Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: FCC's Net Neutrality vote today

  1. #21
    Administrator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    Your right, they will try to get every last $$ they can out of the consumer. Best thing for innovation while using the internet now is to keep it unlimited and not introduce pay per usage packages. The only ones that would really like to raise hell about it are those that think every john boy and billy kid next door are downloading gigs of porn or torrents flying when that isn't the case. It's not that wide spread of a issue and wouldn't be a issue at all if the ISP's would increase funding going back into their infrastructure to catch up with these smaller countries.
    First, I've never said "every john boy and billy kid next door are downloading gigs of..."
    Actually, what I've always pointed out, are such facts that have provided...along the lines of "less than 5% of ISP customers are those abusive types that download/upload way above average amounts of data....but those <5% of users constitute about 85% of the load on ISPs infrastructure"

    Catching up with smaller countries fast futile for the US. First, most of those smaller countries have had gov't subsidized broadband. And most of those smaller countries are very small, have had their cities leveled in recent wars, totally they have a much easier time having fast broadband. Plus..that fast broadband is very small cities, not spread out in the rest of the country.

    Wanting ISPs to increase bandwidth to local nodes so each client of theirs will receive full dedicated bandwidth any/all of the time...well, if you want to see your monthly bill go way up. Because to keep things even marginally affordable to us, ISPs have to follow an oversubscription model. I may like nearly 50 megs of bandwidth to my house, but I don't want to pay for dedicated DS3 to my house...that's around 6 grand per month. I'm fine with that DS3 feeding my local node...and sharing it with my neighbors via the oversubscription model. A hundred 'n something bucks per month is easier on my wallet than 6 grand per month.

    And then there's the other end of the spectrum....the main Gateway that the ISP has to the internet, and which backbone they hop on. That follows the oversubscription model too. But if Comcast were to dedicate 50 megs to each and every client of theirs 24 hours a day...lesseee...lets add up that....say 45 megs....per many clients do they have in my state? Holy cow...they'll need at least a few hundred 10G SONETS just for my state! My bill will be 15 grand per month!
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  2. #22
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Prime reason for things to come...instead of investing a little more capital into their networks to prepare for the future companies like this one just want to increase costs which are far out of reach for what they are getting to almost 2million customers.

    A group of Internet service providers has banded together to fight against regulatory changes they say threaten their survival and the competitiveness of Canada’s telecom industry.

    Recent moves by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission have allowed BCE Inc. to increase the amount it charges to smaller ISPs, which lease space on the national incumbent’s networks. Bell is mandated by the CRTC to share its networks to ensure choice for consumers. On Tuesday, the ISP group sent a letter to the regulator arguing this will crush innovation and lead to huge price increases for more than two million customers.

    With Canadians downloading more data and beginning to stream online video in large amounts, Bell argues that network bandwidth is becoming strained, and more valuable. The CRTC recently allowed Bell to begin charging ISPs by how much their own customers download. In general, the smaller ISPs differentiate their services by offering unlimited packages with no download caps. The companies say the change means that they can no longer do that and that they will have to make expensive changes to the way they monitor customers.

    “Essentially, [Bell] expects us to become their collection agencies for this money, and lose money in the process, or we have to price ourselves out of the market,” said Bill Sandiford, president of the small ISPs group and chief executive officer of TelNet Communications in Oshawa, Ont.

  3. #23
    Administrator YeOldeStonecat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Somewhere along the shoreline in New England
    That only supports my point further....many..most, ISPs purchase their bandwidth from primary carriers. Lets suppose ISPs upgrade their own bandwidth to the ridiculous amounts that you expect..dedicated 100% bandwidth to each and every house . What would they have to purchase from the main carriers (for their backbone to the internet, the gateways) to sustain what they're giving to all their clients at ZERO oversubcription rates. That would be insane.
    MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
    Guinness for Strength!!!

  4. #24
    SG Enthusiast Leatherneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    The Great Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    ...instead of investing a little more capital into their networks to prepare for the future companies like this one just want to increase costs..
    A "little" more capital? No such thing as I've seen the invoices for equipment and that's just in my headend. I can tell you that Comcast spends ungodly amounts on the future and with all digital coming they will find a use for that bandwidth in a heartbeat. It's in their best interest to offer a desired product but it seems some folks have forgotten that without customers there is no paycheck. EVERYONE has an alternative if they aren't happy whether it be satellite, cellular, OTA, WIFI, etc...
    People obviously stick with what works even though it's not perfect. There are legitimate concerns and then there are the people that want 95% of the pie when they paid for 1 slice.


    Tacoma Guitar Forum

  5. #25
    SG Enthusiast Shinobi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    South Carolina
    Blog Entries
    Ok.. Here is what the real deal is people, get ready for the breakdown:

    "Anti" Net Neutrality (as some people are now calling it), is "supported" by a good number of Internet Service Providers (ISP's). There are also several individuals that support "Anti" Net Neutrality.

    ISP's want to limit what you watch / download, by implementing bandwidth "caps" so that you, the end user / consumer, do not get the full speed as their Terms of Service (TOS) states. Some ISP's want to degraded or stop your service altogether if your go over a certain amount of "data" per month, be it downloading files, listening to streaming audio or watching streaming video (EX: Netflix, Hulu, YouTube). The ISP's say, that download applications (P2P, Bit Torrent ECT), audio (Shoutcast / other) and video streaming (EX: Netflix, Hulu, You Tube / other) uses up "too much" bandwidth that degrades the over all service of all of their users.

    What the real reason that ISP's are saying this, is that they have so many "new" end users / consumers that buy their services "every day" that they current infrastructure, nodes and circuits are way overloaded. So they hide behind the idea, that it is these end user applications and services (downloading file programs, listening to streaming audio or watching streaming video) that is to blame. Instead of spending some of their own money (which they are making hand over foot) they blame you.. the end user / consumer in regards to their problem. They want to implement bandwidth caps and also make "tier" service to make you pay more for services that you have been using already. The bottom line, you the end user and consumer will get less than you get now, while the ISP's will get more of your money. That is what "Anti" Net Neutrality really is.

    Now shockingly, there are some individuals that "support" this sort of "Anti" Net Neutrality. Why would anyone support this? There are a few reasons:
    One is that these individuals think that they will get "better" service, because of the bandwidth caps and the so called "tier service plans". Another reason, that this "tier plan" is what the ISP's should of doing in the beginning. That unlimited downloads and bandwidth is wrong and should of never been this way in the first place. This way of thinking, is wrong and is the reason why the ISP's probably will succeed because people just "cave in" and say "ok.." or get duped into the "oh I'm going to get better service on the tier plan deal", instead of saying, "I have this now.. and you want to give me less and make me, give more of my money to your company?!?"

    If the ISP's succeed.. you wait and see how your service is, and how big your ISP bill will be.
    Last edited by Shinobi; 12-25-10 at 03:50 PM.
    Vendor neutral certified in IT Project Management, IT Security, Cisco Networking, Cisco Security, Wide Area Networks, IPv6, IT Hardware, Unix, Linux, and Windows server administration

Similar Threads

  1. Who is going to vote today?
    By Comtrad in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-06-08, 03:45 AM
  2. Go Vote Today
    By chevyman282 in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-07-06, 03:23 PM
  3. Big Medicare vote today in Congress
    By Ghosthunter in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 11-28-03, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts