|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 17, 2017 17:19:36 GMT
so what you are saying is the federal commuication commission should not be in charge of rules pertaining to internet communication? you'd rather congress had to pass onesy twosey rules in a haphazard piecemeal fashion after problems develop. you know, kind of like the rule that salesmen can't cold call people in the do-not-call list, which nobody enforces? No, I'm not saying that at all. The FCC is the logical agency to regulate the internet. What I am saying is that the President doesn't just say to the FCC, here's the internet, go regulate it, as Obama did through the FCC. That's what we did with the EPA under the Clean Air Act. No control, no limits and no guidance. If what we inappropriately called "net-neutrality" is to be done the right way, congress needs to pass a bill granting that power to the FCC and also spelling out exactly what that power encompasses and what limitations are on that power. so instead we are letting congress do it with no control, no limits, and no guidance. what we need is a statement of what our goals are for the regulation, and then allow the agency in charge to do it. then if we need to amend that statement, we can. - but what scrapping net neutrality does is get rid of the statement, and say, "well, the car hasn't crashed, yet, so why do we need controls?" I am reminded of when my cousin was in Iraq. his spare time hobby was converting a parts cart into an electric go-cart. when he was home on leave, he'd figured out how to make it go, but hadn't figured out how to make it turn or stop, yet. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 17, 2017 17:34:26 GMT
No, I'm not saying that at all. The FCC is the logical agency to regulate the internet. What I am saying is that the President doesn't just say to the FCC, here's the internet, go regulate it, as Obama did through the FCC. That's what we did with the EPA under the Clean Air Act. No control, no limits and no guidance. If what we inappropriately called "net-neutrality" is to be done the right way, congress needs to pass a bill granting that power to the FCC and also spelling out exactly what that power encompasses and what limitations are on that power. so instead we are letting congress do it with no control, no limits, and no guidance. what we need is a statement of what our goals are for the regulation, and then allow the agency in charge to do it. then if we need to amend that statement, we can. - but what scrapping net neutrality does is get rid of the statement, and say, "well, the car hasn't crashed, yet, so why do we need controls?" I am reminded of when my cousin was in Iraq. his spare time hobby was converting a parts cart into an electric go-cart. when he was home on leave, he'd figured out how to make it go, but hadn't figured out how to make it turn or stop, yet. Under the current net-neutrality, the FCC has complete control over the internet, but who controls the FCC? Whoever the current President puts in charge of the FCC has ultimately complete control and can do whatever they wish. If you don't like the internet the way it is today, all you have to do is wait 4 or 8 years until the next administration takes control. What could possibly go wrong with that? I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to regulate the internet (or anything else for that matter) and one person just granting that power is not the way. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 17, 2017 23:38:48 GMT
so instead we are letting congress do it with no control, no limits, and no guidance. what we need is a statement of what our goals are for the regulation, and then allow the agency in charge to do it. then if we need to amend that statement, we can. - but what scrapping net neutrality does is get rid of the statement, and say, "well, the car hasn't crashed, yet, so why do we need controls?" I am reminded of when my cousin was in Iraq. his spare time hobby was converting a parts cart into an electric go-cart. when he was home on leave, he'd figured out how to make it go, but hadn't figured out how to make it turn or stop, yet. Under the current net-neutrality, the FCC has complete control over the internet, but who controls the FCC? Whoever the current President puts in charge of the FCC has ultimately complete control and can do whatever they wish. If you don't like the internet the way it is today, all you have to do is wait 4 or 8 years until the next administration takes control. What could possibly go wrong with that? I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to regulate the internet (or anything else for that matter) and one person just granting that power is not the way. well, having someone cancel net neutrality because Obama, comes to mind... but more seriously, I am starting to see a trend of "this regulation is not exactly what I want. let's get rid of it and then talk about what we might want it to be." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 18, 2017 0:40:42 GMT
Under the current net-neutrality, the FCC has complete control over the internet, but who controls the FCC? Whoever the current President puts in charge of the FCC has ultimately complete control and can do whatever they wish. If you don't like the internet the way it is today, all you have to do is wait 4 or 8 years until the next administration takes control. What could possibly go wrong with that? I'm saying there is a right way and a wrong way to regulate the internet (or anything else for that matter) and one person just granting that power is not the way. well, having someone cancel net neutrality because Obama, comes to mind... but more seriously, I am starting to see a trend of "this regulation is not exactly what I want. let's get rid of it and then talk about what we might want it to be." I suspect this is turning into one of those big government vs free enterprise battles that you and I have been having for years. I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 18, 2017 1:33:12 GMT
well, having someone cancel net neutrality because Obama, comes to mind... but more seriously, I am starting to see a trend of "this regulation is not exactly what I want. let's get rid of it and then talk about what we might want it to be." I suspect this is turning into one of those big government vs free enterprise battles that you and I have been having for years. I doubt either one of us is going to change our opinions. right, you believe the democrats are out to destroy small businesses, and I believe the government defines a small business as one with at least a hundred employees, but less than a thousand. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 18, 2017 7:54:39 GMT
Who watches the watchers?.
Why we do.
And mostly, NO ONE had problems with the FCC as it was, other than the companies wanting to tear up the rule book.
Now the ISP's are whispering in the ear of congress "we want this and this", and congress are listening?.
This is how it should work.
What you need to do is find a committee of completely impartial USERS of the internet, ask them what they want.
Then take all the isp's and ask them what they want.
Listen and act on the USERS input, do the exact opposite of the ISP's?.
Or you are giving away control of your home phone to the sales companies that want to use it as a direct advertising platform.
And yes, there was a tabled scheme that wanted to change rules so you would be forced to listen to a advert on your phone every time you wanted to use it.........
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 18, 2017 12:20:27 GMT
And what is Netflix and Amazon video, a user or an ISP? And do we listen to their needs?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2017 7:22:35 GMT
And what is Netflix and Amazon video, a user or an ISP? And do we listen to their needs? They are a service, much like the content of Wikapedia, that we the user WANTS to access, so why should our ISP "pick one" and provide that for us, but throttle the definition out the other unless we pay extra, to force us to pick the one they want?. The one they get a "Cut" of our subscriptions?. This is a bit like you wanting to read "The daily planet" but your most local shop forcing the paperboy to pay mafia rates to walk safely down your street to deliver it to your door. Which of course raises the rates at which your paperboy charges delivery to you for. So YOU end up paying more. ANY ISP, be it comcast, AOL, Verizon, Liberty bell, Virgin, BT, should have equal access across all others, so that the users from one can contact the users from others, and swap data. Those not-an-isp-but-a-service-provider-on-the-internet should be able to sell their services to your door without having to pay "safety money" to the local thugs who own your internet?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2017 15:06:30 GMT
And what is Netflix and Amazon video, a user or an ISP? And do we listen to their needs? They are a service, much like the content of Wikapedia, that we the user WANTS to access, so why should our ISP "pick one" and provide that for us, but throttle the definition out the other unless we pay extra, to force us to pick the one they want?. The one they get a "Cut" of our subscriptions?. This is a bit like you wanting to read "The daily planet" but your most local shop forcing the paperboy to pay mafia rates to walk safely down your street to deliver it to your door. Which of course raises the rates at which your paperboy charges delivery to you for. So YOU end up paying more. ANY ISP, be it comcast, AOL, Verizon, Liberty bell, Virgin, BT, should have equal access across all others, so that the users from one can contact the users from others, and swap data. Those not-an-isp-but-a-service-provider-on-the-internet should be able to sell their services to your door without having to pay "safety money" to the local thugs who own your internet?. in short, do we allow ISPs to turn the information superhighway into a toll road? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 19, 2017 17:08:16 GMT
They are a service, much like the content of Wikapedia, that we the user WANTS to access, so why should our ISP "pick one" and provide that for us, but throttle the definition out the other unless we pay extra, to force us to pick the one they want?. The one they get a "Cut" of our subscriptions?. This is a bit like you wanting to read "The daily planet" but your most local shop forcing the paperboy to pay mafia rates to walk safely down your street to deliver it to your door. Which of course raises the rates at which your paperboy charges delivery to you for. So YOU end up paying more. ANY ISP, be it comcast, AOL, Verizon, Liberty bell, Virgin, BT, should have equal access across all others, so that the users from one can contact the users from others, and swap data. Those not-an-isp-but-a-service-provider-on-the-internet should be able to sell their services to your door without having to pay "safety money" to the local thugs who own your internet?. in short, do we allow ISPs to turn the information superhighway into a toll road? Here are the three views by each party. I'm not saying I fully agree with any one of them. Each bring up some valid points. But streaming video is said to make up about 80% of the internet's bandwidth. I can see where the ISP's shouldn't be required to pay for that entire expense while the companies streaming the videos are making millions, if not billions in user fees and commercials. End user - Internet access should be free and unlimited. At least to us. ISP - we shouldn't be expected to pay for the internet infrastructure without compensation from those that use it. This includes the heavy use content providers. Content Providers (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video) - We should be able to use the ISP's networks for free even though we charge our users and advertisers fees for our services. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2017 17:56:57 GMT
in short, do we allow ISPs to turn the information superhighway into a toll road? Here are the three views by each party. I'm not saying I fully agree with any one of them. Each bring up some valid points. But streaming video is said to make up about 80% of the internet's bandwidth. I can see where the ISP's shouldn't be required to pay for that entire expense while the companies streaming the videos are making millions, if not billions in user fees and commercials. End user - Internet access should be free and unlimited. At least to us. ISP - we shouldn't be expected to pay for the internet infrastructure without compensation from those that use it. This includes the heavy use content providers. Content Providers (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video) - We should be able to use the ISP's networks for free even though we charge our users and advertisers fees for our services. and here is my view: nobody should be allowed to place unreasonable restrictions on the internet. I don't have a problem with ISPs scaling prices by volume and bandwidth. I also don't have a problem with ISPs operating on a for profit model - as long as they are prevented from exploiting monopolies, like any other for-profit business should be. what I have a problem with is the ISP getting an ownership interest in a content provider, and deciding to advantage that content provider by charging extra to the other content providers for end users to access those providers through the ISP. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 19, 2017 18:35:30 GMT
Here are the three views by each party. I'm not saying I fully agree with any one of them. Each bring up some valid points. But streaming video is said to make up about 80% of the internet's bandwidth. I can see where the ISP's shouldn't be required to pay for that entire expense while the companies streaming the videos are making millions, if not billions in user fees and commercials. End user - Internet access should be free and unlimited. At least to us. ISP - we shouldn't be expected to pay for the internet infrastructure without compensation from those that use it. This includes the heavy use content providers. Content Providers (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime Video) - We should be able to use the ISP's networks for free even though we charge our users and advertisers fees for our services. and here is my view: nobody should be allowed to place unreasonable restrictions on the internet. I don't have a problem with ISPs scaling prices by volume and bandwidth. I also don't have a problem with ISPs operating on a for profit model - as long as they are prevented from exploiting monopolies, like any other for-profit business should be. what I have a problem with is the ISP getting an ownership interest in a content provider, and deciding to advantage that content provider by charging extra to the other content providers for end users to access those providers through the ISP. I can agree with all that except for the term "unreasonable." That's a political term that means, "I have no idea of what reasonable or unreasonable is, but I pretend I do." For the rest of us it's, "I know what unreasonable looks like but only after I see it and by then it's too late." If we can define "unreasonable", I think we can be in complete agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2017 19:18:49 GMT
and here is my view: nobody should be allowed to place unreasonable restrictions on the internet. I don't have a problem with ISPs scaling prices by volume and bandwidth. I also don't have a problem with ISPs operating on a for profit model - as long as they are prevented from exploiting monopolies, like any other for-profit business should be. what I have a problem with is the ISP getting an ownership interest in a content provider, and deciding to advantage that content provider by charging extra to the other content providers for end users to access those providers through the ISP. I can agree with all that except for the term "unreasonable." That's a political term that means, "I have no idea of what reasonable or unreasonable is, but I pretend I do." For the rest of us it's, "I know what unreasonable looks like but only after I see it and by then it's too late." If we can define "unreasonable", I think we can be in complete agreement. well, you can see from my details that I find exploiting a monopoly to be unreasonable, and I find selective tolls to be unreasonable. I do not believe charging more for higher bandwidth or more data transfer to be unreasonable. and by selective tolls I mean, as an example, if Braun formed a partnership with Raytheon, and installed their HVAC equipment in their ambulances free of charge, while requiring you to sell your product directly to the customer, and then charging you $100.00 per unit to accept your equipment for installation in the customer's ambulance. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 19, 2017 19:36:46 GMT
I can agree with all that except for the term "unreasonable." That's a political term that means, "I have no idea of what reasonable or unreasonable is, but I pretend I do." For the rest of us it's, "I know what unreasonable looks like but only after I see it and by then it's too late." If we can define "unreasonable", I think we can be in complete agreement. well, you can see from my details that I find exploiting a monopoly to be unreasonable, and I find selective tolls to be unreasonable. I do not believe charging more for higher bandwidth or more data transfer to be unreasonable. and by selective tolls I mean, as an example, if Braun formed a partnership with Raytheon, and installed their HVAC equipment in their ambulances free of charge, while requiring you to sell your product directly to the customer, and then charging you $100.00 per unit to accept your equipment for installation in the customer's ambulance. I agree that they should be able to charge more for faster speed, but I'm not so sure for more data transfer. If you are paying for higher speed, you should automatically get to transfer more data. In fact, if you are paying for higher speed, you should be able to use that higher speed without any further penalty or limitation. It's like what AT&T did a few years ago. They offered "unlimited data" so long as you didn't go over 10Gb. That's not what I would call "unlimited." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2017 20:18:01 GMT
well, you can see from my details that I find exploiting a monopoly to be unreasonable, and I find selective tolls to be unreasonable. I do not believe charging more for higher bandwidth or more data transfer to be unreasonable. and by selective tolls I mean, as an example, if Braun formed a partnership with Raytheon, and installed their HVAC equipment in their ambulances free of charge, while requiring you to sell your product directly to the customer, and then charging you $100.00 per unit to accept your equipment for installation in the customer's ambulance. I agree that they should be able to charge more for faster speed, but I'm not so sure for more data transfer. If you are paying for higher speed, you should automatically get to transfer more data. In fact, if you are paying for higher speed, you should be able to use that higher speed without any further penalty or limitation. It's like what AT&T did a few years ago. They offered "unlimited data" so long as you didn't go over 10Gb. That's not what I would call "unlimited." well, there are logical connections between bandwidth and data. and what AT&T did was the same thing as my ISP does. except my ISP allows me to pay to exceed my daily data cap, if I choose. and my ISP doesn't claim it is unlimited data. getting into details on precise things that can be charged gets a little complicated. using cell phones as a model, a lot of carriers are now not metering calls within their network. so is that a fair practice under "cell phone neutrality?" cell phone data is slightly different from wired ISP data, in that wired data has typically been unmetered. while cell phone airtime, and now data, has typically been metered. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Dec 19, 2017 20:51:07 GMT
I agree that they should be able to charge more for faster speed, but I'm not so sure for more data transfer. If you are paying for higher speed, you should automatically get to transfer more data. In fact, if you are paying for higher speed, you should be able to use that higher speed without any further penalty or limitation. It's like what AT&T did a few years ago. They offered "unlimited data" so long as you didn't go over 10Gb. That's not what I would call "unlimited." well, there are logical connections between bandwidth and data. and what AT&T did was the same thing as my ISP does. except my ISP allows me to pay to exceed my daily data cap, if I choose. and my ISP doesn't claim it is unlimited data. getting into details on precise things that can be charged gets a little complicated. using cell phones as a model, a lot of carriers are now not metering calls within their network. so is that a fair practice under "cell phone neutrality?" cell phone data is slightly different from wired ISP data, in that wired data has typically been unmetered. while cell phone airtime, and now data, has typically been metered. Your home internet service is via satellite, is it not? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2017 21:11:49 GMT
well, there are logical connections between bandwidth and data. and what AT&T did was the same thing as my ISP does. except my ISP allows me to pay to exceed my daily data cap, if I choose. and my ISP doesn't claim it is unlimited data. getting into details on precise things that can be charged gets a little complicated. using cell phones as a model, a lot of carriers are now not metering calls within their network. so is that a fair practice under "cell phone neutrality?" cell phone data is slightly different from wired ISP data, in that wired data has typically been unmetered. while cell phone airtime, and now data, has typically been metered. Your home internet service is via satellite, is it not? yes. so upgrading the backbone is expensive, but installing the final distribution link is fairly cheap. but their model is that each user gets an equal download allowance, and then the rate is throttled until the allowance resets. currently it is daily and I can get "reset tokens" (one free per month, and I can pay for more) then newer contracts are monthly, and I haven't looked into restore tokens, but they also automatically reduce resolution on streaming video and use compression to reduce bandwidth usage. - but it is all cross-platform. they don't treat netflix streaming any different from Hulu streaming. they also, as far as I can tell, allocate bandwidth evenly among all users - other than the DLA throttling. so if there is so much load they can't maintain full speed for all users then all users will get the same speed reduction. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 20, 2017 9:31:15 GMT
well, you can see from my details that I find exploiting a monopoly to be unreasonable, and I find selective tolls to be unreasonable. I do not believe charging more for higher bandwidth or more data transfer to be unreasonable. and by selective tolls I mean, as an example, if Braun formed a partnership with Raytheon, and installed their HVAC equipment in their ambulances free of charge, while requiring you to sell your product directly to the customer, and then charging you $100.00 per unit to accept your equipment for installation in the customer's ambulance. I agree that they should be able to charge more for faster speed, but I'm not so sure for more data transfer. If you are paying for higher speed, you should automatically get to transfer more data. In fact, if you are paying for higher speed, you should be able to use that higher speed without any further penalty or limitation. It's like what AT&T did a few years ago. They offered "unlimited data" so long as you didn't go over 10Gb. That's not what I would call "unlimited." This is the model that should exist. If you pay for higher speeds, you get them, and get them at the speeds they agreed to, under a reasonable "Fair use" policy... As in, if you are a home user, you are expected to maybe stream one full 2hr video per night swap a few emails, watch a little you-toob, and play a fer games. [ETC, definition of fair use may get different milage in your house, mine mostly do lot of course work for college and play a few minor gamers?...] If as a home user, you start using 100% of expected speed "All the time", 24hrs a day, every day, then perhaps you are not a home user but a small business?. If you need more, there should be the platinum plated gold bar with diamond studs package that gives you "25% more" in increments up to the full Star of India or worlds largest diamond package that gives you the fastest possible speed you can get. After that, shut up, you dont get better. You also got our money, give us what we pay for. I am sure the companies that use internet pay their own ISP's... Other than that, those who use, pay more, by increments, and "Thats it", it should be free, and thats the end. Its like paying road tax, I pay to use the roads, whats with this I gotta pay more to use that road?. If its a private road, maybe, but if its in public domain, ducks to one side please... If its busy, its busy. NO ONE should have the right to get one lane all to themselves. And no one should be charged to use that lane if they want to turn Right across that lane, as in, you shouldnt be charged extra just to visit one site. I include paywalls in that, such as certain news site publications, that even though they ask for subscription, bombard you with Adverts when you get there anyway?. {And, I include bloody buses on public roads, ESPECIALLY the case when a Bus lane ends, road narrows, and 100 yds later, there is a Bus stop that holds up all the traffic....] I also disagree with those sodding pay-to-view sports channels... Not only do they charge you to watch, they charge you premium rates to advertise as well, so they get two bonus payouts. Licence to print your own Benjamin?. |
|
