|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 13, 2015 2:58:21 GMT
here, the state basically gives utilities a contract which gives them control over an area, and in exchange, the state controls their rates. its one of those cases - does free market give a better deal or does state run services give a better deal? a for-profit will make sure not to be wasteful - but they can make up the difference in the CEO's performance bonus. Free market will always do a better job provided there is competition. Government services have no competition. That's why we have the situation in the VA hospitals. Private enterprise will do no better when only one company is granted the exclusive authority to serve a given location. When our town finally came to their senses and allowed a number of cable companies to compete, prices went down and service improved on all of them. so now many lines are on the poles, or is the new cable company just using the original company's signal? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 13, 2015 4:42:44 GMT
Free market will always do a better job provided there is competition. Government services have no competition. That's why we have the situation in the VA hospitals. Private enterprise will do no better when only one company is granted the exclusive authority to serve a given location. When our town finally came to their senses and allowed a number of cable companies to compete, prices went down and service improved on all of them. so now many lines are on the poles, or is the new cable company just using the original company's signal? Well, we don't have poles. At least not in most of the city limits. Everything is underground. When the city council granted rights to the second company, they, (Ameritech at the time) installed a completely separate fiber/hard wired infrastructure. The third company is AT&T U-verse. Their system is IP based. It uses some type of DSL type connection. I know they installed a bunch of fiber optic cables but not nearly as extensive as what Ameritech had to do. Of course AT&T already had a lot of hard wired phone infrastructure in place before they started to offer TV and internet. The first company started out as Jones cable. That was in the days of dial-up computer services such as AOL and Prodigy. Jones was strictly cable TV at the time. Then the high speed internet craze hit. For a couple of years, the only high speed internet we could get was a microwave based system where they had to put this weird looking antenna on your roof. If you had line of sight with the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago, you could get service. I didn't, so I was stuck with dial-up for a long time. Then the city approved a second cable company, Ameritech. Since Ameritech offered high speed internet, Jones, the original cable TV company, had to add it also. That's where competition benefits the consumer. They kept competing back and forth, each upping their speed and undercutting each other price wise. Again, good for the consumer. Then AT&T jumped into the act. Again, good for competition and for the customer. Jones eventually was bought out by Wide Open West (WOW) and Ameritech by Comcast. They still compete but I think at this point Comcast probably has the better features. AT&T seems to beat them both price wise but I already have AT&T land line phone and cell service. I refuse to give those jackasses any more business. While Comcast may offer a little better product than WOW, their customer service is so notoriously bad that I won't go near them either. So WOW is what's left. Maybe not the best in all areas, but at least I have a choice. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 13, 2015 4:46:03 GMT
That's why you want private isp's to compete on the state-owned net.
Similar to how freightcompanies compete on state-owned roads.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 13, 2015 4:54:35 GMT
so now many lines are on the poles, or is the new cable company just using the original company's signal? Well, we don't have poles. At least not in most of the city limits. Everything is underground. When the city council granted rights to the second company, they, (Ameritech at the time) installed a completely separate fiber/hard wired infrastructure. The third company is AT&T U-verse. Their system is IP based. It uses some type of DSL type connection. I know they installed a bunch of fiber optic cables but not nearly as extensive as what Ameritech had to do. Of course AT&T already had a lot of hard wired phone infrastructure in place before they started to offer TV and internet. The first company started out as Jones cable. That was in the days of dial-up computer services such as AOL and Prodigy. Jones was strictly cable TV at the time. Then the high speed internet craze hit. For a couple of years, the only high speed internet we could get was a microwave based system where they had to put this weird looking antenna on your roof. If you had line of sight with the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago, you could get service. I didn't, so I was stuck with dial-up for a long time. Then the city approved a second cable company, Ameritech. Since Ameritech offered high speed internet, Jones, the original cable TV company, had to add it also. That's where competition benefits the consumer. They kept competing back and forth, each upping their speed and undercutting each other price wise. Again, good for the consumer. Then AT&T jumped into the act. Again, good for competition and for the customer. Jones eventually was bought out by Wide Open West (WOW) and Ameritech by Comcast. They still compete but I think at this point Comcast probably has the better features. AT&T seems to beat them both price wise but I already have AT&T land line phone and cell service. I refuse to give those jackasses any more business. While Comcast may offer a little better product than WOW, their customer service is so notoriously bad that I won't go near them either. So WOW is what's left. Maybe not the best in all areas, but at least I have a choice. the available phone service gives up to 33.3K dialup. the available cable service gives analog channels up into the low 30s, depending on the weather. of course, if I wanted to go cellular only, I could make and recieve calls standing in the driveway facing due south on an overcast day, with 2 ballpoint pens in my shirt pocket. there is a price you pay for living in a quiet neighborhood where you can;t actually see your neighbors. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 13, 2015 4:56:56 GMT
That's why you want private isp's to compete on the state-owned net. Similar to how freightcompanies compete on state-owned roads. I don't know. I'll trust the government to pave a road, but the internet backbone? I don't think so. You should see the mess the city got into when they decided to upgrade to smart meters. It was so bad it was actually comical. That is until you realized that they spent $24 million dollars to eliminate 3 minimum wage meter readers and added seven $80K/Year I.T. people to replace them. And two years later, the meter readers are still working because the smart meters aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 13, 2015 4:58:09 GMT
there is a price you pay for living in a quiet neighborhood where you can;t actually see your neighbors. And for that, I envy you. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 14, 2015 14:30:04 GMT
That's why you want private isp's to compete on the state-owned net. Similar to how freightcompanies compete on state-owned roads. We're in a situation right now where ISP's can find meaning in bettering their product by laying down new cables and developing new technologies to crank out more efficient use of the infrastructure that's already in place. They're pouring huge sums of money into this development and they have been for decades. Having any government own the infrastructure for the Internet would guarantee that any and all development either slows down to an agonizing crawl or comes to a complete screeching halt. Ever hear of bureaucracy? When the ISP's own the cables and satellites, they can upgrade or replace them whenever they want, which is whenever the market requires it. If the government owns the cables and satellites, the ISP's might see a need to upgrade them, but who's going to pay for it? If everything is owned by the government and the government doesn't prioritize money for upgrades to the infrastructure, ISP's have two choises. The first option is to throw money at the government to get it done, but then they'd all have to agree to throw the same amount of money at them, or one ISP is going to pay to upgrade the infrastructure for all the other ISP's (or at least pay a bigger portion of the upgrade than the rest) and why would they do that? Even if all the ISP's could agree to pour equal portions of X million or billion dollars per ISP into the project, they'd have no control over who carries out the work, when it's carried out or how well it's carried out, because the government owns the cables and satellites, so they'll decide all that. The outsourcing process alone to decide who's going to carry out the work could take years and even then, the ISP's have no say in who gets the contract, so they effectively have no say when it comes to deadlines, quality of work done, service agreements and so on. If the project isn't finished on time or the work doesn't meet the standards they require, they have no legal tools with which to go after the contractor. They can complain to the government, but we all know that's going to end up in a series of ineffective investigative commities who will eventually end up determining that either the contractor has to do it all over (again, the ISP's have no say over deadlines and such, so it could take years before it's done) or that no wrong has been done and the ISP's lose. The second option is to leave things as they are and just try to crank out as much performance from the existing system as they possibly can. Which option do you think they'll chose? |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 14, 2015 14:44:01 GMT
While your system works great in profitable area's such as major cities with competing isp's, it stops working when it gets less populated, or the cost to put in more infrastructure to compete gets bigger.
Not saying that the gov. always does so well, but big private companies will always go the way of least effort for most profit.
In Helsinki, the fact that there were 3 good citywide choices, meant that they competed well and there was 2 good solid networks(cable and phonenetwork) and 3 good mobile networks.
In Savonlinna on the other hand, there is only one cable company, that won't get off it's ass to even put fibre to the box, let alone to the home. The phonecompany is even worse and offers no more than isdn2.
Frankly, the only reason tech is going anywhere over here at the moment, is that the mobile companies are starting to intrude on what was previously hardline only business.
It just makes little sense to me to double or even triple the same infrastructure in many places..
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2015 14:45:03 GMT
That's why you want private isp's to compete on the state-owned net. Similar to how freightcompanies compete on state-owned roads. We're in a situation right now where ISP's can find meaning in bettering their product by laying down new cables and developing new technologies to crank out more efficient use of the infrastructure that's already in place. They're pouring huge sums of money into this development and they have been for decades. Having any government own the infrastructure for the Internet would guarantee that any and all development either slows down to an agonizing crawl or comes to a complete screeching halt. Ever hear of bureaucracy? When the ISP's own the cables and satellites, they can upgrade or replace them whenever they want, which is whenever the market requires it. If the government owns the cables and satellites, the ISP's might see a need to upgrade them, but who's going to pay for it? If everything is owned by the government and the government doesn't prioritize money for upgrades to the infrastructure, ISP's have two choises. The first option is to throw money at the government to get it done, but then they'd all have to agree to throw the same amount of money at them, or one ISP is going to pay to upgrade the infrastructure for all the other ISP's (or at least pay a bigger portion of the upgrade than the rest) and why would they do that? Even if all the ISP's could agree to pour equal portions of X million or billion dollars per ISP into the project, they'd have no control over who carries out the work, when it's carried out or how well it's carried out, because the government owns the cables and satellites, so they'll decide all that. The outsourcing process alone to decide who's going to carry out the work could take years and even then, the ISP's have no say in who gets the contract, so they effectively have no say when it comes to deadlines, quality of work done, service agreements and so on. If the project isn't finished on time or the work doesn't meet the standards they require, they have no legal tools with which to go after the contractor. They can complain to the government, but we all know that's going to end up in a series of ineffective investigative commities who will eventually end up determining that either the contractor has to do it all over (again, the ISP's have no say over deadlines and such, so it could take years before it's done) or that no wrong has been done and the ISP's lose. The second option is to leave things as they are and just try to crank out as much performance from the existing system as they possibly can. Which option do you think they'll chose? on the other side of the coin, my phone company has been going to have broadband in my area within the year for the past 7 years, and the cable provider is offering nonexistent high speed, when they don't even have the full range of analog. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 14, 2015 17:36:24 GMT
on the other side of the coin, my phone company has been going to have broadband in my area within the year for the past 7 years, and the cable provider is offering nonexistent high speed, when they don't even have the full range of analog. Which no doubt is because you live where you do. I have a similar problem. Because I live where I do, I can't get a fiber connection (I do get a 30/10 Mbps DSL line though, so I'm still better off than you, but other cities have up to 300 Mbps fiber lines, which I can't get) and I'm limited in what cable TV providers I can choose from, which is heavily reflected in the insane amount of money I pay for a very limited service compared to other cities. But I understand why things are this way. It's a simple question of the providers doing a cost-benefit analasys and determining that the cost of upgrading in my area far exceeds the benefits they'll get from doing it. I've got a friend who works at my ISP. He's in middle management in customer support and told me he once attended a meeting where some of the tech and finance geeks were explaining to customer support why certain areas wouldn't get better service any time soon. It was a pretty simple calculation, showing that upgrading the lines for areas like mine would cost X and with only Y number of customers in those areas willing to pay for the upgrade, it would take more than 10 years to cover the costs, at which point that previous upgrade would need to be upgraded again, effectively never netting them a profit. It's just bad business. I know you'd like better service and there's no doubt that I would too, but do you really want your government to conduct bad business and lose tax payer money just for that? Furthermore, do you really want the entire country to only have average internet service, including those parts of the country that rely heavily on good service for research and development and international trade, just so you and your neighbors can watch NetFlix at higher speeds and lower costs? Because I can almost guarantee you that's what's going to happen if you let the government run the internet infrastructure for the entire country. There won't be great service and there won't be crappy service. There will only be the exact same service for everyone, no matter how great or crappy that service is. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2015 17:57:31 GMT
on the other side of the coin, my phone company has been going to have broadband in my area within the year for the past 7 years, and the cable provider is offering nonexistent high speed, when they don't even have the full range of analog. Which no doubt is because you live where you do. I have a similar problem. Because I live where I do, I can't get a fiber connection (I do get a 30/10 Mbps DSL line though, so I'm still better off than you, but other cities have up to 300 Mbps fiber lines, which I can't get) and I'm limited in what cable TV providers I can choose from, which is heavily reflected in the insane amount of money I pay for a very limited service compared to other cities. But I understand why things are this way. It's a simple question of the providers doing a cost-benefit analasys and determining that the cost of upgrading in my area far exceeds the benefits they'll get from doing it. I've got a friend who works at my ISP. He's in middle management in customer support and told me he once attended a meeting where some of the tech and finance geeks were explaining to customer support why certain areas wouldn't get better service any time soon. It was a pretty simple calculation, showing that upgrading the lines for areas like mine would cost X and with only Y number of customers in those areas willing to pay for the upgrade, it would take more than 10 years to cover the costs, at which point that previous upgrade would need to be upgraded again, effectively never netting them a profit. It's just bad business. I know you'd like better service and there's no doubt that I would too, but do you really want your government to conduct bad business and lose tax payer money just for that? Furthermore, do you really want the entire country to only have average internet service, including those parts of the country that rely heavily on good service for research and development and international trade, just so you and your neighbors can watch NetFlix at higher speeds and lower costs? Because I can almost guarantee you that's what's going to happen if you let the government run the internet infrastructure for the entire country. There won't be great service and there won't be crappy service. There will only be the exact same service for everyone, no matter how great or crappy that service is. I would be inclined to go with a middle ground approach. either government run communications tax funded backbones, with regulated private enterprise for distribution net, or mandated co-op backbone with regulated private enterprise for distribution net. by which I mean essentially the same structure as our highway system: we have interstate highways funded by federal money, state highways funded by state gas taxes, county roads funded by county taxes and designated allocations of state tax dollars, city streets funded by local taxes, and private roads, funded by whatever the owner wants to fund them with. I don't need congress to mandate me a DSL connection, but having 5 different telecom companies each paying for their own main lines between major hubs seems to be a bit inefficient. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 14, 2015 18:56:14 GMT
I don't need congress to mandate me a DSL connection, but having 5 different telecom companies each paying for their own main lines between major hubs seems to be a bit inefficient. But that's not the way it works. Getting major high speed internet into an area is not that expensive. Either is 300 channels of TV. The major cost is the "last mile." Getting that service to the individual customers. Especially when those customers are few and scattered miles apart. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2015 19:09:53 GMT
I don't need congress to mandate me a DSL connection, but having 5 different telecom companies each paying for their own main lines between major hubs seems to be a bit inefficient. But that's not the way it works. Getting major high speed internet into an area is not that expensive. Either is 300 channels of TV. The major cost is the "last mile." Getting that service to the individual customers. Especially when those customers are few and scattered miles apart. actually, yes, it IS that expensive - it is just not that expensive per customer. - though when I think of it there may be a benefit in redundant backbones - we did once have a total service outage when a critical relay station had a (minor) fire in the switchroom - but again, I'd like to see some outside coordination, which would benefit everybody. (for an example, there is an intersection between two power companies just down the road from me - there is a matching transformer set and a manual closure at the intersection, such that if one power company requests it, the other power company can close the connection and backfeed the other lines. of course, there is also a meter... so it hasn't happened in the last 15 years. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 15, 2015 2:06:35 GMT
But that's not the way it works. Getting major high speed internet into an area is not that expensive. Either is 300 channels of TV. The major cost is the "last mile." Getting that service to the individual customers. Especially when those customers are few and scattered miles apart. actually, yes, it IS that expensive - it is just not that expensive per customer. - though when I think of it there may be a benefit in redundant backbones - we did once have a total service outage when a critical relay station had a (minor) fire in the switchroom - but again, I'd like to see some outside coordination, which would benefit everybody. (for an example, there is an intersection between two power companies just down the road from me - there is a matching transformer set and a manual closure at the intersection, such that if one power company requests it, the other power company can close the connection and backfeed the other lines. of course, there is also a meter... so it hasn't happened in the last 15 years. The head end of all local cable companies already have broad band access. They just don't want to update THEIR lines to provide it to their customers. Look at what happened in Houston. When Google wanted to come in and offer 1GB internet service, AT&T fought it tooth in nail. They lobbied the city and state legislature that it would be unfair competition because AT&T's infrastructure could only handle 25Mb speeds. Google won and put in their 1Gb service for $29.95 per month. Within two weeks, AT&T also started offering 1Gb service. Guess AT&T just happened to figure out where the speed control switch was. AT&T's system could handle 1Gb all along. They just had no reason to offer it until competition came along. If another cell provider came into your area and offered you service so you didn't have to stand at the end of your drive way with two pens in your pocket to make a call, your present end-of-driveway provider would have another cell tower in your area before you received your next bill. Right now, they have no need to put one in. You have no where else to go. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 15, 2015 2:15:51 GMT
actually, yes, it IS that expensive - it is just not that expensive per customer. - though when I think of it there may be a benefit in redundant backbones - we did once have a total service outage when a critical relay station had a (minor) fire in the switchroom - but again, I'd like to see some outside coordination, which would benefit everybody. (for an example, there is an intersection between two power companies just down the road from me - there is a matching transformer set and a manual closure at the intersection, such that if one power company requests it, the other power company can close the connection and backfeed the other lines. of course, there is also a meter... so it hasn't happened in the last 15 years. The head end of all local cable companies already have broad band access. They just don't want to update THEIR lines to provide it to their customers. Look at what happened in Houston. When Google wanted to come in and offer 1GB internet service, AT&T fought it tooth in nail. They lobbied the city and state legislature that it would be unfair competition because AT&T's infrastructure could only handle 25Mb speeds. Google won and put in their 1Gb service for $29.95 per month. Within two weeks, AT&T also started offering 1Gb service. Guess AT&T just happened to figure out where the speed control switch was. AT&T's system could handle 1Gb all along. They just had no reason to offer it until competition came along. either tht or they spent the two weeks replacing the racks of modems in their relay station. granted, the modems in main relay stations are already so fast as to border on instability. (I did some work in a relay station about 14 years ago. the first safety order was to not drop a tool on the battery terminals. the second was not to bump the racks, because just bumping them could disrupt the signals. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 15, 2015 7:55:29 GMT
Here, we have a problem. Virgin media, follow the news links, have announced a roll out of another 3 billions worth of cabling to add more homes to their network.... finance.yahoo.com/news/virgin-media-spend-three-billion-100210022.htmlBoo-ha starts with the "Urban" areas who dont get linked up. Its basically "Why has he got a bigger bit than mine?" cry you hear from kids. Because Virgin are cabling one area and not another, those who never had it anyway and are still not getting it, are massively serially offended that they dont get to jump the queue. Including those who live in remote small communities.... Look, here is how it is, the price you pay for remote isolation is just that, remote isolation. Where Isolated is away from the madding crowd. Virgin can either cable up one million new homes or they can lay one cable all the way to your village with 20 homes.... Guess what they chose? If you want broadband and all the rest of what larger towns may offer, lie Supermarket deliveries and better transport links, move closer to town. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 15, 2015 15:24:53 GMT
Here, we have a problem. Virgin media, follow the news links, have announced a roll out of another 3 billions worth of cabling to add more homes to their network.... finance.yahoo.com/news/virgin-media-spend-three-billion-100210022.htmlBoo-ha starts with the "Urban" areas who dont get linked up. Its basically "Why has he got a bigger bit than mine?" cry you hear from kids. Because Virgin are cabling one area and not another, those who never had it anyway and are still not getting it, are massively serially offended that they dont get to jump the queue. Including those who live in remote small communities.... Look, here is how it is, the price you pay for remote isolation is just that, remote isolation. Where Isolated is away from the madding crowd. Virgin can either cable up one million new homes or they can lay one cable all the way to your village with 20 homes.... Guess what they chose? If you want broadband and all the rest of what larger towns may offer, lie Supermarket deliveries and better transport links, move closer to town. it is business, and business is to connect the greatest number of new customers per dollar invested. that is why I accept that it will be a long wait for anything digital that doesn't come from the sky, and an even longer wait to get gas laid on. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 27, 2015 9:56:29 GMT
Updatewww.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31638528Erm... say that one again?... So hows it work then?... I do not know myself. I will try and find out...... However... Oh Boo Hoo... it doesnt work for Verizon who just learnt they can not any longer fleece their customers for services they already though they were paying for. I am what was sometimes known as a 49'er.... Back in the days when $49 was the price you paid per month for DIAL-UP internet. I was around then.. (Although I didnt pay that price?.. no way near it either...) But anyone around at that time was "In the club", but like our ESM club. We INVENTED the modern internet, by being there and wanting more, suggesting and working together to create what you are using today. There was a time when it was possible to read the whole thing... So now we have broad-banned. You pay for a service, and then, you pay more to keep what you just paid for, this "£a$t lane" (fast lane paid for..) All that is is the ability to keep you fastest speeds at busy times. Phftttt.... I pay for a 120meg line I want a 120 meg line?.... "Oh only when its quiet, but if you pay us more, we will let you through even when its busy". d**k Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.... This fast lane is no more than highway robbery. And that is why you should not pay it. If you dont pay it, the companies who rely on it (The big streaming services) will have to find another way to sell you their products?... In the past 5 years I have seen my speeds rise from 10meg to 120 meg... I think thats fast enough. I get over 100meg on a regular basis even when its busy. I will NOT pay for anything more. And you should not either... And neither should you go looking for a "4k" TV. The bigger resolution TV's that are "Twice four eight times the resolution of Blue-Ray", and "Cant you see how well defined the picture is" are the bigger streaming demands on your broadband ..... Its not that they cant do it in HDMI existing speeds, its just they want to push you to buying bigger faster more demanding products so you NEED their faster speeds.... Which they would very much like you to pay for. I may be an old grump who was bought up with Black-and-white TV, I may have been on the internet before Colour (Anyone else here remember Green Screen monitors?.. I still have one... somewhere...) I may be antiquated myself, I may even be a techno-sceptic, but therein lies my problem... Its NOT better. I have witnessed a 4k screen in real life... Yeah, its clear. But I have an old Samsung HDMI tv at home, and its just as good on HD?... Your HUGE screen is so huge I have to stand back to see the whole picture... No unless you want to install it on the side of the house over the road so I can watch it from there, I dont have a room big enough (and mine are all over three yards wide) (Except this room, the box room, a single bedroom)to put it in?...
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 29, 2016 7:11:59 GMT
I started this thread back in september '14, and predicted then that it would be "Big news"
Since that time, I now recieve up to 150mb/ps.
Yeah its fast, but...
What am I paying for?.
Acess to the internets via my local "node", or local server for Virgin/taco-bell-whoever owns it now....
Meanwhile, other companies are looking at my internet bill with jelousy.
They want "part" of that, or in some cases some of that action.
Should I REALLY be paying other companies for the right to access their "Walled garden" of the ionternet?.. aint I paying enough already?.
If yoiu are in agreement with this, then you too support net neutrality.
In my estimation, if you pay for "basic" dial up internet, you get basic speeds.
It will infuriate you that you cant buffer enough video to watc fake-tube, but you get what you pay for.
If you pay "broadband" speeds, you should get access to all the internet.
At a fair useage agreement that you are not using it all the time for mass data access at the full monty of what you pay for and that in times of peak traffic it will be slightly slower because of that....
If you pay for the super-fast broadband, you should have access to all of the super-fast speeds....
I only have one choice with my super-fast broadband, its oly availiable in one speed, the best they can offer to ALL their customers ALL the time, for the SAME price.
You dont get to choose super-super-fast for an extra tennor a week... because net neutrality.
On the score of that, why should those who pay for "Extra's" like netflix and the like get the promise that they will never be throttled?...
And then who is doing the throttling?...
It AINT Virgin.
This is the problem of net neutrality.
Unless you pay "the toll" to pass through the fastest link, you may be forced to use slower side-roads to get at the data, and certain companies who are wanting to own all those toll roads are busy buying up all the super-super fast technology in servers and data pipes to "Ransom" your broadbanned speeds.
Get ready for a slightly slower intenet folks...
The general idea is do not pay.
Pay your ISP, but dont pay anyone else.
Let there be an "elite" of stupid people who are willing to pay more.
Just sit and watch how the viewer numbers game shoves their prices up and up because there isnt enough people paying to make it economical....
and then we have 'Murica.
One of the biggest data handling coutries in the world has passed a law in favour of net neutrality, but is now passing another law to not enforce it?...
What next?.. you goina' demand to make all the decisions for Nato but not pay for any of them to be enforced as well?...
And if that sounds like lunacy, well, we here in UK are paying for another country to make all our decisions for us, and over-rule our own decisions..Thats why Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 29, 2016 14:38:47 GMT
I think our problem comes because some of our service providers are dabbling in content as well. I'm trying to think of a corollary and having trouble; I guess it would be if you had your pub and you had a contract with a truck driver to deliver you 100 kegs a month; but the truck driver wanted to charge Guinness a quid for every keg of their he delivered to you. other side of the coin, we now have cellular phone providers teaming up with TV providers, where the TV provider essentially pays the cell phone provider for any data the customer downloads from them, if the customer has service with both. - and I think that is a reasonable thing - the difference there is that instead of charging guinness for kegs you are paying him to deliver to you, guinness is paying him to not charge you for delivering their kegs.
|
|
