34 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Heffay, on 20 May 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

Pollution in Beijing is a great example of what happens to an unregulated business economy.

Unregulated AND the government has only had their current tort law against polluters since 2009; I have no idea if it's actually functioning, and from what I can see, it doesn't force the polluter to stop the damaging pollution immediately. It simply forces them to assume damages.

Under english tort law, the polluter MUST stop the action immediately AND assumes the damages they are responsible for.

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 21 May 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Alright lets get rid of ELO then. Lets get rid of any tonnage matchmaking as well. The free market will sort itself out.

You know, you could actually stop and ask what a person intends, instead of presuming whatever you think they intend.

Stereotypes aren't the best, especially when you are interacting with a person more than willing to answer questions and tell you what he means.

Quote

Rules just lead to metagaming.

This is a ludicrous conclusion. I post that regulations (the attempt to stop someone beforehand by restricting his options) are bad; I than post the alternative that those who do wrong should be punished, and now it somehow means ... rules are bad, and lead to metagaming?

Because it keeps getting dragged into the discussion, and people don't seem to bother to make the connection to "punish wrongdoers," I'll state it bluntly:

I believe a free market is one in which you are free to do anything morally right, and NOT free to do wrong.

Anarchy (everyone able to do whatever they desire) is NOT freedom and does NOT make a free market.


---

Grimmrog, on 21 May 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

Unfortunately, it IS necessary. 90% of private nettraffic is caused by only a few people. But yet they all pay the same price.
But is it fair that then literally the non heavy user pay for the heavy users laods? Not really. And Networks already have troubles with too much traffic. Bandwith is a ressource and its limited. Imagine now everyone else would claim as much traffic as those heavy load users. The networks wouldn't work anymore at all. And bandwith is not a "free" ressource at all. Its a network build by companies, a network taht needs to be supplied with power, maintained and renewed. Thats not like air around you for free or a single pay to setup investment.

NN wouldn't fix this. It would simply change the landscape.

---

Honestly, I think there's a lot of fraud (lying about what they're selling) going on in the ISP industry, when they sell "a pipe of this bandwidth," and yet they shape traffic, have download limits, throttle speed, etc.

ISPs can't sell a simple "pipe of this size" ... because they can't, they turn around and treat it as a usage of the network sale. That's fraud.

They should do something like sell a latency and bandwidth size, and than once the initial hookup fees are paid, *charge by actual usage,* and do so openly with the customer.

Those customers who like to waste time on youtube watching HD stuff all day who otherwise couldn't afford it would than be given the choice of paying more (thus helping to expand the network capacity), or curbing their usage.

Edited by Pht, 21 May 2014 - 11:20 AM.

[DeathlyEyes]

Grimmrog, on 21 May 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

Unfortunately, it IS necessary. 90% of private nettraffic is caused by only a few people. But yet they all pay the same price.
But is it fair that then literally the non heavy user pay for the heavy users laods? Not really. And Networks already have troubles with too much traffic. Bandwith is a ressource and its limited. Imagine now everyone else would claim as much traffic as those heavy load users. The networks wouldn't work anymore at all. And bandwith is not a "free" ressource at all. Its a network build by companies, a network taht needs to be supplied with power, maintained and renewed. Thats not like air around you for free or a single pay to setup investment.

And there is a lot of more trouble. Yes charging companies like youtube IS a good idea. Because yet, these companies occupy a lot of these ressources without having to pay for at all.
Look at todays Internet pages. some spam you with advertising videos, these videos are what they make money with, but yet these videos do need amassive amount of bandwith. Why should such a site not be penalised over another side just making a small ad in a few latters?
Why does youtube, when you replay a video, RELAOD THE ENTIRE VIDEO? Thats an massively waste of bandwith as a ressource.

And for those who want a easier example:

Imagine a restaurant is making a "All you can eat" As long as the income is better than the costs, this will last. But our consumers with time went fat, and their stomaches expanded. Now they can eat 4x as much as the beginning of the "all you can eat" campaign. You would then simply quit the compain, or raise prizes. But raising prizes is hardly possible by all the ISP providers competitors you have around. And most people do not even exceed the the regular prized all you can eat. because it turned out, that not everyone went fat. Only one guy turned fat eating 100x more while the other 10 kept eating the regular potion. And so you would redefine prices to stop that one guy ruining the "all you can eat" experience for many.

You guys should watch the Simpsons Episode "The frying dutchman"

ISP's can not deliver the "all you can laod" experience, because this is not possible. Not even IF they would have enough money to upgrade the Netweork, they would not be able to do this. Because this needs time and workers of required skills. And these are lacking also.


So I may ask you: Does net neutrality ever meant that one is allowed to claim as much "Internet" ressource as his greedyness wants? Not really, It went over the top and the majority does suffer from it. Look what happens on weeknds, when your neighbors whole family is steraming videos all day, even if they may just sit at launch having their PC's runnind in another room.You suffer too from it, since you use the same connecton and maybe its your PPK fire command getting lost in the Network due to too much traffic. Gaming doesn't even requires much traffic at all.

@SLDF DeathlyEyes

DO you pay for BOTH? connection AND streaming?
I guess you only pay for the connection, but not for thr stream.
But thats what the topic is about, when youtube would have to pay for their heavy load, they would then have to charge its customers. And then Customers would have to pay for that stream. But atm nearly anyone is just paying for the connection, and this is basially juts buying the a truck. But the size of the truck does NOT include the load of sand you want to transport. You would have to pay for the Sand itself too.

A way better solution would be an "autocharging feature" where basically No one would have to pay for the Connection (Truck) and all you do is to pay for the load. So the Sand comes free of package (Truck) since the Trucks cost are in the background paid by the company sending you the sand. So when Youtube basically would pay the ISP with the money of the people, instead of everyone paying ISP and Youtube.

I pay for my internet connection, netflix and hulu. Netflix and Hulu both pay for their internet connections. My ISP limits my data based on the speed I get. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is my ISP limiting types of traffic. They shouldn't care if I am using my data to stream a movie, play a game, download a game or browse the web. It's their responsibility to provide me the speeds I pay for monthly. It's not my fault if I don't pay for cable because a competing service satisfies me more than their offered services. Even if I were streaming youtube. I am still supporting youtube by watching their ads. On top of this Youtube pays their ISP company to get bandwidth. I am paying my company for bandwidth. This is totally unacceptable behavior by the ISP. The only thing they are trying to do is force people to buy their cable and snuff off their competition.

Pht, on 21 May 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Unregulated AND the government has only had their current tort law against polluters since 2009; I have no idea if it's actually functioning, and from what I can see, it doesn't force the polluter to stop the damaging pollution immediately. It simply forces them to assume damages.

Under english tort law, the polluter MUST stop the action immediately AND assumes the damages they are responsible for.



You know, you could actually stop and ask what a person intends, instead of presuming whatever you think they intend.

Stereotypes aren't the best, especially when you are interacting with a person more than willing to answer questions and tell you what he means.



This is a ludicrous conclusion. I post that regulations (the attempt to stop someone beforehand by restricting his options) are bad; I than post the alternative that those who do wrong should be punished, and now it somehow means ... rules are bad, and lead to metagaming?

Because it keeps getting dragged into the discussion, and people don't seem to bother to make the connection to "punish wrongdoers," I'll state it bluntly:

I believe a free market is one in which you are free to do anything morally right, and NOT free to do wrong.

Anarchy (everyone able to do whatever they desire) is NOT freedom and does NOT make a free market.


---



NN wouldn't fix this. It would simply change the landscape.

---

Honestly, I think there's a lot of fraud (lying about what they're selling) going on in the ISP industry, when they sell "a pipe of this bandwidth," and yet they shape traffic, have download limits, throttle speed, etc.

ISPs can't sell a simple "pipe of this size" ... because they can't, they turn around and treat it as a usage of the network sale. That's fraud.

They should do something like sell a latency and bandwidth size, and than once the initial hookup fees are paid, *charge by actual usage,* and do so openly with the customer.

Those customers who like to waste time on youtube watching HD stuff all day who otherwise couldn't afford it would than be given the choice of paying more (thus helping to expand the network capacity), or curbing their usage.

None of the countries in the top 20 for internet speeds use this practice. It's not viable and a terrible idea. Regulation works fine. it worked fine until the FCC was forced to stop because ISPs weren't listed as common carriers.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 21 May 2014 - 10:13 PM.

[Grimmrog]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 21 May 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

I pay for my internet connection, netflix and hulu. Netflix and Hulu both pay for their internet connections. My ISP limits my data based on the speed I get. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is my ISP limiting types of traffic. They shouldn't care if I am using my data to stream a movie, play a game, download a game or browse the web. It's their responsibility to provide me the speeds I pay for monthly. It's not my fault if I don't pay for cable because a competing service satisfies me more than their offered services. Even if I were streaming youtube. I am still supporting youtube by watching their ads. On top of this Youtube pays their ISP company to get bandwidth. I am paying my company for bandwidth. This is totally unacceptable behavior by the ISP. The only thing they are trying to do is force people to buy their cable and snuff off their competition.



None of the countries in the top 20 for internet speeds use this practice. It's not viable and a terrible idea. Regulation works fine. it worked fine until the FCC was forced to stop because ISPs weren't listed as common carriers.

I am not sur,e but plans in germany are, that they will limit your traffic on datasize, So it wouldn't care if you use your 10GB allowed traffic is YT, any Movie site or gaming.
But in japan stuff is already similar. Some steraming sites do offer you "premium" accounts. If you do not own one and traffic is heavy you just get a lower bandwith and ql of the movies.
In return to that, you need to register to use these pages, even to sue them for free.
It is just a different concept.

So on Nicovideo you have 3 options.

not being registerd, No service
being registered regular service
premium account, full service.

Nico charges you, and pays the ISP.

The current think will just be the same, just with having the ISP doing the "regulation"

So the ISP will charge you if you wanna premium nico, or allows you to get the "cheaper" lower service version. Or if you get an unregistered non service level.

The outcome would be the same, just the one doing the management of the different servicelevels is another one.

Now imagine this:

There is youtube having the same model now as Nicovideo. There is Netflix having the same model, There is Hulu having this, Suddenly also Steam would have this.
At that moment you would now personally have to handle about all those service levels on all those platforms manually. The more you would use, the more of a mess this would be.
So it would be a lot more easy for the regular User, that is not familiar with PC, Internet and stuff as many of us are, when the ISP would handle this. Since this is then an automatic single point of management.

ISP's changed the datasize model to flatrates for some very simple reasons. Billing. A billing system that charges you 30$ per month just checking that you have a valid contract is easy to set up and chap to maintain. Also this kind of contract is a lot more easy to plan income with. But having to collect all traffic data and sort them out per user and whatever is a HUGE technical challange that in its implementation will cost Multimillion dollars. Alone servers and programmign the software for calculating processing this all is massively expensive. ISP's wouldn't go that way if it wouldn't be necessary. They can save a lot more money and keeping up profit by keeping a simple Billign system. But at this point in our world, the flatrate system doesn't works anymore. Internet traffic increased way too much.

Flatrates were always a combined costing. So when paul downoads 1GB between 8 and 9pm, we can give him full speed. When Sarah downloads 1GB between 7 and 8, we can both sell them full speed.
Do you know why contracts always say: "up to X Mbi/s" because when Sarah and Paul both laod their 1 GB at the same time, they may not get the full speed. So be happy, that they all the time allowed you to go over the average speed because others aren't using the net.
And now the Issue is the current contracts won't be able to work, since the traffic is so much, that you less and less get those speeds they gave you with your contract. And so as law of supply and demand works, this will increase the price. Because the ISP can not simply increase the supply that easily. And so they all have to reassing the contracts.

Thats also your Issue, you say your pay your ISP for Speed X. And now your ISP can not deliver you that speed anymore. What now? wanna change to another ISP? that may not even be possible, because they may not run these contracts anymore. Because they can not ensure you these speeds too. For the same reasons.

We are just right now, in a change of the current state of the art because the former internet traffix which was kinda "unlimited ressource" is now limited. People make more noise about this as it is worth it. But look at you, you are paying netflix, would it differ that much, if you ISP would charge you directly instead of netflix? Oh btw, in old days directly paying via Internet connection bill was an option many sites used. It later went unpopular, since many sites "charged customers" without them noticing, which actually was scam. By this and invention of flatrates, this system died off slowly. I guess we run into something similar again, which then just needs some up to date scam protection.

[DeathlyEyes]

Grimmrog, on 22 May 2014 - 02:25 AM, said:

I am not sur,e but plans in germany are, that they will limit your traffic on datasize, So it wouldn't care if you use your 10GB allowed traffic is YT, any Movie site or gaming.
But in japan stuff is already similar. Some steraming sites do offer you "premium" accounts. If you do not own one and traffic is heavy you just get a lower bandwith and ql of the movies.
In return to that, you need to register to use these pages, even to sue them for free.
It is just a different concept.

We also have data limits right now, which I am fine with. What they are proposing to do is be able to block off or severely limit your data usage to specific websites unless you pay a fee in addition to what they already charge you to get internet service and in addition to what you are paying to netflix to use their streaming service.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 22 May 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Grimmrog]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 22 May 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

We also have data limits right now, which I am fine with. What they are proposing to do is be able to block off or severely limit your data usage to specific websites unless you pay a fee in addition to what they already charge you to get internet service and in addition to what you are paying to netflix to use their streaming service.

But whats the different to said nicovideo Page? Its basically just a youtube for the japans. And without registered, no use (block) with register, limited data use. Full use only with premium.

Thats the same. So when you want to use it unlimited, you also have to pay a fee. It really is the same by design. It is just a different person who charges you.

So where si the difference between the ISP doing the management for X Websites, or if it is X Websites itself? For you its only the face chargign you, but the mechnic behind is the same: you pay for website X.

And yes now youtube is free, but it wouldn't last free for all time. If the ISP's wouldn't soon charge you, then the ISP's would horroibly increase youtubes costs for the connection. And shortly after this, youtube would directlycharge you anways.

That change is coming, and its rarely a difference by the system, if every site will charge you directly or your ISP does.

The only guys who are really qqing about these may be thse enjoying serveral sites "for free" that they do not want their parents or wife to know of. because this may later be visible on the bills.

[DeathlyEyes]

Grimmrog, on 22 May 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

But whats the different to said nicovideo Page? Its basically just a youtube for the japans. And without registered, no use (block) with register, limited data use. Full use only with premium.

Thats the same. So when you want to use it unlimited, you also have to pay a fee. It really is the same by design. It is just a different person who charges you.

So where si the difference between the ISP doing the management for X Websites, or if it is X Websites itself? For you its only the face chargign you, but the mechnic behind is the same: you pay for website X.

And yes now youtube is free, but it wouldn't last free for all time. If the ISP's wouldn't soon charge you, then the ISP's would horroibly increase youtubes costs for the connection. And shortly after this, youtube would directlycharge you anways.

I don't think you are quite understanding what they are doing. The ISP itself is wanting charge an extra fee for you to access Netflix or to use services such as steam. This fee isn't being given to the company whose service you are using. Nor are you exceeding your data allotment. What they are trying to do is give you a 300 GB data cap with your 30mbps connection. Then they say "well if you want to use netflix we will charge you personally another 30 dollars a month" or if you want to download games using a digital distribution service such as steam or origin that's another additional 30 dollars a month." This is different from your example because you are paying a premium fee to the content provider not the ISP in which you are already paying for data from.

The reason it's acceptable in your example is the higher cost of sreaming the video from the content provider is passed on to the customer. They have to pay their internet bill as well which is higher with the higher quality streams because they need to have more bandwidth. The cable company is already selling you a service that provides you with a chunk of data and bandwidth. Now they are trying to itemize it to squeeze more money out and discourage people from streaming to for those people to use their provided services.

Think of it this way. You pay a toll to use a bridge and are told you can only carry 1000 pounds of cargo over it. This is because the cost of the toll estimates 1000 pounds of wear crossing the bridge. You go to cross the bridge but wait, the operator of the bridge sells cheese burgers to the town you are entering and you have 500 pounds of cheese burgers on your truck. The bridge operator then tells you to pay an extra toll because you are carrying cheese brugers because his profits will go down if you take the cheese burgers into town. This is essentially what cable companies are trying to do. Only you are paying to take in a certain amount of data into your house, the cable company provides TV shows and is trying to charge you extra to watch streamed video because they want to provide you tv service.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 22 May 2014 - 08:26 AM.

[Grimmrog]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 22 May 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I don't think you are quite understanding what they are doing. The ISP itself is wanting charge an extra fee for you to access Netflix or to use services such as steam. This fee isn't being given to the company whose service you are using. Nor are you exceeding your data allotment. What they are trying to do is give you a 300 GB data cap with your 30mbps connection. Then they say "well if you want to use netflix we will charge you personally another 30 dollars a month" or if you want to download games using a digital distribution service such as steam or origin that's another additional 30 dollars a month." This is different from your example because you are paying a premium fee to the content provider not the ISP in which you are already paying for data from.

The reason it's acceptable in your example is the higher cost of sreaming the video from the content provider is passed on to the customer. They have to pay their internet bill as well which is higher with the higher quality streams because they need to have more bandwidth. The cable company is already selling you a service that provides you with a chunk of data and bandwidth. Now they are trying to itemize it to squeeze more money out and discourage people from streaming to for those people to use their provided services.

i do udnertsand that, but you don't

Netflix has to pay X for the Network they use.
Netfilx charges you Y dollars
netflix pays your money (or a part of it) tot he ISP

Now the ISP charges his part of thats Service directly.

This is even for netflix a lot easier, because they do not have to rent a specific bandwith based on expectations, they will not even have to care about this anymore since the ISP may just virtually unlimit this beause thex charge the traffic anways.
What you seem not to understand is, that the "chucnk of data and bandwith" the ISP's are giving atm is far more than they can deliver constantly. And therefore they start to charge those people extra who are causing the most traffic load.
if you and anyone else would use the "sold" traffic at max rate this wouldn't work. So they would have to pay all of us soemthign like 65k again because this is maybe what they may "ensure" 24/7

We just go back to what we had previously, charge per streamign amount. The concept was in use before. Especially porn sites did used this, want to have access to their service, you had to charge money. Now its the same, exactly the same. Who is chargign the money at which point is completely irrelevant. And in the bakcground, the ISP's will have contracts for the costs with the Internet Service pages. They will just differ from the current ones.

[DeathlyEyes]

Grimmrog, on 22 May 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

i do udnertsand that, but you don't

Netflix has to pay X for the Network they use.
Netfilx charges you Y dollars
netflix pays your money (or a part of it) tot he ISP

Now the ISP charges his part of thats Service directly.

This is even for netflix a lot easier, because they do not have to rent a specific bandwith based on expectations, they will not even have to care about this anymore since the ISP may just virtually unlimit this beause thex charge the traffic anways.
What you seem not to understand is, that the "chucnk of data and bandwith" the ISP's are giving atm is far more than they can deliver constantly. And therefore they start to charge those people extra who are causing the most traffic load.
if you and anyone else would use the "sold" traffic at max rate this wouldn't work. So they would have to pay all of us soemthign like 65k again because this is maybe what they may "ensure" 24/7

We just go back to what we had previously, charge per streamign amount. The concept was in use before. Especially porn sites did used this, want to have access to their service, you had to charge money. Now its the same, exactly the same. Who is chargign the money at which point is completely irrelevant. And in the bakcground, the ISP's will have contracts for the costs with the Internet Service pages. They will just differ from the current ones.

Yes I get that and they already limit our data usage based off general data usage. Itemizing it is completely trivial and pointless. It should make no difference If I am using my 300 GB of data usage on streaming video, downloading video games or movies. The cable company is already getting their cut of the pie because they are charging me data usage and for my service. Now they are asking for more based on the type of traffic and its absolutely unacceptable. The only reason they are doing this is to get people to start subscribing to cable channels instead of pricing competitively with streaming services.

Its not a matter of bandwidth available because this practice has been working for the past 10 years, they are just now starting to lose some profit and want to keep their nice fat balance sheets. It shouldn't cost the ISP any extra money to give me video streaming than it should for them to let me download the same amount of data off some random website.

More dangers exists where they could make some deals with some friends in other companies and work to squeeze out their friend's competition. They could charge extra for access to Steam but not extra money to access Direct2Drive or Origin. These are all really serious things. They could throttle access to Mechwarrior Online and charge a premium rate if they wanted to while letting a competing title like Hawken not have charged access fees. These are the dangers of an unregulated system.

By the way, netflix and hulu both use subscriptions to cover the cost of their webhosting and content creation. Those porn websites or whatever else used subscriptions for the same thing. Youtube doesn't have to pay for content creation and uses ad revenue to pay for their webhosting costs and fees to pay their ISP for the Terabytes of data they upload daily. As an individual you pay the cable company a rather large sum of money as well to get access to that data. That fee to the cable company is just the same only smaller. They charge you for a designated bandwidth and a monthly alotment of data, like I said earlier. It shouldn't matter where the data came from. If I signed a contract and they said they could provide me 300 GB of data a month then they should be able to. Just because its coming from Netflix, youtube etc shouldnt matter. They have been providing me this 300GB of data for 2 years now, it shouldn't suddenly become a problem now.

They are just mad a new competing service is taking business away and they are wanting to take steps to affect it.

If this is honestly what you want. Have fun paying a 70 dollar cable bill for a sub par internet connection then paying another 30 dollar fee for steam access and another 30 dollar fee for streaming service access. Then paying another 15 dollars for netflix. No one else in the world is doing this and most countries have faster internet than the United States. It is clearly not necessary.

If it really is that hard for them to provide service then this is likely why. http://theweek.com/a...nternet-so-slow

The fact that anyone is arguing for more deregulation of the telecommunications sector is laughable. Hard data points to lack of regulation got us into this mess in the first place. its time the telecommunication companies actually do something about our aging infrastructure instead of raising prices to keep usage down. They need to stand up and actually provide the product they sold to us in the first place.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 22 May 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[Grimmrog]

past 10 years? the amount of internet traffic the past 10 years did exploded, soemthing ISP's never expected when the flatrates were "born"


have a read here

And internet video traffic has its biggest part, while gaming is a joke and will hardly feel some impact.

[Sereglach]

One thing that I think must be added to this debate is a severely overlooked point by those stating that NN somehow coincides with the highest speed connections in the world. For one, as of January 2014, the US was #13. That's not shabby for being one of the largest nations in the world, with the largest amount of populated landmass to run lines and connections on the entire top 20 list.

One of the biggest inhibitors of internet speed is landmass to cover for lines. NN doesn't just automatically create faster internet. Companies need to invest into the ability to expand their horizons and upgrade their lines. Do you all know what does that? Bottom lines. That's what does it. Companies need to have the assets to invest in the technologies that create the faster internet speeds. Those not willing to invest in those technologies fall to the wayside. Where is AOL Super-Fiber internet? Doesn't exist, because they didn't invest in the technology and their inherent business model changed over time.

Some of these "great" nations with amazingly fast internet are also small, or have consolidated population centers. They don't need to run a lot of line, and they're not exceeding the ranges of their internet service potential. Certain types of internet (like Fiber, Cable, and even DSL) must be within a certain range of a hub or they will not perform. It's easy to provide amazing internet for a metropolitan area (like Google launching their fiber service in Kansas City), or a small country (Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Latvia, etc.), or a country with few major population centers (like the Scandinavian countries or southern Canada). It is not so easily done over an area like the United States where you have population centers scattered over many thousands of square miles.

Net neutrality doesn't provide faster internet. Companies running advanced lines and investing in new technology provides faster internet. They cannot be paired together in this debate, and I believe a number of people here need to go back and learn a bit more about the world they're in before they complain and make broad accusations.

There, I've said my peace and I'm leaving this thread to its own demise.

[DeathlyEyes]

Sereglach, on 22 May 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

One thing that I think must be added to this debate is a severely overlooked point by those stating that NN somehow coincides with the highest speed connections in the world. For one, as of January 2014, the US was #13. That's not shabby for being one of the largest nations in the world, with the largest amount of populated landmass to run lines and connections on the entire top 20 list.

One of the biggest inhibitors of internet speed is landmass to cover for lines. NN doesn't just automatically create faster internet. Companies need to invest into the ability to expand their horizons and upgrade their lines. Do you all know what does that? Bottom lines. That's what does it. Companies need to have the assets to invest in the technologies that create the faster internet speeds. Those not willing to invest in those technologies fall to the wayside. Where is AOL Super-Fiber internet? Doesn't exist, because they didn't invest in the technology and their inherent business model changed over time.

Some of these "great" nations with amazingly fast internet are also small, or have consolidated population centers. They don't need to run a lot of line, and they're not exceeding the ranges of their internet service potential. Certain types of internet (like Fiber, Cable, and even DSL) must be within a certain range of a hub or they will not perform. It's easy to provide amazing internet for a metropolitan area (like Google launching their fiber service in Kansas City), or a small country (Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Latvia, etc.), or a country with few major population centers (like the Scandinavian countries or southern Canada). It is not so easily done over an area like the United States where you have population centers scattered over many thousands of square miles.

Net neutrality doesn't provide faster internet. Companies running advanced lines and investing in new technology provides faster internet. They cannot be paired together in this debate, and I believe a number of people here need to go back and learn a bit more about the world they're in before they complain and make broad accusations.

There, I've said my peace and I'm leaving this thread to its own demise.

Net neutrality does actually. It forces companies to innovate to continue to keep up with demand. That's not the only issue though. The lack of competition and lack of regulation forcing telecommunication companies to allow other companies to use their infrastructure (utility tunnels) also restricts competition. Between these two things the United States will be stuck. One thing to keep in mind. Net neutrality was sorta on the books the last few years. It was recently struck down because a federal appeals court determined that since ISPs weren't classified as common carriers, the FCC lacked the jurisdiction to regulate it the way they did. Under this policy our internet speeds greatly improved in world standing, but for a country which created the internet in the first place, its a disgrace we are not in the top 10.

By the way distance is negligible. Most speed tests are done to local servers within a 25 mile radius. Speedtest.net for example uses local nodes to run the tests. These tests are where the numbers are taken. The problem isn't that the United States is too large (land mass wise) It's because we don't have fiberoptic internet yet. Something Japan and South Korea have had for years. Something many European countries on the cultural cutting edge have as well because of regulation and competition that the United States lacks. In fact running fiberoptic in cities is actually much more difficult. If you use your argument you can check average internet speeds for example in a big city like New York or Chicago and notice that the outlaying suburbs actually have faster internet services because less of the line is buried or hard to access.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 22 May 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Pht]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 21 May 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

None of the countries in the top 20 for internet speeds use this practice.

Does correlation equal causation?

If everyone in those countries with great internet access all wore wooden clogs, and everyone in countries with really crummy internet access wore anything BUT wooden clogs, would you say that the great internet access was *because of* the wearing of the wooden clogs?

... that would be an exact 1 to 1 correlation too.

We already know from what you posted that you think that NN will cause better internet. You've stated such implicitly several times.

You ought to now show *why* what you're stating is true, or at least post something like "I hadn't considered it that way yet."

Quote

It's not viable and a terrible idea.

I already know that you disagree. I already stated several specific things about regulation and gave examples of why it's bad and gave an altenative... could you ... interact with at least one or two of these things beyond "that's bad" and "you're wrong" ...?

Quote

Regulation works fine.

It hasn't worked, it isn't working, and it won't work.

(clanners pass out from the string of contractions)

Regulation - the attempt to stop someone from doing something by restricting their options beforehand - can not work, for all the reasons I've already mentioned above and more.

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 22 May 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

I don't think you are quite understanding what they are doing. The ISP itself is wanting charge an extra fee for you to access Netflix or to use services such as steam.

Which cause higher loads on their networks, driving the need for more infrastructure.

Quote

This fee isn't being given to the company whose service you are using.

Is the ISP not a service? Do they have zero costs?

Quote

Nor are you exceeding your data allotment. What they are trying to do is give you a 300 GB data cap with your 30mbps connection.

Which is compeltely fine. It entirely depends on what you and the ISP initially agreed to.

Which is why I mentioned in my last post, there's a lot of fraud going on; you can't sell someone an X sized pipe and treat it in every way as you're selling it ias just the sale of a pipe, when you're treating it as a pipe AND taking into account what's going down the pipe.

I also don't buy the fine-print and legaleze trick used to get out of the "but we weren't just selling you a connection of x capacity, all you had to do was read into the 25 paragraphs of 5pt font written in langauge that would send a lawyer for the excedrin and you'd have known we weren't" deception.

If your average high school graduate with b's and a few c's can't understand what's being sold, you're committing fraud. If you think these kids are too darn dumb, than go look in the mirror and call yourself a scumbag.

ISP's need to stop lying and decieving about what they are actually selling and this stuff would stop.

Edited by Pht, 23 May 2014 - 12:44 PM.

[DeathlyEyes]

[Heffay]

For those saying network neutrality isn't needed: Netflix proves otherwise.

[Pht]

SLDF DeathlyEyes, on 06 June 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

-video-

Which makes it all the more moronic that the idea to fix this problem is to give the reins to the same people who caused it in the first place.

The cable companies could have never gotten their immoral monopolies without the government's help.

The answer isn't more of the same. The answer is to punish people for committing fraud, theft, and immoral coercion and stop making a gameable system of regulations.