Net Neutrality it will affect us ALL

[dmccarty]

Sendero,

What IS Net Neutrality is the question. You definition seems to differ from other that I have read. Go to the link I had referenced earlier and look at all of the definitions they have. And it seems like some of the concern is people/companies paying for the bandwith they use. Your concern is that the ISP is going to limit your access.

You said they ISPs will make some websites load slow and other fast. Which ones could they do this to that you would care about?

TBN is one but I dont see how TimeWarner is going to go after TBN. Thankfully.

I can't think of a website that an ISP could performance limit me on that I would care about enough to find another site or just use theirs. I go to a couple of sites everyday. I just don't see TimeWarner limiting these sites.
In no particular order:
drudgereport.com
wral.com
heraldsun
tbn of course
google out of habit
globalsecurity.org
I might hit
cnn.com
usatoday.com
foxnews.com

The news sites I could see an ISP trying to move to one they own. But not one of those sites do I really care about. They are just as good/bad as the rest.

There seems to be two issues that have paying for access/capactiy and limiting access. Which should the CongressCritters protect? Which side do you think they will protect? And do you trust them to do it?

I don't. The system works leave it alone.

Later,
Dan

 

[getut]

dmmcarty.. I think you are missing the main point. The tiered service you are talking about is a completely different animal and is 100% acceptable.

Currently each side, the consumer and the content provider like google pays for the bandwidth that THEY themselves use. They pay that fee to their OWN ISP. Each consumer pays only their own ISP.. no other.

Consumer or business A uses ISP A
Consumer or business B uses ISP B
ISP C, D, and E also exist with their own consumer base.. be it end user or business.

In the current set up (the correct way)... Consumer A (you) tries to get content from Business B. The data is pulled from ISP B, to ISP A and eventually to you. It may have also traversed across ISP C as an intermediary between B and A. You payed ISP A for your bandwidth and Business B payed ISP B for the bandwidth to provide that file to you. All the bandwidth was payed for ONE time.

They want the following scenario to replace the one above:
Consumer A (you) tries to get content from Business B. The data is pulled from ISP B, to ISP A and eventually to you. It may have also traversed across ISP C as an intermediary between B and A. You payed ISP A for your bandwidth and Business B payed ISP B for the bandwidth to provide that file to you. Hint... up until this point it is all the same as above. ISP A and C did not receive any money from Business B in this data transaction. They think they should, so they refuse to carry the traffic and/or use special routers that set the priority to ultra low for this "free" transaction. This creates a scenario where only big business will be able to afford paying 30-40 different ISPs to carry their traffic. The bandwidth has already been payed for one time, but that is not enough to them.
They are also considering tiering the services on the consumer side also. For example, they will set it up to where you can use THEIR search engine portal with ads sold by THEM for free with your monthly bill. Use Google for which they don't receive any ad revenue and get charged extra.

Hope this helps... the tiered system you spoke of is a completely different animal than what they want.

 

[sendero]

Sendero,


I don't. The system works leave it alone.

Later,
Dan

The Net Neutrality bill is a response to what the ISPs are proposing that they be allowed to do.

They are a utility. They should be allowed to send bits to and from your computer at a price agreed to by both parties. And not one thing else.

 

[DANOCHEESE]

Actully I beleive the ones for this are the end ISP. They are in an over sell now. An ISP will buy a chunk of pipe, say for easy math 10Mbs and sell 100 1 Mbs DSL lines. users will not be on a the same time. so it is shared.

Now say google launchs a movie service that allows users to download movies, users are using their connection more often and this eats up the 10 MBS pipe. So the ISp has to buy more.

So to keep users happy ( You can't call Google and complain about your speed) ISP has to add bandwidth. Try and reqoup $$$ from customer or from google???

Take the above and 2.25 to a bar and you will get a beer. My bar seels beer for $2.25

 

[getut]

They are a utility. They should be allowed to send bits to and from your computer at a price agreed to by both parties. And not one thing else.

Exactly.

This is what I said in the eariler post. They should be brought under the common carrier laws just like cable and phone service is already. These are the only (consumer) protections that are going to keep them honest.

If you live in NJ and order a Dell from Texas. Same scenario. Your phone company, and any other intermediary phone company in between doesn't receive any money from Dell for handling the phone call. Dell paying their own phone company is enough.

 

[sendero]

Actully I beleive the ones for this are the end ISP. ...

Take the above and 2.25 to a bar and you will get a beer. My bar seels beer for $2.25

This "oversell" is part of a business strategy to gain market share and cut out competitors. Please explain why I should finance that?

They are free to set their price at whatever they want, and I'm free to try to find an alternative. Going to congress whining about their own business practices is absurd.

 

[hilld]

Actully I beleive the ones for this are the end ISP. They are in an over sell now. An ISP will buy a chunk of pipe, say for easy math 10Mbs and sell 100 1 Mbs DSL lines. users will not be on a the same time. so it is shared.

Now say google launchs a movie service that allows users to download movies, users are using their connection more often and this eats up the 10 MBS pipe. So the ISp has to buy more.

So to keep users happy ( You can't call Google and complain about your speed) ISP has to add bandwidth. Try and reqoup $$$ from customer or from google???

Take the above and 2.25 to a bar and you will get a beer. My bar seels beer for $2.25

That is exactly the reason we are being charged about 6-8% every year more for the same connection. Just look at the cable operators raising their prices in much greater rates than the rates of inflation.

Derek

 

[getut]

So to keep users happy ( You can't call Google and complain about your speed) ISP has to add bandwidth. Try and reqoup $$$ from customer or from google???

This is their own stupidity. If you sell a product labelled as "unlimited internet service" and that unlimited internet service has a maximum bandwidth, then they better be willing to support those users who download as much as that maximum bandwidth can support in a given time span.

If they can't then it is their own fault. They should either advertise what you are TRULY getting (what they are willing to support)... or charge the true price for what they are advertising.

 

[hilld]

This is their own stupidity. If you sell a product labelled as "unlimited internet service" and that unlimited internet service has a maximum bandwidth, then they better be willing to support those users who download as much as that maximum bandwidth can support in a given time span.

If they can't then it is their own fault. They should either advertise what you are TRULY getting (what they are willing to support)... or charge the true price for what they are advertising.

Ding..Ding..Ding - we have a winner.

The companies are selling a product that they don't have any intention of honoring such as unlimited this and unlimited that. If you start using a large portion of their resources, you will get a letter or a call from the vendor. A friend of mine recently signed up for the Verizon unlimited dataplan for his aircard and after 2 months of transferring about 3 gig's each month, Verizon threatened to cancel his account. So much for unlimited. If they don't intend to give you what they advertise, they should sell packages capped at x # of GB/month rather than mislead you. I guess it is all about marketing, what sounds better...

Derek

 

[rswyan]

That is exactly the reason we are being charged about 6-8% every year more for the same connection. Just look at the cable operators raising their prices in much greater rates than the rates of inflation.

Derek

Well I don't have cable ...... but I used to have dual channel ISDN ..... it cost me around $120 per month for the 128 Kbps ISDN line itself (which was an additional phone line) and another $20 to hook to an ISP that offered dual channel ISDN access.

When DSL became available here, several years ago, I chose to go with the fastest service SBC offered (3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps) for $100 per month, which was a promotional price, available for one year. That's an order of magnitude faster for less money.

When that year was up I downgraded to the 1.5 Mbps to 3.0 Mbps service (which was about 1/3 the cost of what I had been paying for their fastest connection.) In a years time the pricing for this new, slightly slower level of service had dropped to about half of what it originally was when I first signed up for DSL.

I recently I recieved an offer from SBC (now AT&T) for a "loyal customer promotion", offering the fastest 3.0 Mbps to 6.0 Mbps service for a discounted rate ..... a whopping $28 per month ..... which I immediately signed up for.

I have all my telecom services thru SBC/AT&T/Cingular - and get a bundle deal/discount. My landline long distance is a flat $20 per month for unlimited service (within the US), and there is no charge for long distance cell calls - plus I have unlimited mobile to mobile (to Cingular customers) and unlimited Nights & Weekends (free minutes.)

Our family has five cell phones on a 2100 minute per month plan ...... last month we used over 11,000 minutes ..... and we weren't charged for any of the minutes over our 2100 minute allotment.

Don't know about others but I'm finding my telecom costs DECREASING and the amount of service I recieve for what I'm paying INCREASING ..... which I figure is a good thing.

Long live free markets and competition !