By the time they all finish fighting about it, google will have their balloons up there and facebook their solar-drones and they will provide connections for free!
http://www.google.com/loon/
http://www.google.com/loon/
By the time they all finish fighting about it, google will have their balloons up there and facebook their solar-drones and they will provide connections for free!
http://www.google.com/loon/
Just long enough to cripple the competition and then the new "plans" come on the scene. Been there, done that when the cell phone competition of was hot and heavy and Internet competition was hot and heavy. Cingular used to bury me in new stuff every time I went in to pay the bill. AT&T bought'em and called me and told me double the price or go away. Same thing with Verizon when they killed off the local ISPs.
Now AT&T is buying the service for that dish on my roof. I am real sure they are going to send me a note telling me how the price is gonna go down. Yeah right.
"won’t risk the gauntlet, thus depriving us of the next fantastic service."
Right. Cuz under the current FCC oversight the internet has been so slow to roll out new and innovative internet based services. It is a non-issue and has been for years. Tell me ONE example of how the FCC stomped a new or innovative internet based service.
Nothing like basing your side of the argument on a boogeyman that doesn't exist. If anything - pulling the FCC out is gonna do more harm to the little guys. We know how things work today - and they work well. Moving to a free market crapshoot of the highest band width bidder wins is not going to have the results you (or the author of that drivel) think they will.
Give it a couple of years running without net neutrality and I am quite sure I will be able to name you many - many examples of how innovation has been stomped on.
And here the exact opposite take how net neutrality was one of the driving forces of the internet revolution:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...booting-the-network-neutrality-debate/361809/
Some quotes:
"In 2007, while the FCC was investigating Comcast’s blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications like BitTorrent, many entrepreneurs told me that they couldn’t get funding because investors were concerned their application would be singled out for discriminatory bandwidth management. ... The bottom line: uncertainty about how new applications and services will be treated on the network does not create a climate conducive to investment."
"If large, established companies can pay ISPs so that their application loads faster or doesn’t count against users’ monthly bandwidth caps, entrepreneurs and start-ups that can’t pay will be unable to compete. This increases the level of investment needed to start a new application, killing the Internet version of the American dream. "
"The FCC’s commitment to and enforcement of this basic principle—that ISPs don’t get to pick winners and losers on the Internet—means Internet users in the U.S. haven’t had to worry about whether ISPs might block or discriminate against certain kinds of content or applications. Innovators who have an idea for a new application have not needed permission from Internet service providers in order to innovate and have been able to realize their ideas at low cost. This is a well-oiled free market at work."
Another similar opinion: http://www.businessinsider.com/fcc-net-neutrality-decision-2014-5
Pay for what? Don't you already pay for the bandwidth that you are allowed? If you have a 1.5 or 10 gig package (or whatever) you have paid for that bandwidth to your home. From that point on it should be as simple as - give me what I searched for at the band width that I paid for. Companies or corps that don't do that should have their peepee whacked.
Now if you are paying for a service and they are not giving it to you, that is a case of fraud and should be handled as such.
T -that is nothing more than a re-write of the first article you posted. Same argument, same bogus claim.
Of all people - I would think that YOU would fight for a 10 meg package to your home should deliver 10 meg of streaming data of WHATEVER you are looking for. Don't mess around with my 10 meg I am paying for.
No Jags, a 10 Meg package should provide up to 10 mbits of bandwidth under ideal conditions. If I'm trying to connect to a site that is poorly managed or can't afford for more bandwidth that is their issue to deal with. If they refuse to pay for more bandwidth or access why should anyone be required to give it to them?
You still haven't made a single logical argument here.
WHAT? You don't think that Billy Bobs Website Hosting is paying for their end of the connection??? Is their some magical FREE pipeline to the backbone operators that I am not aware of??
So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then? Shouldn't the heaviest users pay the most?
So what is the problem with expecting people to pay for the bandwidth that they use then?
We'll see how long Netflix will survive when Comcast and others can offer their own movie streaming service running faster than Netflix's.
Don't forget that this also affects DSL providers. There are several of them. Will they be left behind. Hope not, cable is often not an option for rural services.
For some reason the main players in Europe are surviving fine with an open internet. No fast lane allowed there. And the rates are reasonable.
http://dsl.1und1.de/dsl-mit-vertrag...=ct.showroom.dslpakete.1&linkType=txt#details
And they often pay a lot less for wireless services there too. It's rare for one to have a contract unless one has it for business. This is not about the market dictating what it wants. No one I know of likes being bound to a 2 yr contract to a phone co.. It's just tolerated because there are few reliable alternatives, though T-Mobile and others are starting to introduce more European style programs recently.
And, BB, when they up your monthly price by 5%, just remember when we all wanted to get connections 1/10th that fast in 1997 - for $800-$100 a month (fractional T1's).
T - you are loosing your debating marbles. That is exactly what I am saying. Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line. I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it. These providers are ALREADY getting payed. They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.
When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home. Guess what the other side of the equation is? Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site). So WHO isn't paying their fair share?
T - you are loosing your debating marbles. That is exactly what I am saying. Walmart isn't running their website on a T1 line. I am sure it is much larger than that. And they are paying for it. These providers are ALREADY getting payed. They are trying to find a NEW revenue stream for what they are ALREADY paid for.
When you go to hearth.com you are downloading the data from a PAID for package to your home. Guess what the other side of the equation is? Yep - you probably guessed it by now...the owner of hearth.com UPLOADED that data with a PAID FOR connection of the appropriate size to serve that data to you (and the many others that are searching the site). So WHO isn't paying their fair share?
You don't even have a clue if that will or will not happen. And nothing says that it will.And if this becomes more widely known, one of the competitors is going to start charging less for better service.
Oh fer cripes sake.Your claims still seem to rest on some supposed harm that could happen, not what does happen.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.