>turn it over to the cable companies.
>
>
>Join everybody on the internet and help the FCC do the right thing.
>
>long time now. You did a sensationally good job back in September,
>making 135,343 calls in a single day and shifting the political momentum
>back toward real internet freedom. You been pulling more and more
>** END **
>
> My comment: guess what, if the FCC does not see millions of
>complaints, the cable companies will win, because at that level, even
>their bribe$ will not count.
Uh! I think you be a bit mixed up. Right now the cable companies do control the Internet. The FCC seeks to follow in O'BlaBla's footsteps and make everyone equal... so no paying for a higher speed connection. We all be equal under the eyes of O'BlaBla's FCC :-( ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I don't think so. The providers could still charge consumers for speed. They couldn't charge Netflix extra to *not* throttle their speed. In other words, they couldn't price based on content.
Seems sensible to me. Comcast makes enough money without extorting more out of Amazon or Youtube. Soon Comcast will be shipping their own content over the Internet paths, and less over classic RF "channels", and they will obviously favor their own packets.
I expect classic channel-oriented news-at-10 programming to eventually disappear.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
I don't know what the legislation says, I heard on a tv talk show that prices for access between rich and poor would b equalized. I hope that's not true, it would be Obamacare again, my rates double to pay for someone that can't afford it. We need more competition to reduce prices further. What happened to Wimax and Goggles fiber? Anyone know of a synopsis of the legislation? Mikek
Doesn't make sense to me. FWIG, Netflix uses 30% of the bandwidth of some cable operators. Who pays for that? I don't see a problem with the cable company demanding a kickback from Netflix to pay for their infrastructure. ...and it's only going to get worse.
And you *want* it to get worse (not that I disagree).
Has nothing to do with the speed of your (local) connection.
Rather, it pertains to whether or not "carriers" (i.e., anyone
*between* "you" and "whatever it is you are accessing") can artificially alter the bandwidth of their respective pipes based on the content or upstream source, etc.
Imagine two politicians -- one D, one R -- placing telephone calls to you (to buy^H^H^H solicit your vote). They are located in the same office building -- perhaps in adjoining offices. Their calls will travel over the same bits of infrastructure (wire, etc.).
The telephones that *they* are using are identical.
*Your* phone -- and it's connection to the PSTN -- is unchanged in each scenario.
But, the R's call will be scratchy and full of echoes/dropouts while the D's call will be "high fidelity" -- you'll even hear the coffee pot percolating in *his* office! Because *he* paid the carrier for that extra fidelity (in *transit*).
Perhaps the following is food for thought, with perhaps a slight British s lant:-
1) You might pay for unlimited bytes per month, but your carrier will pay p er byte to get data from "the internet". The big carriers that host netflix (or whatever) make a profit passing the data to the smaller carriers.
2) You are already sort of paying for non-neutrality. Netflix carried over the top of the internet (OTT) is treated like any other data and MUST GET T HERE using packet retries etc. If you pay for a TV channel then it is broad cast to you and individual packets might or might not get to you and the ca rrier can pay a fixed amount to get this data once. Colin
Den tirsdag den 10. februar 2015 kl. 02.59.47 UTC+1 skrev snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz:
you pay for the bandwidth and infrastructure when you pay for your Internet connection it is none of Comcasts business what you use it for
But Comcast etc. would love to get paid twice (and be able to shutdown competition). So they have lots of PR people and lobbyist to try and convince people it is not about that
Title II only makes sense when you think of broadband in terms of "pipes" a nd "content".
The carriers (well, most carriers) have fingers in both pies - which explai ns their financial aversion to Title-II common-carrier treatment.
Content providers without pipes (Netflix, et. al.) obviously have a problem paying a permium to ensure their content gets delivered, since the argumen t is that the individual consumers (as a whole) are paying for the same tra nsport.
Then - add to this - (wireless) carriers offering "unlimited" data plans th at are actually throttled back when the subscriber hits a certain GB limit. In many cases, the throttle is applied regardless of actual network conge stion.
So, it's pretty easy to see how/why the FCC doesn't trust the carriers to p rovide data services in the same equal access manner as voice. (Which rais es the question of whether voice calls are Skype are voice or data.., but t hat's another issue.)
Fundamentally, all this is about is digitizing analog. The industry has go ne from circuit-switched, to packet-switched. Both have latency issues. B ut I personally don't see the "need" to upend the entire regulatory scheme (i.e., Title-II) that we've enjoyed as a country for many, many decades jus t because technology allows the efficient digitization and transport of ana log signals.
That said, I do understand there is a financial / investment scheme at risk here as compared to a non-Title-II scheme, but that's just a cookie jar ar gument really. Folks will still invest without a goverment "license to ste al", just perhaps accompanied by less frenzy.
yes, Netflix buys bandwidth from a company called Cogent
Comcast just wants to be paid twice, with the added bonus that they can stop netflix from working if they decide they don't like the competion or just want more money
Then just stop right there. If you don't know what the legislation says then how can you have an opinion. If you're such an ignorant low-life you need a "talk show host" (and gawd only knows what sub-humanoid you listen to) then it's all over your head.
So even though Netflix already pays Cogent for access to "the Internet" , and I pay Comcast for my access to the "the Internet" Comcast wants to be able to charge Netflix to allow their packets to flow from Cogent to me?
Agreed, seems greedy.
But I also dislike the idea of more govment control, so I don't know what the answer is..
I would say, let Comcast try to block access or throttle netflix, then they are not delivering to me what I paid for which is high speed access to ANY PART of the internet. I would switch ISPs.
Why wouldn't this form of competition work itself out without the govment?
Disallowing competition happens because of paid-off politicians and complacent citizens. ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
The problem is that video on demand can swamp the network with bulk traffic that is time critical as subscribers do tend to get annoyed if it doesn't stream seamlessly and the movie stalls or skips regularly.
Your choice then is not to use Comcast if they don't provide what you want, but given the virtual monopoly for internet access in the US and the price gouging that ensues it will be interesting to see who else you can get your connectivity from. I have some sympathy for the ISPs in that their infrastructure is being swamped by video on demand.
Netflix and the like are not paying their fair share for their usage and total load they present to the network infrastructure.
Who would you choose?
What makes you think they won't have the same problem with Netflix traffic? BBC iPlayer is causing some difficulties for UK ISP backhaul too. The problem is that people are now using their allocated bandwidth in significant sustained amounts and the old contention ratios for ftp, web browsing or basic email transfer no longer hold good. The ISPs have to spend significant money to prevent things grinding to a standstill.
It will. Your ISP will simply charge you extra to use Netflix or any other bulk streaming video service and block it otherwise.
No, I don't agree. We, as customers of the ISP pay for whatever bandwidth tier we are on, and should not have to pay extra depending on WHAT sites we view content from.
If MY cable ISP was to charge all PRODUCERS of content, it could become a HUGE nightmare. They'd have to bill every web site on the net for allowing their content to pass over their portion of the net.
Now, Netflix and other content providers DO pay to get ON the net. I assume Netflix and other large providers act as their own ISPs, but they have to pay PLENTY for the gear enabling that, and power, staff, etc. to keep it running. Eventually, they link to some top-tier backbone, and I'd guess pay something to somebody for that connection.
So, my main point is that if us end users as customers of the ISP CHOOSE to view some content, our ISP shouldn't be charging the providers of that content. If the ISPs can do so, then why can't they charge EVERY content provider? I run a one-man business, and have a web store online. If 50,000 ISPs sent me a monthly bill for $50 each to allow my traffic to pass to interested parties, I'd be out of business in a microsecond.
On the other hand, if my ISP is charging me a bundle because my NEIGHBORS are watching 5 streams of Netflix videos per household
12 hours a day, why not charge the crazy video fiends for their excessive bandwidth use, and not charge me according to "average" use patterns? OR, I guess, they could charge Netflix. But, I'm worried that once that bridge is crossed, all the ISPs would charge all the providers. I get a couple thousand page loads a day, MOSTLY web search bots checking for new pages, and if they charged me $0.10 a page load, it could easily run to $1000 a month. THAT SCARES ME!!!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.