DescentBB

Data isn't a finite resource, but bandwidth is due to the infrastructure required to provide it. So maybe bandwidth limits are OK (e.g., X mbps), but data limits are lame (e.g., Y GB per month)?

Spidey wrote:The article said you (meaning me) are paying to send and receive, so therefore I am already paying for the traffic. (tricky tricky)

Ok. Well…Netflix is also paying to "send" and receive…correct. (note the send part, hence the flaw in the argument) In other words…the more you “send” and receive…the more you should pay.

The double dipping would have to be part of the paying for sending and receiving in the first place, not the just the examples given. Therefore the double dipping already exists. (the system is rigged from the beginning)

You're right, but I should only have to pay my ISP for the cost of bandwidth to and from me, since that is what my ISP is providing me. I shouldn't have to worry paying for the bandwidth to and from Netflix because they're already paying their own ISP for that bandwidth who has already provided it to them.

It might cost someone in Afghanistan a lot of money to just get even a small amount of bandwidth, but once those packets are on the Internet, then I expect my ISP to treat them the same as anyone's, since it doesn't cost my ISP any more or less to give me packets that came in from Afghanistan versus any other place. They didn't do any extra work to give me packets from Afghanistan, so why should I pay them more for them?

Yeah, if your ISP claims they are selling you a 30 megabit connection, but limit you to 100 gigabytes a month then they aren't really selling you a 30 megabit connection, instead they are selling you a slightly over 323 kilobit connection.

If on the other hand they sell you a 30 megabit connection with the expectation that you could actually download 579 terabytes in a 30 day period, well then it really would be a 30 megabit connection.

They're treating internet traffic like cellphone traffic and since they suddenly lost their golden ticket, they went ape.

well, common sense and public outcry carry the day!!!! Thank goodness. And, as always, Faux News is a bit confused, apparently:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/81164 ... rack-obama

Lets wait until we see how the govt now controls content and what they determine as being "fair"

sure, Woody....we're all sitting around waiting for the horrors of Obamacare and the mass confiscation of weapons, so why not put that on the agenda, too. At least, for the moment, we aren't going to get hosed by a bunch of content providers and ISPs.

The FCC just voted to put the internet under Title 2 regulations. Good. It's become a necessity nowadays. I also just listened to Steve Wozniak in a TV interview. He said that he lives a couple of blocks away from work and goes travels there on a Segway of all things. But in Silicon Valley, he doesn't have access to broadband.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... -fcc-board

Well, it’s probably a good thing to retitle the internet as a utility, now tonight we can all put our hands together and pray they don’t blow it like they did with…

Electricity…
Water…
Phone…

Have you looked at your electric bill…you pay transmission charges and distribution charges…and then another distribution charge, and you still haven’t started to pay for usage…

Two distribution charges on top of transmission charges….REALLY!

And, I can’t even understand my phone bill.

No smartass, I said I can’t understand my PHONE bill.

A few years back the PUC told Verizon that they had to make their bill more clear…so Verizon started to print them with a larger typeface…badda boom…I crack myself up.

I’m not really going to get into this debate, but if you think the PUC does a bang up job regulating utilities…you probably don’t pay any utility bills.

I pay all kinds of utility bills in two different states, and I STRONGLY suspect that if unregulated, I'd be paying far more for some items(phone and electric in VA, water and electric in DE). So, does the PUC(or whatever it's called locally) do a PERFECT job? No, but as seems to be too often, the bar is set to a foolish level. So what, you can't be bothered to figure out the bill breakdown? That breakdown can help you most efficiently choose a provider. You could see what Comcast does better, Spidey, for example. At any rate, just because the regulatory environment doesn't function flawlessly is no reason at all to suggest we do without a regulatory framework.

Spidey wrote:Well, it’s probably a good thing to retitle the internet as a utility, now tonight we can all put our hands together and pray they don’t blow it like they did with…

Electricity…
Water…
Phone…

Have you looked at your electric bill…you pay transmission charges and distribution charges…and then another distribution charge, and you still haven’t started to pay for usage…

Two distribution charges on top of transmission charges….REALLY!

And, I can’t even understand my phone bill.

so, what you're saying is, data is generated at one end, and consumed at your end.

callmeslick wrote:At any rate, just because the regulatory environment doesn't function flawlessly is no reason at all to suggest we do without a regulatory framework.

I didn’t say that, read my post again, I actually said that the ruling was probably a good thing, but was hoping that the mistakes made with other utilities could be avoided.

Why the hell do you force me to waste so much time correcting you.

wasn't specifically citing your post, but the general attitude I see of 'see, it isn't perfect, scrap it', which applies to this discussion, Obamacare, etc, etc.

callmeslick wrote:wasn't specifically citing your post, but the general attitude I see of 'see, it isn't perfect, scrap it', which applies to this discussion, Obamacare, etc, etc.

Seems you are in thrall to the tune the govt. knows best.

no, Woody, I am of the opinion that government is a necessity for a well-run society. Government only knows best, when the participants(the voters) are informed and paying attention. You've shown the capacity for neither, getting by with bad info and no awareness of reality.

I'm so happy you guys are talking about this. I thought I was going to have to make a new post on our success against the telecoms.

the public response was pretty amazing, Issac.

I'm amazed at how Fox news has been twisting this good news into bad news. It really shows that they can be bought off to tell lies. And I'm really surprised at those that believe it.

Yes, there will be more regulations on the internet, but unless you're a selfish telecom, like Comcast, Time Warner, or AT&T, you have nothing to worry about.

I'm always amazed, Issac, that anyone believes a word out of Faux News, so this is no different. You see, as is so often the case, a win for the Obama administration HAS to be bad, it just HAS to be, dontcha see?

like I was saying above, as a rural, remote customer on the Eastern Shore of VA, without some regulations in place, I might not even have electrical service had it not been a government priority, and would pay a massive amount for phone/internet/TV. There just aren't enough customers to make us profitable for the utilities/telecoms. Luckily, regulation avoids that happening. Up here in Delaware, the issue would be around sucking the maximum money from a relatively affluent region of the nation with 'premium' service,at the expense of others. Regulation serves a purpose, government serves a purpose, and government, as I noted, reflects the people's involvement. On the net issue, the public(millions of them) made their feelings and wishes clear. Good for them, and great to see the system work as planned, even if it had to do so on party lines, in what SHOULD have been a politically neutral issue, IMHO.

callmeslick wrote: You've shown the capacity for neither, getting by with bad info and no awareness of reality.

Show me in this thread where I showed neither. Seems I've been cautionary at best.

callmeslick wrote:like I was saying above, as a rural, remote customer on the Eastern Shore of VA, without some regulations in place, I might not even have electrical service had it not been a government priority, and would pay a massive amount for phone/internet/TV. There just aren't enough customers to make us profitable for the utilities/telecoms. Luckily, regulation avoids that happening. Up here in Delaware, the issue would be around sucking the maximum money from a relatively affluent region of the nation with 'premium' service,at the expense of others. Regulation serves a purpose, government serves a purpose, and government, as I noted, reflects the people's involvement. On the net issue, the public(millions of them) made their feelings and wishes clear. Good for them, and great to see the system work as planned, even if it had to do so on party lines, in what SHOULD have been a politically neutral issue, IMHO.

Well, now we're going to need the internet equivalent of the interstate highway system, because other than Google who's installing gigabit service in select areas, no private company would possibly want invest in such a large nationwide project. Even though in the long run, it would make boatloads of cash for everyone who used the net for commerce. It'll take that nasty ol' government to do it. Hell, it took government intervention just to get electricity out to those rural areas.

You guys know I'm typically conservative....

But I'm in full agreement with the vote.

Here's why:

1. I think it opens the door for competition, especially in the form of municipalities choosing to set up their own networks.
2. It deals with the conflict of interest that exists with the cable companies - conflict of interest between delivering high quality internet service and pushing their customers toward their entertainment services.


I don't really buy the propaganda that this will stifle innovation and technology - right now, up-and-comers have to wade through mountains to red tape that has been set up by the telecom giants specifically to close the market. This moves us toward an open market, which I think will ultimately force the telecoms to either provide better service or get supplanted.