Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on December 04, 2017, 09:09:12 AM
-
I thought this was a good executive summary on net neutrality. This is only one aspect of it, but it's one the "social fairness" people ignore. It's especially significant to me, because as I keep (possibly annoyingly by now) mentioning around here, the Googles and Facebooks are getting a little scary to me.
On Futurama, Mom's Friendly Robots Company was supposed to be a dig at Apple, but really, they were in many ways showing us Google and Facebook (and I guess Netflix and Amazon as well) regarding the face of a company being "socially aware", while in the back rooms, they look at how they can solidify their empires and kill competition.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian
-
Going-in Premise One:
(1) They're all friggin' evil anyhow.
There is no Premise Two.
-
Going-in Premise One:
(1) They're all friggin' evil anyhow.
There is no Premise Two.
Agreed.
-
I'm kind of torn, what is going to keep a Tier 3 cable provider that offers Internet, from dicking around with prices of streaming companies. Especially when they are the sole provider in communities of high speed internet.
For example Mediacom has a lot of communities tied up in Iowa for cable/HS Internet, what is to keep them from throttling Sling or Hulu unless they pay more for the speed streaming requires? Mediacom has done a good job of preventing competition through municipal contracts, pole leasing, etc.
-
But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out. Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it.
-
Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it.
I agree but it takes a lot of money to set up an HS ISP.
-
I'm kind of torn, what is going to keep a Tier 3 cable provider that offers Internet, from dicking around with prices of streaming companies. Especially when they are the sole provider in communities of high speed internet.
For example Mediacom has a lot of communities tied up in Iowa for cable/HS Internet, what is to keep them from throttling Sling or Hulu unless they pay more for the speed streaming requires? Mediacom has done a good job of preventing competition through municipal contracts, pole leasing, etc.
There is your answer. That stuff shouldn’t be legal. Local municipalities shouldn’t be able to dictate monopolies on services.
-
There is your answer. That stuff shouldn’t be legal. Local municipalities shouldn’t be able to dictate monopolies on services.
Shouldn't be but it is. I think it goes back to the early days of Community Antenna Television (CATV).
-
Shouldn't be but it is. I think it goes back to the early days of Community Antenna Television (CATV).
Yep. And until someone comes in with wireless or satellite becomes better, there may not be a good answer. I still think adding more regulation/monopoly on top of that is not a good answer.
-
Yep. And until someone comes in with wireless or satellite becomes better, there may not be a good answer. I still think adding more regulation/monopoly on top of that is not a good answer.
We got an independent guy where I live that is doing wireless and expanding. I use him for my house, 10 mbs with no data caps for $50 a month. He is slowly expanding in town and really taken off in the small towns 20-30 miles from town.
He also made a public statement he will not restrict anyone's traffic.
He would be in more parts of town, but some of the older neighborhoods have some big tree issues that block the signals without going to a really tall antennas on the houses.
-
My electric Co-Op has a subsidiary that is running fiber to the home. High speed internet, phone and TV. Since they already own the right of way and poles that isn't an issue.
I've got rock solid (so far)100Mb fiber to the home for $48 a month. I can get up to 1Gb but I have no need for that much bandwidth.
As a comparison, my previous DSL was a sketchy 3Mb through "the phone company" for $39 a month (which included my employee discount).
-
My electric Co-Op has a subsidiary that is running fiber to the home. High speed internet, phone and TV. Since they already own the right of way and poles that isn't an issue.
I've got rock solid (so far)100Mb fiber to the home for $48 a month. I can get up to 1Gb but I have no need for that much bandwidth.
As a comparison, my previous DSL was a sketchy 3Mb through "the phone company" for $39 a month (which included my employee discount).
I believe the City of Longmont Colorado just got done with that all over town. Son2 seemed to be pretty impressed with it when it got to his house.
The cable providers had conniption fits over it according to what I heard and tried every bick in the trook to prevent it.
-
I believe the City of Longmont Colorado just got done with that all over town. Son2 seemed to be pretty impressed with it when it got to his house.
The cable providers had conniption fits over it according to what I heard and tried every bick in the trook to prevent it.
If it is the city as provider I'm dead set against it.
-
If it is the city as provider I'm dead set against it.
I used to live in a town where the utility company was owned by the city. It was awesome, rates were cheaper than the private industry side, employees were paid more, and mediacom pitched a fit when they got into the cable/internet business because they had to lower their rates and pay the workers more.
-
But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out. Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problem is not Mediacom, but the local .gov's that grant them a monopoly....
-
I love how the situation we're in is because of local government subsidized and encouraged monopolies, FCC regulation and overregulation... and people want to chuck more government on a government created problem
-
I love how the situation we're in is because of local government subsidized and encouraged monopolies, FCC regulation and overregulation... and people want to chuck more government on a government created problem
Isn't that how we've always done things?
-
But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out. Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it.
It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G35g5HQVjpU&feature=push-u&attr_tag=AIZa6kTN7b9VVf6F-6
Crowder had a discussion on this.
IMO, all the newer technology is moving toward making it easier to bypass these monopolies. I agree that it will be difficult to get rid of them. However, very few people like them which is demonstrated when alternatives are made available and the monopoly loses customers.
-
It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.
Water is an entirely different animal with different regulations. No point in even bringing that into the discussion, IMO.
My state already has a mostly free market on electricity (in most areas). For cable TV, satellite options have been available for quite some time and internet options are getting better. What I see for internet is wireless and other alternatives are becoming more available with better speeds and I hear satellite may be a better option in the near future. Yes, there may not be much option in your area right now, but give it time.
-
It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.
They didn't have a problem allowing them to run cables for cable TV in the 1980's and 1990's, when there were already phone lines going to every house. There's plenty of space on utility poles* for fiber and/or newer tech to go into houses that choose them over Phone/Cable providers.
* - or via satellite or cell towers which would bypasses the entire need for .gov created monopolies. Even Charby mentioned a company doing the cellular thing for intewebz access....
-
It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.
I live on the edge of a major city. Not the sticks, but not "in town". I have my choice of 4 High-speed ISP's depending on what I want to pay and get. At least three of them are using different infrastructure. Closer to town, there's a couple more.
At least in FL, even in the sticks, you can usually get at least one land-based broadband, and satellite. There's also 4g cellular data in much of the state.
We'd be better served busting the infrastructure monopolies than trying to pretend the .gov can do a good job picking ISP winners and losers.
-
I've always had fantasies about running a system of repeaters based on infra-red. Line of sight, but so are µwaves, pretty much.
Maybe I should, nowadays.
Just a fantasy, never really worked out the technical aspects of it.
Terry, 230RN
-
They didn't have a problem allowing them to run cables for cable TV in the 1980's and 1990's, when there were already phone lines going to every house. There's plenty of space on utility poles* for fiber and/or newer tech to go into houses that choose them over Phone/Cable providers.
* - or via satellite or cell towers which would bypasses the entire need for .gov created monopolies. Even Charby mentioned a company doing the cellular thing for intewebz access....
The way I understood it was so it would be worth their while to invest in the infrastructure into those communities. Also if competition came into some of those smaller communities, the Tier 3 might also be the Tier 2 provider.
The option I use is not cellular, the Tier 3 puts up towers in town and you have a 6" addressable dish on your house to receive the signal. Range is pretty limited and you have to have a clear line of site to the tower. I almost couldn't do it because of a tree in my backyard, but the owner was able to get the dish up high enough on my 30' TV aerial to receive it. Side note: A storm last spring took care of the tree.
-
Probably should of put a 30 year sunset on the catv monopolies.
-
So Net Neutrality has been rolled back today.
Man, the outcry is ridiculous. Can these people make a single point without invoking the death of millions and a dystopian apocalypse? So far it is racist, anti-woman, anti-health care, anti LGBTQOSJGJSK, anti-children, anti-planned parenthood, anti-just about everything. I'm waiting for the Internet without Net Neutrality to cause a gun to run outside of a home and shoot up the neighborhood.
What were we doing prior to 2015? It's really like there was no USA before Obama with these people (this topic might end up having to get moved to politics).
-
I have a friend who has lost his mind over this. I said to him today, "Gee, things seemed to work just fine prior to 2 years ago." His reply was, "Yah but They've learned more how to screw us now." So I say, "You believe then that the Government can run things better, more efficiently, without any corruption?" His reply, "Net neutrality isn't a government thing." I told him my cable TV is worse, my internet speed no better, maybe even slower and my bill has gone from around 90 bucks a month to around 200 bucks, their yearly contract is unilateral ie, I can't get out of it, but they can change it anytime they want. I fought with them for 3 months before they brought it down to $173.00 and paid me $400.00 for breaking their contract. I ordered another whiskey.
Nick Searcy who's on my Facebook page said today....
"Nick Searcy
3 hrs ·
The tax cuts killed all life on Earth.
And now none of the dead will be able to use the Internet.
I've been laughing my ass off all day.
-
I'm mostly ambivalent towards net neutrality, leaning towards a sensible "kill it," but the millennials on Reddit have been losing their minds and this pleases me immensely.
-
Part of the problem is the Obama Admin picked a good 1984ish name for it. If anything, it should be Net Lowest Common Denominator.
The "net neutrality" they want is more like obamacare, where I pay $700/mo for the crappiest available bronze plan so that someone else can get a silver plan for free. With Net Neutrality, it would end up with me continuing to pay the $100/mo for my crappy 5mbps*, while some welfare queen gets to watch "The View" on a 50mbps fios connection for free, because "equality".
*Out here in rural and deplorable America. Net Neutrality and bandwidth is more about the inner city.
-
I'm mostly ambivalent towards net neutrality, leaning towards a sensible "kill it," but the millennials on Reddit have been losing their minds and this pleases me immensely.
That's been my metric before I bothered to read up. All the right people where whinging and screeching about NN, so that tells me it can't possibly be a bad thing to kill it.
-
It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house.
What? You mean we don't have 30+ sets of electric lines running to every house in town to support our (personally tested, twice) ability to change electric providers literally overnight?
I'm not seeing why internet couldn't be handled the same way; with a delivery provider tasked only with maintaining the delivery hardware and retail providers who contract with the delivery provider, the tier 2 and the customer to deliver X amount of bandwidth. Pricing structures could hardly be more of a mess than they are with some providers right now.
-
*Out here in rural and deplorable America. Net Neutrality and bandwidth is more about the inner city.
I'm not even in rural and deplorable America. I'm in a suburb in a deeply blue state. I have a DSL line that's supposed to give me 6 Mbps -- on a good day, I might get 2.6. It sucks.
Government always manages to screw things up. I remember when the United States had the best telephone system in the world. Then the feds "deregulated" it so companies like Sprint could compete against AT&T, and phone service went into the toilet. Prices went up, service got worse ... and hasn't recovered.
-
ISPs have us by the balls and they know it. The Obama regs certainly didn't stop them from being terrible, getting rid of those regs won't stop them from being terrible. I've read about ISPs taking plenty of public/gov money to "upgrade infrastructure" but not doing anything of the sort and just pocketing the cash. My friend who works in telecom has endless stories of mismanagement, incompetence & waste but there's just not enough competition out there for it to be a big concern for them.
I don't know specifics of a lot of the net neutrality regs, but I have no problem with rules requiring content agnostic delivery of bandwidth. Throttling competition is just going to make things worse. I think part of the problem is that we're being "served" by these big conglomerates that now include media companies. If my ISP wasn't also trying to sell me TV then they wouldn't care about how much of my allotted bandwidth I use on Netflix.
-
I don't know specifics of a lot of the net neutrality regs, but I have no problem with rules requiring content agnostic delivery of bandwidth. Throttling competition is just going to make things worse. I think part of the problem is that we're being "served" by these big conglomerates that now include media companies. If my ISP wasn't also trying to sell me TV then they wouldn't care about how much of my allotted bandwidth I use on Netflix.
Yes, net neutrality controls how ISPs deliver bandwidth. On the other hand, it gives the Googles, etc. free rein to to stomp on all the small businesses and start-ups trying to get into their space.
However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.
And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.
It seems the decision is, do you want the ISPs ruling access to the Internet, or Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc. ruling the Internet itself? Personally, I would rather pay a little more for less bandwidth to reach a free internet, vs having cheap broadband internet access to an Internet run by Mom's Friendly Robot Company (and likely, over time, the government). Ideally, I'd like cheap, high bandwidth access to a free* Internet, but I'm a dreamer.
Edit: For clarity, "free" as I'm using it here, is as much about freedom of thought as it is regarding Netflix, instead of my ISP, charging me more super HD vs HD.
-
I'm not seeing why internet couldn't be handled the same way; with a delivery provider tasked only with maintaining the delivery hardware and retail providers who contract with the delivery provider, the tier 2 and the customer to deliver X amount of bandwidth. Pricing structures could hardly be more of a mess than they are with some providers right now.
This is how most of the UK internet works - BT own most of the hardware and arrange for its upgrading, and the ISPs only have equipment in some of the bigger BT exchanges that go on to supply the service to their customers. In some ways it is good - it certainly helps to keep cost down - but when it fails its not unusual for big areas to go down; the last time my old ISP (Sky) had problems it affected all of South London for nearly two days, and the actual amount of choice isn't that great (there are a lot of ISPs but they all offer similar products at similar prices). Fortunately for me however, our building has been upgraded with a superfast network so we get 1gb for £47 a month (just over $62).
-
The "net neutrality" they want is more like obamacare, where I pay $700/mo for the crappiest available bronze plan so that someone else can get a silver plan for free. With Net Neutrality, it would end up with me continuing to pay the $100/mo for my crappy 5mbps*, while some welfare queen gets to watch "The View" on a 50mbps fios connection for free, because "equality".
Uh, that's not actually what NN stands for.
NN means that you buy your plan, you get your bandwidth(with so many exceptions it's not funny). Basically, it means that they can't go behind YOUR back to charge the sites you visit money in order to provide you service you at full speed. IE going "Netflix, you send an awful lot of traffic our way, shame if something would happen to it..."
Like a toll road where, because you didn't take THEIR taxi, you are stuck at 45mph, while THEIR taxi service, which sucks in every other way including price, can go 90 mph. Because.
I'm not losing my head over it, no, but it's a bad sign.
Edit: For clarity, "free" as I'm using it here, is as much about freedom of thought as it is regarding Netflix, instead of my ISP, charging me more super HD vs HD.
Well, after you've bought enough basic bandwidth for FHD from your ISP. But you shouldn't need to buy a netflix specific package, nor Netflix pay your ISP unless they're actually leasing a data line directly from them.
Note: Netflix will actually ship ISPs servers that will act as load balancers at the local level - IE avoid the expensive exterior pipe for duplicated viewings, for free, if they ask. All the ISP ends up paying for is the electricity/data center space.
-
Note: Netflix will actually ship ISPs servers that will act as load balancers at the local level - IE avoid the expensive exterior pipe for duplicated viewings, for free, if they ask. All the ISP ends up paying for is the electricity/data center space.
And when Netflix starts choosing which ISPs it will provide this service for and which it won't? This is the point, as stated in the URL in the OP. You're either putting your fate in the hands of the ISPs without net neutrality, or putting it in the hands of the Googles, etc. with net neutrality. Unless you actually think Google is pushing net neutrality for purely altruistic reasons.
I'd prefer to take my chances on the open market, less government, ISPs.
You can argue all you want that I'm misinterpreting net neutrality. Just like Obamacare proponents argued I was misinterpreting that. Yet Obamacare turned into a monstrosity that's goring my Ox in a big way, as I predicted it would, and I wouldn't expect "net neutrality" to be any different. Thanks Obama.
-
And when Netflix starts choosing which ISPs it will provide this service for and which it won't? This is the point, as stated in the URL in the OP. You're either putting your fate in the hands of the ISPs without net neutrality, or putting it in the hands of the Googles, etc. with net neutrality. Unless you actually think Google is pushing net neutrality for purely altruistic reasons.
I'd prefer to take my chances on the open market, less government, ISPs.
You can argue all you want that I'm misinterpreting net neutrality. Just like Obamacare proponents argued I was misinterpreting that. Yet Obamacare turned into a monstrosity that's goring my Ox in a big way, as I predicted it would, and I wouldn't expect "net neutrality" to be any different. Thanks Obama.
Obamacare was, to use a phrase, lipstick on a pig though - with your healthcare model it was always going to be prohibitively expensive when increasing the role of the state whilst also not doing anything to bring about the advantages that state run medical care can offer.
This on the other hand is a fairly clear issue of market access, both for consumers and businesses. The current model offers better access to everyone involved than allowing ISPs to determine whether or not you as a consumer should be able to watch Netflix, based on whether or not Netflix have paid them money; you can also make the argument that it is a lot more difficult for the state to interfere now than it would be if the ISPs were able to determine what you can and cant watch.
-
I've been reading this and other stuff on the whole NN thing and as far as I can tell, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Either way, someone with interest that don't benefit the consumer is going to be in charge.
I would, however, have liked to see an actual example (or better yet, multiple examples) of the problems *before* Net Neutrality was proposed in the first place. Too my mind, the bigger issue with this whole thing was that the government interfered long before there was any reason to interfere.
-
I went on the Internet today and saw that everyone (except thse that will be killed by tax reform) is dead, so I turned around and went home....
-
Day one, apocalypse of no net neutrality .
I don't trust them, they tell me it's fine.
This morning, I went on drudge, to see the news.
Then, I decided to try Facebook, I figured it was ok because I had 4 hours to get to work and it's a half hour commute.
I suspect my late arrival was due to the lack of neutrality, but I needed more proof.
I spent an hour on the toilet, checking my favorite youtube videos and gossiping on messenger, my supervisor said I need to get my ass in gear.
This revealed his pro Trump anger issues, I pondered reporting him for sexual harassment.
Using the last ounce of courage, I accused him of being for free markets and against net neutrality.
He gave me a blank stare and mumbled something about needing a raise.
After work, I noticed that the yellow lights seemed shorter than yesterday, when we had a neutral net.
That's all the evidence I need, tomorrow I start using my rations.
I have a week of MRE's, then I take to the hills to avoid the MAGA concentration camps
-
On the question of gov provided services here's a pdf that goes into it a bit. There's a long history of privately-provided services that are now thought of as gov only services. There is also a long history of government screwing things up. Incentives matter and if there's one thing politicians and bureaucrat are good at it's distorting incentives.
https://history.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/beitofromprivies.pdf
So could we go back to the private provision of services? Sure but the incentive matrix has to be altered.
Anyway, back to net neutrality.
-
I look at this way.
I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.
-
I look at this way.
I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.
They're not throttling you. They're throttling Netflix (for example), the biggest bandwidth hog on the planet and a strain on ISP resources everywhere. The ISPs should be charging Netflix more. Netflix should be charging users more for higher bandwidth access (as they do). Netflix wants to charge YOU for HD and Super HD but still pay the same on the ISP side.
If Netflix, Google, etc. don't like it, they are some of the richest corporations on the planet. They could become their own "Verizon" if they want to.
When I go to Luigi's and order an extra large pizza, I don't expect him to charge me for a medium.
If a Toyota Corolla and a Hummer H1 take the same 1000 mile trip on the same road, it's expected that fuel costs for the Hummer should be higher than for the Corolla.
-
I look at this way.
I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.
I agree. But I don’t see title 2 NN as the best path for that.
-
They're not throttling you. They're throttling Netflix (for example), the biggest bandwidth hog on the planet and a strain on ISP resources everywhere. The ISPs should be charging Netflix more. Netflix should be charging users more for higher bandwidth access (as they do). Netflix wants to charge YOU for HD and Super HD but still pay the same on the ISP side.
If Netflix, Google, etc. don't like it, they are some of the richest corporations on the planet. They could become their own "Verizon" if they want to.
When I go to Luigi's and order an extra large pizza, I don't expect him to charge me for a medium.
If a Toyota Corolla and a Hummer H1 take the same 1000 mile trip on the same road, it's expected that fuel costs for the Hummer should be higher than for the Corolla.
If I want to use Netflix and I pay for 10mbs bandwidth, I should be able to use all of the 10mbs to view my Netflix.
-
If I want to use Netflix and I pay for 10mbs bandwidth, I should be able to use all of the 10mbs to view my Netflix.
No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)
-
No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)
I'm glad my Tier 3 provider isn't going to throttle anyone, but I do feel for those in the smaller towns where there is one broadband provider.
-
No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)
Netflix pays for the bandwidth they consume from their provider.
Charby pays for the bandwidth he consumes from his provider.
The problem is Charby's provider is oversubscribed and sees a lot of traffic coming from a single, deep-pockets source, and are seeking to offset their poor capacity planning by finding a scheme to charge Netflix or penalize Charby by impacting his experience.
This is akin to airlines overselling their seats and then dragging passengers off after a thorough beating.
Chris
-
I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".
-
I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".
Other utilities go about this by charging a connection fee that covers infrastructure and processing upgrade. For instance, where I live there is a one time $6,600 fee for connecting into the public sewer (Assuming a 3/4 water line coming in)
-
I remember talking to my ISP owner when I signed up for service, it's a local company owned by one guy and few employees. I mentioned this before but he provides wireless, where he has transmitters in various parts of town and you put a small dish on your house. (It is a line of sight and not everyone can get it, due to trees or buildings).
I asked who his Tier 2 providers are, he said depends on the part of town where he puts his transmitters but they are also competing Tier 3 providers, like Century Link and Mediacom. Both have Tier 2 "trunks" coming into town.
-
Netflix pays for the bandwidth they consume from their provider.
Charby pays for the bandwidth he consumes from his provider.
The problem is Charby's provider is oversubscribed and sees a lot of traffic coming from a single, deep-pockets source, and are seeking to offset their poor capacity planning by finding a scheme to charge Netflix or penalize Charby by impacting his experience.
This is akin to airlines overselling their seats and then dragging passengers off after a thorough beating.
Chris
exactly, you described it better than I ever could.
-
I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".
I've had that happen to me a few times. Sucks for them, I went to the competition.
-
I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".
Happens frequently. When I first signed up for DSL, my neighborhood was oversubscribed, so I had to wait a few months until the carrier upgraded the local DSLAM.
Chris
-
Happens frequently. When I first signed up for DSL, my neighborhood was oversubscribed, so I had to wait a few months until the carrier upgraded the local DSLAM.
Chris
Have to say I've never seen it where I've lived. Pretty much everyone is trying to get you as a customer. Even out here in the boonies, microwave and sat won't leave you alone trying to get your business, depending on which one you're on. I'd be curious to see a national map of "surplus and demand" and see which regions go which way regarding broadband infrastructure keeping up with population.
-
Have to say I've never seen it where I've lived. Pretty much everyone is trying to get you as a customer. Even out here in the boonies, microwave and sat won't leave you alone trying to get your business, depending on which one you're on. I'd be curious to see a national map of "surplus and demand" and see which regions go which way regarding broadband infrastructure keeping up with population.
It may not be a thing with the various options we have now. My anecdote was in the old days before smartphones and various wireless options became available to end users. The scenario stands though, the end users at each end of the conversation can only use what they're contracted for. For business class lines, you can burst over your subscribed rate, but you pay for the extra capacity. The idea that Netflix is using more than their fair share is factually incorrect. What is more accurate is they are attracting a number of users and the aggregate of these users is what causes the problem.
While we use an entertainment company as the example, you can just as easily insert any content provider. The intermediary network providers don't have to be oversubscribed, they can simply decide they're carrying content they disagree with or simply don't like and use the oversubscription argument as a way to control our access to the information. We expect our carriers to not only NOT make judgement calls based on the content of our comms, we also expect them to use the money we pay them to manage their capacity and prevent the capacity argument from being a factor. If their revenue doesn't allow for expansion, then they need to raise rates, not muck about with our access to those sites. Doing otherwise is at odds with an open Internet.
The carriers occupy a space in business that essentially requires them to be a neutral party. This is for their protection as well as ours. By occupying this space, they are indemnified against responsibility for what traverses their circuits (terrorism-related traffic, criminal activity, etc). If they are going to claim the right to analyze and control that traffic, then they should lose this protection and be treated like a responsible party. They don't get it both ways.
Chris
-
Locally we've got multiple options.
Telco DSL if you're close enough, best I could get was a marginal 3Mbps connection. Recently the area electric CoOp subsidiary made a big investment in fiber to the home, I could get up to 1 Gbps and option for TV and home phone, I took the 100 Mbps package and It's been rock solid for going on three months now.
We also have (or had, not sure if they are still going) broadband over cable from the local cable TV provider.
There is also the satellite and a couple of line of sight operations.
-
This is akin to airlines overselling their seats and then dragging passengers off after a thorough beating.
More like an airline running a "one price anywhere" deal and then charging popular destinations to continue to serve them.
-
I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".
We never had to do it when I worked for an ISP, but that was partly because when we hit a certain percentage and growth rate in an area, we'd shut down all marketing for that area. Still got steady growth from customer referrals, but none of the big slams, so we were able to keep up.
-
Netflix pays for the bandwidth they consume from their provider.
Charby pays for the bandwidth he consumes from his provider.
Yep.
But I bet that even with economy of scale, megabit for megabit Charby pays a small fraction of what Netflix pays for their guaranteed bandwidth. Which leads to ...
The problem is Charby's provider is oversubscribed and sees a lot of traffic coming from a single, deep-pockets source, and are seeking to offset their poor capacity planning by finding a scheme to charge Netflix or penalize Charby by impacting his experience.
Sort of. They're banking on not everyone maxing their bandwidth 100% of the time, sure. It's infrastructure built to a price, but not because of poor capacity planning. People prefer relatively cheap internet access over guaranteed bandwidth at the price that product commands. If you want dedicated bandwidth, there are products that will meet that need. Just don't expect them to come nearly as cheap as your cable or DSL.
This is akin to airlines overselling their seats and then dragging passengers off after a thorough beating.
Not even remotely. Do you even analogy, bro? It's more like someone building a private toll road and advertising a speed limit of 100mph then during rush hour it actually drops to 45. In this analogy, net neutrality forbids such a toll road from adding any additional lanes and dedicating them to people who pay an extra fee, or types of traffic that are more urgent. Instead, they have to let everyone use all the lanes, even if that means that adding a lane only increases rush-hour speeds to 48mph.
Regardless, the whole net neutrality argument doesn't apply to the oversold ISP scenario. That is completely unaddressed by net neutrality and happened plenty over the past couple years. If anything, net neutrality guarantees those capacity-based slowdowns would continue as it makes resolution exponentially more difficult for ISPs.
-
Just curious if anyone's internet has gotten tremendously worse in the past three years, or if you have to pay new, extra fees for Netflix, Youtube, etc?
-
I smell a nothing burger.
The big provider that I'm most familiar with hasn't done much either way. I wasn't able to get decent broadband service from them so went with my local electric co-op when they ran fiber to the home several years ago. My discounted 3 mbps (more or less) cost me $10 a month less than my current 100 mbps (rock solid) does.
-
Just curious if anyone's internet has gotten tremendously worse in the past three years, or if you have to pay new, extra fees for Netflix, Youtube, etc?
No, but most of my friends died from bad internet.
-
No, but most of my friends died from bad internet.
I’m sorry fistful. Very sad.
My suburban internet had the speed boosted by a significant amount two years ago for no additional monthly fee, and I’m moving to a more rural property with gigabit internet. No new data caps or cost per service or any of the other horrific outcomes we were promised.
-
Just curious if anyone's internet has gotten tremendously worse in the past three years, or if you have to pay new, extra fees for Netflix, Youtube, etc?
Mine has gotten better and cheaper. Part of that is my moving to a new location, but even back in CA, from 2017 to 2018, my fixed wireless bandwidth increased while price stayed the same.
My provider (surprise) doesn't make me pay more for Netflix and Youtube. Though those two entities have certainly raised their prices significantly in the past three years.
-
That is what caused COVID right?
-
Net neutrality: there is very fine bandwidth on both sides.
-
That is what caused COVID right?
No, that was the 5G towers.