Starscream
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Columbia, SC
-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
Game over for net neutrality?
- Thread starter Starscream
- Start date
WB9YZU
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Madison, WI
What's lame?
Here is the Reuters article: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BTKNJ2IXPXXPYQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=200001185
It appears the FTC simply didn't enact new regulations as regards to High Speed internet companys to prevent them from providing preferential access to large bandwidth services like movies.
I don't think that changes the neutrality of the Internet as far as the exchange of ideas or socio-political or scientific nature.
Here is the Reuters article: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BTKNJ2IXPXXPYQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=200001185
It appears the FTC simply didn't enact new regulations as regards to High Speed internet companys to prevent them from providing preferential access to large bandwidth services like movies.
I don't think that changes the neutrality of the Internet as far as the exchange of ideas or socio-political or scientific nature.
I think this is a confusing issue because the people who have the most to gain want it to be. If AT&T is against Net Neutrality that is good enough reason for me to be for it. The only reason a big company would be against something is because it’s standing in the way of transferring money from my pocket to theirs.
So they are just going to raise rates for larger companies like eBay, Google, Amazon and other big bandwidth sites to make everything “equal.” Well do you think eBay, et al, are going to eat the cost increase? You think they are going to say “gee, guess there goes our profit margin.” Don’t think so. They will, some how, pass the cost down to the lowest level, which is the consumer… you and me.
I wonder what would be the cost increase for running a site like
?
So they are just going to raise rates for larger companies like eBay, Google, Amazon and other big bandwidth sites to make everything “equal.” Well do you think eBay, et al, are going to eat the cost increase? You think they are going to say “gee, guess there goes our profit margin.” Don’t think so. They will, some how, pass the cost down to the lowest level, which is the consumer… you and me.
I wonder what would be the cost increase for running a site like
?
RichP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Effort, Pa
o2bgpn said:I think this is a confusing issue because the people who have the most to gain want it to be. If AT&T is against Net Neutrality that is good enough reason for me to be for it. The only reason a big company would be against something is because it’s standing in the way of transferring money from my pocket to theirs.
So they are just going to raise rates for larger companies like eBay, Google, Amazon and other big bandwidth sites to make everything “equal.” Well do you think eBay, et al, are going to eat the cost increase? You think they are going to say “gee, guess there goes our profit margin.” Don’t think so. They will, some how, pass the cost down to the lowest level, which is the consumer… you and me.
I wonder what would be the cost increase for running a site like
Could be they are going to do some more advanced routing and charge for it, leaving most users with least cost routing versus higher paying customers who will be given fastest routes. But thats just a guess, a few places I've set up least cost routing for managers I didn't like...
net nuetrality was a joke anyway.
who do you think pays for all of the backbones that run the internet? the telcos for the most part.
net nuetrality was just another way to get the government involved in regulating the internet.
The internet is the free market wild west of the world, let it be, and the market will sort it out.
who do you think pays for all of the backbones that run the internet? the telcos for the most part.
net nuetrality was just another way to get the government involved in regulating the internet.
The internet is the free market wild west of the world, let it be, and the market will sort it out.
Sniggs
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Western Washington
SPOBI Consumers are paying for the backbones. Do you really believe that it costs $30 to $50 per month to run tone and a few add ons (call forward and call waiting) to your home? psh...87manche said:
iratefla
- Location
- Houston, Tx
I've heard people whining about this issue for years, nothing has ever happened.
Actually, last-mile costs have a HUGE price tag. And the telcos do have a much different idea of stability than most ISPs.Sniggs said:SPOBI Consumers are paying for the backbones. Do you really believe that it costs $30 to $50 per month to run tone and a few add ons (call forward and call waiting) to your home? psh...
I do have a problem with the pay-to-play nonsense. If an ISP is gonna start prioritizing traffic based on endpoints, they should be regulated as a publisher. They'd lose a lot of protection based on that.
RichP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Effort, Pa
ChiXJeff said:
NOW thats and angle I had not thought about.
Sniggs said:SPOBI Consumers are paying for the backbones. Do you really believe that it costs $30 to $50 per month to run tone and a few add ons (call forward and call waiting) to your home? psh...
come live in the country and see how much it costs the telco to maintain 12 miles of ancient telephone lines to service 1 customer.
In fact, rumor has it around here that verizon is loking to sell this market, because the costs of maintaining the lines is more than they can make, given the customer per mile.
I had not thought of treating them as a publisher, that would be interesting.
