view:

topics flat nest

whiteshp

join:2002-03-05

Xenia, OH 1 recommendation whiteshp Member Caps If they can't kill network neutrality they will keep increasing revenues over current levels by increasing internet fees and prices. They win via monopoly regardless. I'm still waiting for our fiber/Ethernet 1Gbps internet with a 5GB cap for $150/month. If its your only choice it's your only choice. Others will say it's simple vote with your wallet and live without decent internet at all. Which isn't even a choice most can make for such a important communication medium(utility) needed to keep in touch with family/work/school. Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22

Des Plaines, IL Joe12345678 Member Re: Caps what about meters that are like the gas, power, and water ones?

lifebound

@amazon.com lifebound Anon Re: Caps You mean the well-regulated public utilities, some of which are capped/subsidized by local or state government?



Good luck with that. InvalidError

join:2008-02-03 InvalidError Member Look at what happens to "Net Neutrality" from the other side While we see incumbents try to skew things their way, they aren't the only ones.



Look at how Google is offering ISPs to host cache nodes for Youtube and their other popular services or how Netflix requires that ISP join their CDN network to allow their subscribers to access higher bitrate content.



As more high-bandwidth stuff goes online, I would not be surprised to see more over-the-top service providers offer more network integration solutions for ISPs to reduce their mutual transit costs and improve latency.

Probitas

@teksavvy.com 1 recommendation Probitas Anon How many times should an company be able to charge for bandwidth. I connect to Netflix, I pay for using the bandwidth to me, Netflix pays for the bandwidth to me. Double dipping. It should be illegal, as there isn't twice as much bandwidth being used. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY Crookshanks Member Re: How many times So which one of you do you think should get the $0/mo connection? Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 1 edit Bengie25 Member Re: How many times I think what he was going after is he pays for his connection to the Internet, and Netflix pays for their connection to the Internet.



As for the Super HD offerings, that is a grey area. Most ISPs would not be happy if Netflix caused their customers to increase usage by 60%.



Netflix also has to foot the bill, and I'm sure at their volumes, it would be expensive.



It saves both Netflix and ISPs money to peer or using caching devices.



edit: In 2-3 years, Super HD may be standard, but right now, that's a big jump. MrP0

join:2013-06-07

Picton, ON 1 recommendation MrP0 Member Trust Us? What they say:



"The cable industry has consistently endorsed  and fostered the development of  an open Internet," said the NCTA. "Long before the FCCs adoption of net neutrality rules, the cable industry made clear that it does not  and would not  block our customers ability to access lawful Internet content, applications or services."



What they really mean:



"The cable industry has consistently endorsed  and fostered the development of  an open Internet," said the NCTA. "Long before the FCCs adoption of net neutrality rules, the cable industry made clear that it does not  and would not  block our customers ability to access lawful Internet content, applications or services, (cough) provided you pay us extra fees each month (cough)"

IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member Except Except BitTorrent is responsible for a lot of pirated content. The key to net neutrality should be to preserving the transfer of lawfully obtained content. I think ISPs (even if the cable/telco monopolies are eventually broken up) shall have a responsibility to ensure that only lawful content goes over their networks and they should have a duty to cooperate with authorities/law enforcement when laws are broken using the Internet, particularly when those are crimes involving children/teen victims.



I do support net neutrality but only for 100 percent lawful content. 34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Except said by IowaCowboy: I do support net neutrality but only for 100 percent lawful content. Free speech does not work like that. It is either a matter of net neutrality or not. You can't pick and choose what you like or do not like.

Karl Bode

News Guy

join:2000-03-02 Karl Bode to IowaCowboy

News Guy to IowaCowboy

Well and IIRC the guy who started the firestorm in our forums about Comcast crushing BitTorrent traffic was uploading barbershop quartet music he himself had created. Perfectly legal. Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04

Binghamton, NY 1 recommendation Crookshanks Member Re: Except said by Karl Bode: Perfectly legal.



Didn't Comcast's system simply prevent seeding after your download had been completed? One wonders why they didn't pass it off as enforcing the 'no servers' clause instead of trying to wave the traffic management flag. And against the 'no servers' clause that was doubtless in his customer agreement. Residential connections were never intended to be used for content distribution, legal, illegal, centralized, or peer to peer....Didn't Comcast's system simply prevent seedingyour download had been completed? One wonders why they didn't pass it off as enforcing the 'no servers' clause instead of trying to wave the traffic management flag. 34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Except said by Crookshanks: And against the 'no servers' clause that was doubtless in his customer agreement. Residential connections were never intended to be used for content distribution, legal, illegal, centralized, or peer to peer.... Residential connections don't seem to be intended to be used for much of anything. If these ISPs got what they wanted people literally wouldn't be doing anything but checking e-mail. Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 to Crookshanks

Member to Crookshanks

You're post here is content distribution. Actually, all communications is just content and you're distributing it.



Might as well just block upload bandwidth completely. Bengie25 Bengie25 Member WTF?! "In fact, cable has invested over $200 billion in upgrading our broadband networks that have enabled streaming video services to succeed and grow. Consumers now expect the ability to enjoy online video and cable has consistently provided a robust nationwide platform that allows it."



For $140bil, they could have covered the entire country with 1gb Google Fiber.



How is this "good" by any measure?



So for 30% less cost, they could be selling us all 1gb dedicated fiber with no caps for $70/m.



Thanks.... Thanks a lot. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: WTF?! Because spending $200 billion to limit it and keep the prices high will net them a lot more cash in the end then doing as Google has.



They will spend 10x's more to make 2x's more regardless of what is best.

fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 to Bengie25

Member to Bengie25

quote: For $140bil, they could have covered the entire country with 1gb Google Fiber. Broadband providers will spend that much on network expansion and upgrades every two years:



»www.ustelecom.org/broadb ··· er-capex



I believe the chart includes wireless expenditures, but the point is, broadband capex is a VERY expensive proposition and the idea that $140B could fiber the entire U.S. in one year is simply naïve. Broadband providers will spend that much on network expansion and upgrades every two years:I believe the chart includes wireless expenditures, but the point is, broadband capex is a VERY expensive proposition and the idea that $140B could fiber the entire U.S. in one year is simply naïve. Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: WTF?! Not that it could be done in one year. We don't have the man-power for that nor would be want to create that big of a job bubble.



I would be interesting to see how those costs are broken up. Like you said, wireless would fit in there somewhere. And the title said cap-ex for broadband providers, which also includes subsidizing their TV infrastructure since it rides on the same.



And how much of that cost i inflated because of expensive and limited technology to work with copper vs just using fast fiber?



The $140b estimate was I think to cover probably only the 80% of USA in metro areas and that was based on the estimated per-house-pass cost that Google Fiber has in Kansas City.

cork1958

Cork

Premium Member

join:2000-02-26 cork1958 Premium Member In other words....



In other words, shadier ways to implement stuff! "The public outcry from that incident forced the cable industry to implement more intelligent and nuanced forms of traffic management."In other words, shadier ways to implement stuff! your comment..

