What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
There should be no competition, that's why the government alone should control the Internet connections.
Well until then, we can agree that I wish the law was still in place.
With Pai I am actually getting fucked if I am an ISP until he does something specific to change this. I was fucked the whole time mind you, but seemed like with NN there was hope and a potential future that I would get assistance.
If we just had equal packets, and that was that - we all get what we pay for, the system would be simple.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
The only way to stop the bleeding, as with any P2P service as was also brought up, would be to throttle that interconnect.
Why do you need to throttle it instead of charging like you do for any normal ISP connection? This isn't a hard problem. It's like a barter system with an imbalance, thankfully we have cash so no rational business can possibly have this problem unless they are trying to do something wrong and trying to cover it up. Just charge for usage, how obvious can it be?
And obviously it's charge for all usage, not picking and choosing for the purpose of extortion.
So if from 2000 to 2012 my interconnect costs were about $16,000 for 800 subscribers, and now it is closing on $50k because of media streaming with no increase in cost to subscribers (real number scenario here) what do I do?
I close the doors and go bankrupt or throttle that connection so I can afford it. This is something the NN law didnt address, which is why as an ISP you just threw your hands up back then and said "nothing is gonna change". Im gonna be throttling that interconnect so I can afford the bill.
Why did your fees NOT go up? The customer clearly is getting more in 2012 than they were in 2000.
Oh yeah.. because you advertised unlimited internet for that old fee, back when use was low. Now use is high, the old method of billing just doensn't work anymore.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
There should be no competition, that's why the government alone should control the Internet connections.
Well until then, we can agree that I wish the law was still in place.
With Pai I am actually getting fucked if I am an ISP until he does something specific to change this. I was fucked the whole time mind you, but seemed like with NN there was hope and a potential future that I would get assistance.
If we just had equal packets, and that was that - we all get what we pay for, the system would be simple.
Well, we do. Thats why I owe the big guys so much more at the end of the month.
Maybe you are talking about zero tier though. And that is what I can see the big guys hating. They love to fight out interconnect fees with each other. And the FCC could have stopped this with them. So why did any particular carrier actually fight to keep NN?
-
For googling purposes and media discussion "Zero Rating"
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
They just werent sure how they were going to do it, and made some statements about how they would make their mind up as they went. Making the actual law more of a starting point that didnt change much in the beginning.
What? You changed your mind because you could use Title II to your advantage to steal from Verizon, assuming the FCC made you a zero rate on the interconnect? or did I completely misread that?
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Or if Netflix was to be able to afford it, they would have to raise their prices and pass the cost onto the customers - the same customers we are claiming can't afford it. Clearly that's not possible.
So the bottom line is that the ISPs don't have a working business model. And there is only one group at potential fault for that, the ISPs.
So while Verizon is big enough to force Netflix to pay I am not. BUT.... reading NN more carefully the intention was to use TITLE II to set zero tier rates on a case by case basis.
So this is the reason I changed my mind yesterday. They could make my rate zero on an interconnect. Now I can compete and stay in business.
They just werent sure how they were going to do it, and made some statements about how they would make their mind up as they went. Making the actual law more of a starting point that didnt change much in the beginning.
What? You changed your mind because you could use Title II to your advantage to steal from Verizon, assuming the FCC made you a zero rate on the interconnect? or did I completely misread that?
Sounds like you are misreading it.
Also, not involved in any ISP anymore.
In short I will see this
-
I agree with Net Neutrality. It was headed in the right direction.
-
It wasnt the wild west before this in 2015 there were many protections in place
-
The complaints about throttling P2P and netflix were not even solved by the original legislation
Overall, I agree NN should have stayed. I also have found some questionable statements from Pai.
And is no one up in arms about all the Zero Rating stuff going on. Free Hulu with Sprint and so on?
-
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And is no one up in arms about all the Zero Rating stuff going on. Free Hulu with Sprint and so on?
I've said before that I'm not okay with that stuff. I wasn't aware of that particular one as neither Hulu nor Sprint are important enough for most people to hear about them.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
And is no one up in arms about all the Zero Rating stuff going on. Free Hulu with Sprint and so on?
Those of us paying attention are, yes.
-
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
-
Was just one I saw today.
Does Tmo and Netflix concern you?
Or the possibility of Verison and Netflix?
Or AT&T and free DirecTV
all things that are going on now, and dont count against your bandwidth?
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why did your fees NOT go up? The customer clearly is getting more in 2012 than they were in 2000.
Kind of difficult when everyone else's fees were going down.
-
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why did your fees NOT go up? The customer clearly is getting more in 2012 than they were in 2000.
Kind of difficult when everyone else's fees were going down.
in your same area?
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
Lol, I'm lucky to hit 3 or 4 GB a month.
-
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
Lol, I'm lucky to hit 3 or 4 GB a month.
then you are drastically overpaying. For TMo to be smart, they need to anticipate you to use 22 GB and charge you based that on that usage, instead of charging you based upon you real issue.
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
Lol, I'm lucky to hit 3 or 4 GB a month.
then you are drastically overpaying. For TMo to be smart, they need to anticipate you to use 22 GB and charge you based that on that usage, instead of charging you based upon you real issue.
No, doing family plan. Its way cheaper than any other. But still, it doesn't work like that. The only possible way it could be cheaper is if we used less than 2 GB.
My wife uses a lot more than me, but still we'll never see the 22 GB limit or whatever it is.
This is me so far this month... the 2gb limit I have set is meaningless now that it's unlimited. However, if i do stay below 2gb, the bill is 10 dollars cheaper.
Now WiFi on the otherhand.... that's up there lol.
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Why did your fees NOT go up? The customer clearly is getting more in 2012 than they were in 2000.
Kind of difficult when everyone else's fees were going down.
in your same area?
Brighthouse, Time Warner, Charter, Comcast, Spectrum - whatever you want to call them on a given day.
In the time this year since I left that business Spectrum has doubled everyone's speeds here for free to 100mb, and they have cut the pricing down to $50 or less, and made similar offers to businesses.
They are in the process of what you would call a limited asset purchase now, where we could have been bought last year.
I could tell all kinds of tales of yore about the WISP and DSL. Early 2000's was the most fun because you were actually bringing 10 and 15mb service out to people who only had dial up options. It really hasn't been fun or profitable for a while. I don't exactly consider any ISP I have been in to be a "greedy big company".
I am happy to have moved on and have found mid-market enterprise voice to be a pretty good market. I plan on sticking to this for a long time.
-
@bigbear said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
In the time this year since I left that business Spectrum has doubled everyone's speeds here for free to 100mb, and they have cut the pricing down to $50 or less, and made similar offers to businesses.
If they keep that up, they'll be comparable to the EU within a decade or two!
-
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
On all of these unlimited deals the actual result is that, during peak hours, they prioritize spectrum access differently. I have found with unlimited you can hit over 30GB and still be getting top speeds most of the day.
Its not a hard cap and throttle like the MVNO and smaller guys do. Sprint started with this type of unlimited deal and ATT/Verizon seems to have followed suit. I can not speak directly to TMo on that though.
-
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dashrender said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@tim_g said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I wouldn't use Hulu even if it was free... let alone pay for Sprint. I'm perfectly happy with T-Mobile.
I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime. All I need. I already have unlimited internet with T-Mobile.
And even TMo isn't unlimited, because at 22 GB, they throttle if THEY choose to.
Lol, I'm lucky to hit 3 or 4 GB a month.
then you are drastically overpaying. For TMo to be smart, they need to anticipate you to use 22 GB and charge you based that on that usage, instead of charging you based upon you real issue.
No, doing family plan. Its way cheaper than any other. But still, it doesn't work like that. The only possible way it could be cheaper is if we used less than 2 GB.
My wife uses a lot more than me, but still we'll never see the 22 GB limit or whatever it is.
This is me so far this month... the 2gb limit I have set is meaningless now that it's unlimited. However, if i do stay below 2gb, the bill is 10 dollars cheaper.
Now WiFi on the otherhand.... that's up there lol.
not exactly correct. In the current setup that TMo offers, you're right. But TMo could offer you a cost per GB plan like Google Fi does and you probably save something if not a lot.
In order to charge flat rates, many people have to over pay for actual usage to make up the difference for the those that use a ton.
