Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#76
masseffect7 wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:28 pm
From an economic perspective, this will cause higher costs for companies that use more bandwidth.
I still havent seen any arguments that would reinforce the assertment that high bandwidth users arent already paying more.

Do connections in the US get cheaper with higher bandwidth?
Because where i live you roughly pay equal to the bandwidth you get (with some conversion factor).
Especially on business connections.
For example one provider of business connections just flat-out calculates 20cent/(mbit/s) for a connection.

So how are high bandwidth business (and private) users not already paying more?
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#77
Net neutrality doesn't allow for ISPs to charge more to companies in order to boost their speed. What ISPs will likely do is charge more to sites like Netflix to keep their speeds high. Netflix will pay the higher fees because it will not want to have a poor user experience due to low speeds that will eventually lead to subscriber loss. ISPs will prioritize the sites that pay over those that don't.

I don't think you really understood my point though. I wasn't talking about what an ISP charges a business or person for internet access, I'm talking about what an ISP charges a website (like Netflix) to use their infrastructure.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#79
So is there something an ISP provides other than up/down bandwidth? And is there a load other than the total bandwidth through their network?
Because if not, users (business or private) who put more load already pay more by their bandwidth fee. If the load is close to the ISP's limit, its charge can be greater-than-linear to discourage the highest users (like streaming servers).
Unless I've misunderstood something, there is no difference between a packet which comes from the ISP's service or from a competing one as far as the infrastructure knows. Only possible difference is that the packet might originate from a server inside the ISP's network, but that shouldn't cause any significant change in load characteristics. If a customer has paid the ISP to deliver n packets to them, it shouldn't matter whence they come. If a customer has paid the ISP to take n packets and deliver them to their respective recipients, it shouldn't matter where they're going.

The main problem with a network where ISPs can inflict extra fees upon services they either don't know or don't like is that they can develop a monopoly in websites on top of the existing monopoly of actual internet services. In this scenario, if you want to stream movies, you could either suffer poor user experience with a service that's competitive elsewhere or pay a premium to use the ISP's choice of service at full bandwidth. That latter service has no competition to drive its price down, because its competitors can't provide their service. The internet has been largely free of total monopolies because you can always go to someone else if they provide the service better. But now that's contingent upon your ISP allowing that service's data to reach you at a competitive rate. If you don't like this policy, you can't just move to an ISP that has a different one because they're the only ones that service your area.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#81
0111narwhalz wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:41 pm
So is there something an ISP provides other than up/down bandwidth? And is there a load other than the total bandwidth through their network?
Because if not, users (business or private) who put more load already pay more by their bandwidth fee. If the load is close to the ISP's limit, its charge can be greater-than-linear to discourage the highest users (like streaming servers).
This is not the issue. The issue is ISPs charging sites more simply because they don't like them - or blocking them entirely from reaching their users. The sources I linked earlier in the thread list a good number of examples where this already happened before the Net Neutrality (uppercase) laws were put in place. The issue is also charging users separately by site, which has not happened yet.

With net neutrality, all sites and users must be charged with a common set of rules - they cannot be discriminated against. Without net neutrality, ISPs may treat all parts of data exactly how they want to treat them - and they can and do intercept packets to look at their contents and information. Up until now, they haven't been allowed to treat any parts differently.
Unless I've misunderstood something, there is no difference between a packet which comes from the ISP's service or from a competing one as far as the infrastructure knows.
You have misunderstood. If only the source and destination could read packets, the NSA would never have existed.
If a customer has paid the ISP to deliver n packets to them, it shouldn't matter whence they come. If a customer has paid the ISP to take n packets and deliver them to their respective recipients, it shouldn't matter where they're going.
This is the core concept of net neutrality: all data should be treated equally. It doesn't matter where it comes from, or where it goes. You can charge x dollars for x bandwidth, and x more dollars for x more bandwidth, but all customers must be offered the same prices - both on the user end, and the site end. (Until now, thanks to the FCC obliterating net neutrality.)


I live in an area where there is no comcast, charter, verizon, AT&T, or whatever. There is only Windstream. They are the only ISP for most (all?) of Georgia. If you want internet, you have to deal with Windstream. If you want to deal with something else? Tough. They have the monopoly. They offer terrible service for exorbitant prices. I have download speeds of up to about 500 KB/s. Upload is about 32 KB/s. This is one fifteenth of the national average. The service goes out frequently. Without any competition, they can charge whatever they want for as bad of service as they feel like giving us. We can complain, but with no one else to go to, we can't do anything about it - they have a monopoly here. Net neutrality kept them from charging us by site, but now we don't even have that.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#83
Cody wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:25 pm
Talvieno wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:52 pm
I have download speeds of up to about 500 KB/s. Upload is about 32 KB/s.
Ouch!
I wish, my download and upload speeds are up to 128KB/s. I suppose I have a better upload, but I would sacrifice that in a second for faster download.
A life well lived only happens once.
Seems deep until you think about it.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#85
I think Tal's situation with Windstream (and I've had similar experience with them in the past) shows the damage ISP monopolies can cause. While net neutrality is an important issue that needs to be debated and discussed, ISP monopolies are also a very important issue that I think isn't addressed enough.

If you want to have an impact on internet policy, you are more likely to be able to cause change with ISP monopolies because these policies are usually done more locally. I would encourage you to contact city council reps, county reps, and state reps about ISP monopolies.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#86
masseffect7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:53 am
I would encourage you to contact city council reps, county reps, and state reps about ISP monopolies.
Because "call your [relevant representative]" worked so well with NN?
Not saying you shouldnt do it, i just doubt how useful it is to call your local representative about breaking monopolies (which are occasionally legally enforced by briber.. err.. lobbyism induced law bullshittery) when a rule change that didnt touch the monopolies and "just" influenced how much ISPs can milk their unwilling customers was removed very forcefully by bribery.

I'd also still like to know how an online service provider paying for bandwidth is somehow not paying for infrastructure usage whereas the same transaction on private customer side is perfectly fine.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#87
masseffect7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:53 am
I think Tal's situation with Windstream (and I've had similar experience with them in the past) shows the damage ISP monopolies can cause. While net neutrality is an important issue that needs to be debated and discussed, ISP monopolies are also a very important issue that I think isn't addressed enough.
Completely agree. These monopolies should be legally defined as such. It should never have become a thing.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#88
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:26 am
masseffect7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:53 am
I would encourage you to contact city council reps, county reps, and state reps about ISP monopolies.
Because "call your [relevant representative]" worked so well with NN?
Not saying you shouldnt do it, i just doubt how useful it is to call your local representative about breaking monopolies (which are occasionally legally enforced by briber.. err.. lobbyism induced law bullshittery) when a rule change that didnt touch the monopolies and "just" influenced how much ISPs can milk their unwilling customers was removed very forcefully by bribery.
I understand why you don't get this, because you aren't from the US and likely have less familiarity with our politics, but power is less centralized in the US than it is in Europe. It's easier to cause change at the city, county, and state level. Local reps are far more responsive to concerns than federal reps just based on the fact that they represent fewer people. It's also easier to get a consensus when you're dealing with a smaller group of people, such as in a city, state, or county than in a large nation such as the US that spans a continent and contains people with a enormous variety of interests. Strategies that might not work at the federal level can work at the local level in the US, and I've seen it done many times firsthand.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#89
Talvieno wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:56 am
masseffect7 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:53 am
I think Tal's situation with Windstream (and I've had similar experience with them in the past) shows the damage ISP monopolies can cause. While net neutrality is an important issue that needs to be debated and discussed, ISP monopolies are also a very important issue that I think isn't addressed enough.
Completely agree. These monopolies should be legally defined as such. It should never have become a thing.
Won't work. Monopolies primarily operate in remote areas. Carriers in sparsely populated, rural, areas operate in large part based on government subsidies. Good luck getting additional funding in the current political (tax) climate to promote competition (or improved services). In fact, Verizon and AT&T are looking to shed old, wireline, services. I expect that CenturyLink (now owners of the second largest fiberoptic network in the country) will follow suit. Potential buyers for copper networks are scarce and almost invariably in financial difficulties (Windstream and Frontier being prime examples) due to a decreasing subscriber base coupled with fixed maintenance costs.

Best bet for improved Internet service outside of urban areas is wireless.

Government regulations are a necessity exactly because broadband services and pricing are not determined by free market forces. They never have been.

As a footnote, the amount of corporate welfare in the US puts the lie to the free market orthodoxy of the Republican party.
I know not what life is, nor death.
Year in year out-all but a dream.
Both Heaven and Hell are left behind;
I stand in the moonlit dawn,
Free from clouds of attachment.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron