Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 59 of 59
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #41  
    This is the one issue I have against Verizon. I'll use other companies that offer flat rates.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by angiest View Post
    I selected company X to replace electrons I take off the power grid. It could be based on price, name recognition, "green" energy, or whatever. I am their customer, but they are customers of Centerpoint Energy, which is the local (regulated) utility who is in charge of the power lines. They charge certain fees to my REP who then pass those on to me, which is how maintenance of the physical infrastructure is funded, as well as providing the compay's revenue. A startup ISP would still have to build portions of their infrastructure, but act as a customer of whoever owns the cable or phone line, or fiber, or whatever.
    I understand this, however, why should I have to go through 2 or 3 extra levels. It adds costs, it adds levels of management that I dont need. Go direct. Save some money.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #43  
    Here it is again. Where do you stand on this? I'm not sure that most people fully appreciate the impact this may have on their lives.

    FCC moves to ensure ‘net neutrality’
    By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York

    Published: November 20 2010 00:49 | Last updated: November 20 2010 00:49

    The Federal Communications Commission is expected to announce plans next week for regulations that would forbid internet service providers from blocking or favouring content online.

    The so-called “net neutrality” rules could be passed by the commission as early as December 15. The move would fulfil a campaign promise by President Barack Obama and infuriate the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill, which has said it would oppose the plan, but would have little power to stop it.

    The FCC called the talk “speculative”, but industry executives familiar with its plan said they expected regulations to be launched to ensure ISPs could not hinder content delivery.

    The rules are expected to be modelled after legislation hammered out earlier this year by Congressman Henry Waxman, the outgoing Democratic chairman of the House energy and commerce committee.

    That legislation, which had won support from most big telecom and cable companies but not from Republicans in Congress, would have prohibited wireless carriers from blocking websites and prevented phone and cable groups from “unjustly or unreasonably” discriminating against lawful internet traffic.

    Although most telecom and cable companies initially resisted the push by Mr Genachowski and some Democrats to set net neutrality standards, the move could be begrudgingly welcomed by some of them.

    If the FCC passes such regulations it would likely defer – at least temporarily – a separate plan endorsed by Mr Genachowski for broadband providers to be subjected to a tighter regulatory regime known as “Title II”, which would open the door to price controls and other tough new rules.

    The FCC’s expected move could also benefit Comcast, the largest US cable operator, as it had feared that it alone would be subject to net neutrality regulations as part of its proposed $30bn takeover of NBC Universal.

    Should the FCC instead design an industry-wide policy, that might also speed regulators’ review of the NBCU deal, which hinges on how to regulate the fast-growing online video market.

    Regulators have focused on whether Comcast could use its network to favour NBC Universal content, or protect cable revenues by hobbling emerging services such as Hulu, the online video site, or Netflix’s streamed films.

    Disputes between cable system operators and broadcasters over fees for the carriage of their channels have also sparked a debate about whether similar rules should apply to online video sites as to cable and satellite operators.

    Opponents argue that this would amount to the FCC regulating the rapidly-evolving online video industry.

    Republicans on Capitol Hill responded to Mr Genachowski’s expected move with anger. In a letter, 18 members from the House energy committee asked him not to move forward with the plan.

    “Reigniting the network neutrality debate will only distract us from [other] work [at the FCC] and further jeopardise investment, innovation, and jobs,” they wrote.

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #44  
    Sounds like they're more worried about finally being forced to start dealing with media delivery over the net instead of trying to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.
  5. #45  
    net flix has created a huge problem here in canada, the bottle neck and band throttling is huge. i pay for 7 meg service, when i signed up a year ago with Bell i got 7-9 megs, now im lucky if i get 3 and thats in the middle of the night. when i track it back, i saw a spike in my speeds with in a week or so of netflix being offered.. Canada like the States has a huge issue in upgrading the infrastructure to deliver the band width. I dont see a fix any time soon. as in years.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  6. #46  
    In the US the problem isn't the infrastructure per-say anymore, it's copyrights and legal stuff. The infrastructure in the US is hit or miss, either you are in an area with good broadband service or an area without. The variance is if the local offices service their equipment well or not.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    net flix has created a huge problem here in canada, the bottle neck and band throttling is huge. i pay for 7 meg service, when i signed up a year ago with Bell i got 7-9 megs, now im lucky if i get 3 and thats in the middle of the night. when i track it back, i saw a spike in my speeds with in a week or so of netflix being offered.. Canada like the States has a huge issue in upgrading the infrastructure to deliver the band width. I dont see a fix any time soon. as in years.
    This doesn't mean that we need government regulation, does it?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This doesn't mean that we need government regulation, does it?
    That would depend on the cause. If it's that there is a monopoly or trust and the business is abusing that control by not improving their equipment when they could be then regulation would be something you'd use as a cattle prod.

    If the issue is a limitation because of costs and available funds then you'd need to look into other options. And of course one of those options could be to just "grin and bare" it.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This doesn't mean that we need government regulation, does it?
    up here in the great white north we have govt regs in place already, the contracts say UP TO 7 meg service, sometimes they exceed that as i have stated.
    Define govt regs, do you want pedophile sites popping up on your home page?? Do you want your information sold to some off shore yo yo who blows up your inbox, mailbox and phone with crap. With everything comes the ying and the yang. you have one, so by default you get the other.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    up here in the great white north we have govt regs in place already, the contracts say UP TO 7 meg service, sometimes they exceed that as i have stated.
    Define govt regs, do you want pedophile sites popping up on your home page?? Do you want your information sold to some off shore yo yo who blows up your inbox, mailbox and phone with crap. With everything comes the ying and the yang. you have one, so by default you get the other.
    There's a huge difference btwn regulating and law enforcement. You're talking about security, and they're talking about whether or not to allow ISPs the right to block certain traffic... this in effect puts the messaging and information into the hands of your ISP.

    It appears that you didn't read the article I just posted, xForsaken. You're off topic, I'm afraid.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. #51  
    is this any different than say, what is carried on a given tv channel? Fox has program X, CNN has program Y, etc etc. you buy the right to show a given program or product. What is the difference?
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    is this any different than say, what is carried on a given tv channel? Fox has program X, CNN has program Y, etc etc. you buy the right to show a given program or product. What is the difference?
    I'm not saying it's different. But let's say they own CNN, decide to block FOX, and they're the only game in town. That ok with you?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I've mulled this around a bit, and concluded that the goverment should really keep it's mittens out of it. If anything, perhaps they should look in to Comcast's monopolies of certain locations, so better more competitive service provider options will become available for any given locale.
    If they have a monopoly, then they need to be declared common carriers which would require them to transport data indiscriminately.

    That was the model that the internet was based on and IMHO, that's how an ISP should behave. However, the problem with the cable companies is that they're trying to extract extra fees from their users via premium services at the determent to competitors. If Comcast decided to offer a video on demand service for a subscription, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. They could charge their subscribers an extra fee and block it from any IP address outside of their network. That would be fine. However, what many suspect Comcast and the other teleco's of trying to do is to degrade the service for their competitors because they have the idea that their competitors are "using their network for free". No, your customers are using the bandwidth that they paid for to access content that they want. They can still be a common carrier and deal with bandwidth hogs.

    The same is true for the wireless carriers. Verizon would love to only route your traffic to sites where they get a cut of those sites' profit. If that's what users wanted, they would still be on AOL.

    I don't see net neutrality as a form of heavy handed government regulation. The telecoms just have to transport data indiscriminately. Given that people in the US pay way too much for the amount of bandwidth they are offered, the telecoms' excuse that being common carriers would drive them out of business is a sick joke.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Here it is again. Where do you stand on this? I'm not sure that most people fully appreciate the impact this may have on their lives.
    I think most people don't fully appreciate how sweet the telecoms have it. They have _guaranteed_ profit levels for providing a public service. They have special rules and regulations on building their infrastructure which guarantee they will recoup their investment for this public service. Yes, their infrastructure costs are very expensive, but they also make a _lot_ of money because of their special government concessions. I'm probably one of the most classically libertarian posters here, but this is certainly one of the cases where government is fully in the right. If we are going to grant these monopolies (or oligopolies) in the first place, then their special privileges need to be balanced out by special restrictions.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm not saying it's different. But let's say they own CNN, decide to block FOX, and they're the only game in town. That ok with you?
    Actually, Yes, that is the free market way isnt it... I would suggest that if a cable or sat carrier owned NBC, and chose not to carry CBS that would be their right. It would be your right, to not buy that product. If you can not get what you want, than you go with out or go with a lesser product.

    I would no more support NBC being required to carry CBS programming, than demand that all ISPs be required to carry it all. A service is a service, you buy what you can, if a given ISP does not carry or chooses not to carry a product than thats the way it is.

    My fear, in demanding "net Neutrality" you create a cost problem, ie, you have to carry us, and this is what we are going to charge you for it. Which is past down to us, the consumer of the product. Whether we want to view a given site or not. We would be required to pay for it. The next arguement will be, I dont want to view site X, why should i have to pay for it??
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Actually, Yes, that is the free market way isnt it... I would suggest that if a cable or sat carrier owned NBC, and chose not to carry CBS that would be their right. It would be your right, to not buy that product. If you can not get what you want, than you go with out or go with a lesser product.
    You know, I'm with you in spirit on this, totally. But the problem is that your cable company has the monopoly in your area. You *don't* have the choice like, say, if you're buying a car - if one dealer doesn't have exactly what you want, you can walk over to the next lot and find the same car with the right packages and features just for you.

    If you don't like what COMCAST has to offer, you have very limited alternatives, if any at all.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You know, I'm with you in spirit on this, totally. But the problem is that your cable company has the monopoly in your area. You *don't* have the choice like, say, if you're buying a car - if one dealer doesn't have exactly what you want, you can walk over to the next lot and find the same car with the right packages and features just for you.

    If you don't like what COMCAST has to offer, you have very limited alternatives, if any at all.
    i will point to the slippery slope, you allow one exception to the rule, you have to allow others, isnt that where govt regulation came frome in the first place???
    i might add, oh damn I will, lol, if Comcast for example can not or will not supply the given item, wouldnt that help end the monopoly in certain areas? Creating more choice for you the consumer?!?
    To be fair Micael, this is not an arguement that anyone can win. I, as you know, am from Canada, and we all ready have that govt regulation in place. To the nth degree. I have seen it from both sides. you are right about the neutrality issues, however, it does create a slippery slope. Once you start down it.......
    Last edited by xForsaken; 11/23/2010 at 02:27 PM.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  18. #59  
    I would just wait out this whole net neutrality thing. Supposedly the cost required to transmit data over networks halves every year or so, mimicking Moore's Law. Pretty soon what it costs to transmit a video will be what it used to cost to transmit a geocities site in '99. Then the whole net neutrality debate will be moot, since service providers won't be able to hide behind the cost argument to justify slowing service, and if they continue to do so, an investigation would be necessary.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions