Posted on 11/25/2017 6:25:22 AM PST by tired&retired
We pay more for a Ferrari than a Versa.
The USPS, Fed Ex and UPS charge more for fast delivery.
The highways charge more for the fast lane.
How is internet service different?
How is 5g cellphone different from 4g or 3g?
Can anyone give a rational argument for forcing a one-size-fits-all policy on the internet?
And who should control content? One central body of 5 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats aka FCC? Or thousands of entrepreneurs creating the next thing nobody ever thought of?
There is one thing worse than google, facebook, comcast and ATT. That is the Feds.
What have Comcast done? They certainly have added more stuff (crap?) to the TV cable box and shows that would consume bandwidth. Interesting that both internet and TV data ride together on the cable wire backbone. Somehow it coexists but maybe it consumes more bandwidth, too.
Also, Comcast have offered increased internet speeds over the years and at a reasonable price increase or no price increase at all. A plus. BTW, Comcast always seem to be a step or two ahead of their competitors in the same ISP DSL market in quality and speed. I wonder if DSL will exist in a few years. Probably not.
Bottom line: it would be nice to have competitive competition to compete with Comcast.
We stream Pandora regularly (with little TV/video) and our consumption was about the same as yours — 250Gb. We do use it for other things too.
HOWEVER, nothing like streaming HD movies and shows continuously. That could easily push it over the 1TB (or 1Tb?) limit.
Some cities are setting up wifi backbones. Taxpayer funded of course. I prefer wired but that is another discussion. But this seems intriguing.
Anyway, maybe internet access should be thought of as like the roads and highways in a city where a tax/fee is paid by all and then it is completely open.
Net neutrality bumb. I’m glad you started this thread as I too would like to have a better understanding. It’s the only ‘argument’ brought up at Thanksgiving with my smarmy leftie brother in law and I was unable to argue the topic. My instinct is to be against it since he’s for it and there’s not a single topic we find middle ground on!
Comcast ACTUALLY DID JUST THAT and was sued for it as a result. Guessing you're not aware of that?
Comcast was caught disrupting people streaming from Netflix which raised tons of complaints. The result? Comcast went to Netflix and said:
"Hey, nice setup you have here. It'd be a shame if your streaming movies over OUR network were to get disrupted anymore. You know, for a small fee we can make sure that doesn't happen -- again."
The result: Comcast grabbed more cash from Netflix and Netflix customers saw price increases to make up the "difference" and are now paying TWICE for the data they're consuming while streaming a movie from Netflix. If you have a Netflix account, you're impacted by this already.
You might want to look into this one because your entire post is based on a lack of the facts and what an ISP will/won't do when they've already demonstrated what they WILL do.
Then there's Comcast's "Internet Traffic Shaping Device" which slows down some traffic (that Comcast presumably didn't like or want on their network) and accelerated others.
That case was pretty well documented too, a quick Google search will turn that one up.
Traffic Prioritization (VOIP for example) is not the issue here.
Please don't confuse Net Neutrality with Traffic Prioritization, they are two completely different things.
I worked managing the construction of tens of thousands of miles of broadband plant. I understand the cost of building that plant. None of it came from the government.
There is absolutely nothing stopping an individual from buying access to internet service from any one of a dozen providers.
Am I saying the prices are “fair?” Nope. It doesn’t matter. You are either a capitalist or you are not. One does not “need” the internet to survive.
Agreed.
I like competition and the free market. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist with one provider.
Our cable bill has increased 20% in recent years and it isn’t because service and quality have improved. It has increased laterally with more content and features. Mostly useless stuff IMO. But maybe some customers want it.
Also, an interesting point — we were just hit with a $15 per month increase ALL DUE TO TAXES AND FEES. The government gets their cut.
For an excellent description of Net Neutrality, what it means, and how it works. I refer you to Karl Denninger’s letter to the FCC on this from The Market Ticker:
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229021
How many high-speed internet choices do you have where you live, Mark?
It's funny because you and I have very much the same background and yet you don't seem to understand that in so many places in this country there is in fact ONLY ONE high speed internet choice.
The fact is there are about a handful of companies that deliver high speed internet access across the country and control the high speed backbone that traverses the country.
These same companies have near monopolies on those they "serve" and know they can operate with near impunity because their customers have nowhere else to go.
I live in a very large metropolitan area on the Southwest Side of Chicago where millions of people are and I have ONE CHOICE for truly high-speed internet, and that's Comcrap. My second "choice" is AT&T who cannot deliver anything over 6mb which won't work for me and my work from home situation.
Beyond Comcrap and AT&T there are no other choices. Like so many other parts of the country, one (maybe two) ISP have locked up a region to themselves and eliminated any other competition.
Honestly, I read your posts and I think "here's a really smart guy who gets it and understands how all this stuff works technically" and then you come to the complete opposite conclusion that I do.
I don't get it how you and I are doing that. I mean that respectfully.
Keep in mind that Netflix alone uses something like 1/3rd to 1/2 the Bandwith between 7 & 10pm for Steaming. All things being equal they love Net Neutrality as they can charge $8 a month rather having to pay and charge what the real market price would be for their service. Without Net Neutrality they would have to charge anywhere from $20 to $50 a month for their service. At that price their subscriber base goes to hell as well as they are bankrupt.
Netflix movies are listed in the Comcast movie line up. It probably doesn't cost the consumer Internet bandwidth that way.
Heck - it’s not clear enough for me. I don’t even know what “net neutrality” means. Just a definition of that would be useful. We can’t use REAL WORDS to describe something? Net neutrality MEANS ABC or XYZ. If it’s as simple as “should be as free an access as we can get for everyone”, where is it not doing that? I understand the below but still don’t know where the problem is.
“”Net neutrality, also referred to as ‘Internet neutrality’ or ‘network neutrality’, is a regulatory concept which eliminates any type of discrimination in transmission and access of content on the Internet.””
Other than those choices don't exist for a substantial majority of Americans.
Just because the cable exists that doesn't mean multiple service providers are using it.
Question: Do you know how many independent ISP's are riding on top of Comcast's cable plant?
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[13] Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, etc. - Source.
Definition of net neutrality
: the idea, principle, or requirement that Internet service providers should or must treat all Internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination … a philosophical contest that's being fought under the banner of "net neutrality," a slogan that inspires rhetorical devotion but eludes precise definition. Broadly, it means everything on the Internet should be equally accessible—that the Internet should be a place where great ideas compete on equal terms with big money. —Sarah Rabil - Source.
Sorry, but traffic shaping and QoS is fully part of the idea.
I suffer with this every day. I live in a rural area and the internet "choices" we have are all slow and slower.
If getting rid of Net Neutrality gives someone a chance to innovate faster serviceI am all for it. Even if it means faster service only on certain sites. Competition will straighten that out in a hurry.
The only regulation we need is that an ISP can not block any site, and that there has to be a minimum acceptable speed, even for unfavored sites, say 1/3 or 1/4 that of favored sites.
Three, not including satellite-based Hughes. Since I live in an area where I have 4 cellular systems with good LTE networks and unlimited data plans, one could possibly claim 7 possibilities. (look up how to use a WiFi Pineapple with a cellphone to provide a WiFi network in your home)
It's funny because you and I have very much the same background and yet you don't seem to understand that in so many places in this country there is in fact ONLY ONE high speed internet choice.
Actually, if you read my post carefully, you'll see that I said: That MIGHT be the case for some rural areas that have only one provider available to them. But the majority of people in the country have choices.
I recognize that in the rural areas, there will always be very minimal choices. But in medium / large towns, I would ask: why are you allowing your local government to grant an exclusive license to one ISP? Because that is usually the real reason why there is only one choice (in an urban / suburban network).
Honestly, I read your posts and I think "here's a really smart guy who gets it and understands how all this stuff works technically" and then you come to the complete opposite conclusion that I do.
I don't get it how you and I are doing that. I mean that respectfully.
I want the free market to run. I remember the days before the AT&T breakup and compare it to today. And there's no comparison. I don't want the Internet to be regulated. Period.
I also think usconservative’s posts on this thread are pretty clear even though he is on one side of the argument. Neither side is perfect but the consumer has less long term to fear and more effect (sadly) on internet policy over the isp’s than our governments. It has taken my brain a long time to figure this out, and I still feel dumb, and the terms used, as you note, are deceptive.
Big city here. My family are high web users. Gaming, streaming, etc. We have lived in 4 nice areas around the Los Angeles basin in the last 6 years. None rural or remote. In each place there was only ONE isp at the top possible speed. That is the only speed we are interested in (and it’s rarely achieved anyway, even when you pay for it). There has NEVER been a choice.
(For the first two places we lived, it was Verizon FIOS. The second two, we have Spectrum, formerly Time Warner Cable)
Oh noes! Multisyllabic speech! Let’s just simplify it to monopoligopoly for simplicity. When I’m truly a monopoligopoly, I can do as I please— mainly free of market forces; however, such a monopoligopoly can only exist with government collusion. Then let’s call it what it truly is: the government-technological complex.
If your local market is monopolized, your answer is to empower those who created the monopoly? Why is your market closed to competition? Did the company send in its mercenaries to invade, or did they just buy off some corrupt politicians? The lack of free market is a direct result of government meddling and many of us expect the same results from more meddling.
Despite what the current, corrupt SCOTUS may say, no unalienable right can come at the cost of another. You’re free to speak, but I don’t have to give you my bandwidth to do so. If I have a private infrastructure, then I can decide how best to utilize it.
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.