride on us. Let the market sort it out, not the government.
Netflix isn't using up the bandwidth, their customers are by streaming movies.
bump for later!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.