FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
-
Just think of your cell service provider and their Internet usage charging setup. I know Verizon does this and it's robbery in every way.
100MB of overage data cost $25 (while roaming, not sure what the domestic rate it but it's up there). That's a handful of emails with attachments.
Which doesn't give you a lot of room to operate your life like you need.
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
But we know that this will never happen. The large ISPs have way to much money and far to many lawyers to allow unbundling or let municipalities manage it.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
Also price will be different based on time of day, which many don’t realize is true of their electric.
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
You don't actually want competition on a utility. It doesn't matter how you treat them, your Internet access IS a utility. Best to treat it like it really is.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
Also price will be different based on time of day, which many don’t realize is true of their electric.
Which is actually a great idea. Get people to buffer stuff at smarter times of the day!
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Right, so do you see my point about what I was reading?
-
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Yeah, I've been saying that for years. It's like roads in a city, there just isn't enough room to allow anyone and everyone to do their own thing.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Right, so do you see my point about what I was reading?
remind me - I want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Who was saying small business want to repeal NN? And why?from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Right, so do you see my point about what I was reading?
remind me - I want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Who was saying small business want to repeal NN? And why?from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
@bigbear was in support for the repeal of NN, but seems to have realized what NN is about (from a post he made about changing his stance).
-
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Right, so do you see my point about what I was reading?
remind me - I want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Who was saying small business want to repeal NN? And why?from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
@bigbear was in support for the repeal of NN, but seems to have realized what NN is about (from a post he made about changing his stance).
Yeah - that much I know.
Once @bigbear found that it was the OIR (OIO) that was putting the rules he didn't like in place, the general idea of NN was something @bigbear now appears to support.
But that doesn't really play into the small business wants to repeal NN - unless there's conflating going on there, and those small businesses weren't separating OIR from NN, or as I mentioned above.. they just didn't want to have to raise prices - because...
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
This seems easily solvable - bill by usage. If you need a min amount of money, bill for a minimum amount of data used, say 1 TB, then charge for overages (many ISPs do that today, long before the NN rules were repealed).
I would be fine with charging for usage. That treat any packet differently then the other and would be fine under the Net Neutrality rules that were in place. I would like to see it handled like a utility though (or just allow municipalities to handle the last mile).
Charging based on usage would treat it just like your electric or water bill.
You used 2000 gallons of water this past quarter, that'll be $52 dollars.
The issue that I see people having with it is that they also will have to pay for a minimum amount of usable data from the ISP at whatever the cost is. Say $30 dollars per month gets you 1TB of data at 12/6.
And then you have "usage charges" on top of that which likely are going to be way more than the $30 per month as all usage charges are designed to be punitive to user. Sometimes charging as much as much as $25 for 100MB of data (which just continually adds on to the bill).
Except if you treat them like a utility they won't be able to charge that amounts of money for a small amount of data. Or unbundle the last mile and have municipalities manage it. Then allow an open market for ISPs to compete.
You don't actually want competition on a utility. It doesn't matter how you treat them, your Internet access IS a utility. Best to treat it like it really is.
I'm good with this as well. It would help control pricing.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Title says it will preserve the open internet. Does literally the opposite of that...
Because of issues like this I might just leave America.
I know it's drastic to say it, but this is just completely unbelievable. And we have at least 3 more years of this insanity from all arms of the government.
I was reading today how the repeal of NN was supported by small businesses because it will help them compete... like Netflix
Small business? Bigger now than all Cable TV providers combined.
Netflix didn't support the Net Neutrality repeal. They've been one of the many providers who have spoken in favor of Net Neutrality in the past.
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933042368156123136
https://twitter.com/netflix/status/933073846839554048
It's the Cable TV providers and ISPs who have been publicly against Net Neutrality.
Right, so do you see my point about what I was reading?
remind me - I want to make sure I'm on the same page.
Who was saying small business want to repeal NN? And why?from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
@bigbear was in support for the repeal of NN, but seems to have realized what NN is about (from a post he made about changing his stance).
Yeah - that much I know.
Once @bigbear found that it was the OIR (OIO) that was putting the rules he didn't like in place, the general idea of NN was something @bigbear now appears to support.
But that doesn't really play into the small business wants to repeal NN - unless there's conflating going on there, and those small businesses weren't separating OIR from NN, or as I mentioned above.. they just didn't want to have to raise prices - because...
I was aware that Net Neutrality was different than OIO and was trying to argue that in the beginning. My comment was that calling the bill Net Neutrality was brilliant marketing.
However, from reading the bill I found that there seemed to be a lot of good intention and an admission that they were going to have to learn as they moved forward.
Whats suspicious to me about the repeal is that, while passing they law didnt seem to do anything beyond the laws that existed before 2015, is that we now have no laws to replace this.
So that is my WTF moment of change sides on this.
-
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
They punish them by slowing down video streams so users use less data, as an example. Again that flat rate mentality they have put out there, users (crazily mind you) think they have unlimited data - but really have, not a cap, but a (for sake of argument) 1 TB included account. Go over 1 TB and you're paying X for y additional data.
So keep customers quite - the ISP can simple throttle back on video throughput lowering the overall usage, the customer will likely not realize (at least until 4K streaming becomes mainstream, though some argue that HD is very noticeable - whatever level you want to draw the line) they aren't getting the bandwidth they paid for.
-
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
Additionally, it might be considered overstating that they want to punish their customers, but they definitely don't want to do what's right - which is raising prices to cover the higher costs - instead lower quality to try to keep things at a status quo.
@bigbear mentioned that small ISPs can't raise their prices because of competition - is that true? Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
They punish them by slowing down video streams so users use less data, as an example. Again that flat rate mentality they have put out there, users (crazily mind you) think they have unlimited data - but really have, not a cap, but a (for sake of argument) 1 TB included account. Go over 1 TB and you're paying X for y additional data.
So keep customers quite - the ISP can simple throttle back on video throughput lowering the overall usage, the customer will likely not realize (at least until 4K streaming becomes mainstream, though some argue that HD is very noticeable - whatever level you want to draw the line) they aren't getting the bandwidth they paid for.
There isnt a single big or small ISP that isnt managing their network in this way, though. Throttling is what one would refer to in this business as "Network Management".
Real Time Services cant be buffered, there are content caching systems and a lot of other things similar to whats being done with video streams.
So this goes back to my initial premise of "this new law really isnt going to do anything, for better or worst"
The argument about flat rates I understand. I would not invest in a start ISP that was going to attempt this type of pricing though. It simply wouldn't sell, almost at any price it wouldnt sell. I myself wouldnt even want to buy it that why. So that is my only argument there.
If the government wants to really force the internet as a metered utility it would be interesting to see the resulting pricing and public reaction. I have not idea how that would track.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
That's just one way they go about it. A friend of mine used to run a small ISP, and what happened to him was a buyout. His partner was relying on the money he was supposed to get from the buyout to retire. Well, it just happened that the company that bought out a lot of these smaller ISPs was run by a former Comcast CEO. The entire point of the company was to buyout as many small ISPs as they could before declaring bankruptcy. I doubt you even need to guess who lost their money and who got another cushy job at Comcast.
-
@dashrender said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@bigbear said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dashrender said in [FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues]
from here it looks like small ISPs want it repealed so they can punish their users, instead of raising prices like they should to cover costs.
Now following: How are ISP's able to punish their users with the repeal? And why would they want to?
Additionally, it might be considered overstating that they want to punish their customers, but they definitely don't want to do what's right - which is raising prices to cover the higher costs - instead lower quality to try to keep things at a status quo.
@bigbear mentioned that small ISPs can't raise their prices because of competition - is that true? Do you often see small ISPs overlapping with large ISPs where large ISPs lower rates to kill off the small guy?
Typically a small ISP starts where there is only dial-up, no broadband service at all. The only exception I have seen was the build out of Lexington's WISP provider (Qx) where Lexington is shaped like a bowl and Brighthouse delivered terrible service.
Ultimately, if you roll out a broadband service you are doing so simply to sell it to Time Warner (Comcast, etc) later. Which we have also done.
My view of the "Netflix issue" is to apply network management (throttling) the same way we content cache active sites.
But Verizon is the only one I know that has throttled to be anti-competitive and to tax Netflix. There is no way they are at a disadvantage at the interconnect level. Its not affecting their costs. They just wanted to do it.
