Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Gives 'Free' Internet To Netflix and Google, ISP Claims (arstechnica.com)
Frontier Communications is asking employees for help in its fight against state net neutrality rules in California, claiming that the rules will give "free" Internet to major Web companies while raising costs for consumers. From a report: The Internet service provider urged employees to submit a form letter asking Governor Jerry Brown to veto the net neutrality bill that was recently approved by the state legislature. Frontier sent an email to employees and set up an online form for them to send the form letter to Brown. "I am proud to work at Frontier and help operate a network that is part of an incredibly successful Internet ecosystem that is the backbone of our economy and daily life," the form letter says. But net neutrality rules "will harm consumers and impose complex layers of costly regulation," and therefore "deter investment and delay broadband deployment in California, especially in rural areas that still lack high-speed Internet access," the letter says. The letter claims that net neutrality rules "will create significant new costs for consumers" but did not make it clear what those new costs would be.
Why are corporations all a bunch of lying-ass trash?
FCC fee, transmission fee, line fee, digital fee, tax, MBZ fee, etc.
Netflix/google/whomever is paying for internet access, in a different way then regular consumers.
The teleco's can go fuck themselves.
I paid for it. I the customer. I already paid for it.
When you say free, you mean you want to double-charge. You want to charge them to get to me, as much as you want to charge me to get to them. But they make all their money from me. This really boils down to, you want to double-charge me.
I already paid for it.
It doesn't cost you $100/month to move the electrons. You aren't buying $100/mo worth of equipment. Be honest. It is all profit, and you like profit with minimal cost. If you could get all your profit that way, you would love it. You prefer slavery. If you could, you would do it.
You drink blood. Eventually, you end up drinking your own, along with the vast pool of mine and everyone like me. It kills you when you do it. To watch you die at your own hand I just have to be able to wait long enough to see it.
Yes. Duh. That's what 'Net Neutrality' does. It's not exactly rocket science. You'd all know this already if you didn't have your heads crammed deep inside your own rectums.
Net neutrality on a technical level is less regulation and complexity, not more.
The idea is very simple, treat all traffic equally and design your network to peer with the other guy's in such a way that it keeps costs down for both parties.
Netflix is the reason your customers are buying faster tiers of internet,.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
I find it fascinating when a corporation "encourages" its employees to a certain political action and helpfully provide them a script. Corporations are people, money is speech, and coercing your employees's speech is a very pure expression of malignant capitalism.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They are right and it's called market power. ISP's should thank god Google and Netflix aren't charging ISP's yet for the privilege of having their service, as consumers would be happy to ditch any service that doesn't offer them.
I don't watch Netflix or Amazon Prime movies. Why should my internet experience be jeopardized because some people are glued to their TVs?! Bandwidth is finite. Let the throttling begin!!!
The internet, under net neutrality, became an oligarchy of 3 or 4 corporations that now control 99.9% of information.
We used to say the internet interpreted censorship as damage and routes around it. Alex Jones proves that is no longer the case.
All the whining about Net Neutrality is garbage. Running an ISP is an inexpensive task, relatively, and it scales very well. The larger you are, the cheaper each additional customer is. I am literally baffled how large megacorps like Frontier, Spectrum nee Charter, and Comcast don't have 50% profit margins at their prices.
For all I know they do have 50% profit margins, and all this garbage about rising costs is just that... garbage.
The only reason that this has lasted so long, and the incumbent idiocy has not been ousted by competition, is because they don't have competition in most of their markets. Monopoly pricing has become the norm rather than the exception in the US. In the EU, which is no easier or more difficult to provide Internet to, consumer internet costs 1/2 to 1/4 what it does in the US. As far as I can tell the primary driver between the difference in price is that the EU municipalities never created monopoly markets for Internet.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
People buy internet access to use Netflix, Google/Youtube, Facebook. Take those away, and people don't buy Internet access. Next up, the phone companies can bitch that grandma is getting "free" phone because you keep calling her and the electric companies can bitch that the led companies are getting "free" electricity because you keep buying their products.
Fuck Frontier Communications. Seriously, that should be the name of the act. The "Fuck Frontier Communications Act". Every bit about how it harms them? They Governor can smile and say "Good" while he signs the act into law. They'll be better off, not worse, when the act is passed. They're too dumb of shits to see that when all the see is the short-term pie and their short-term profit potential.
Netflix pays for their connection to the public Internet. An ISP's customers pay for their connection to the public Internet. The ISP pays backbone provider(s) for their interconnection to every other ISP. No one is getting anything for 'FREE'.
Now, that having been said: If ISPs would stop over-booking their own networks, then maybe everyone streaming stuff from Netflix at the same time wouldn't max out their networks and make their customers complain.
Also, as a sidebar: ISPs are completely disingenuous. Some company like Comcast/Xfinity has competing services, and furthermore are both content creators and content deliverers; as such anything they say on the subject should be disregarded.
Overall there are too many parasite corporations in this country and they need to be taken down a few notches.
While I understand their argument, I guess, shouldn't Netflix et al already be paying for what they use?
I mean, if I have a 100/20 connection, I pay for that. If Netflix has a 1 terabit connection to each of its movie servers in 36 different metro areas, shouldn't they already be PAYING for that?
I get that their regional fees mainly are for their local access to the trunk, but doesn't the pay-chain go up from there too? Essentially, this is the main cost (I presume) that Netflix's internet provider bears, ie their bandwidth to the trunk, which is then sold (with markups) to their various customers, no?
I understand there are some complicated "tragedy of the commons" issues at play (moreso than either side's oversimplifications) but this doesn't seem like one of them?
-Styopa
This is just squatting from ISPs, who can set the rules (and the world view) thanks to being first on the pot. There should be no "peering points" on the internet, only connections, and the only logical way to charge is for the ISP/user generating the traffic requests to pay for their delivery. But ISPs grew up in the US telecoms market where people can be made to pay and receive phone calls and text messages...
The more I hear "We need to stop net neutrality/government oversight because it will prevent us from serving poor rural customers" the more I wonder if telcos have been withholding service from these areas strategically, so that they can promise to get them service every few years in exchange for regulatory favor or just money, then renege on their promises only to bring up the same areas a few years later when they want something else.
Perhaps they should consider raising their rates if they think things are free. That is what the fees are for. I've not heard of them, but what unlucky slobs get Frontier in their geographic area?
Help, government we are dying without corporate welfare and bailouts!!!! We need you and appreciate how much you do for us! ...15 minutes later
Whateva government you can't tell me what to do, I do what I want, you don't own me.
Ad nauseam.
Starlink and similar services can't simply come fast enough.
Ezekiel 23:20
By this argument, Google Fiber should be self-limiting, because at some point Google not paying and Google also not paying should result in such a huge shortfall that they go out of business. Right?
it will increase costs. People will binge watch more, download more.
So what? pass the cost to the consumer.
I don't have a problem paying a little more for better service
Be honest about what limits are imposed, stop changing the definition of words.
Employee testimonials carry zero weight.
Netflix has made sure that that claim is bullshit. The only reason Netflix is a burden on an ISP's backbone is an ISP going out of it's way to make sure they aren't playing nice with Netflix.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Frontier took over FIOS in my area from Verizon. During the switch over, there were widespread reports of major outages, and calls to Frontier which took very long times to get through, resulted in more and more confusion. One small business lost their phone service for two full weeks after Frontier took over. The area's whole 911 system even went down due to Frontier (I don't recall whether that was due to the FIOS mess, but it was Frontier's fault). Frontier is terrible. I tell people to avoid Frontier whenever possible.
I like to get what I pay for, and I know they don't like streaming, so I torrent instead.
I downloaded a 62Gb archive of wikipedia, and I seed it, using 8 of my 10Mbps upload speed. I average about 1.5Tb/Mo in just uploads, and the best part is, the downloads are taken care of with the other packets.
I seed Popular linux distros , wikipedia, anything.
I'm "helping".
Maybe they should get their own internet working first or at least sell customers what they're getting. There's some outlaying areas around me that don't have cable service. Frontier sells people 7Mb DSL that barely hits 768k. That's not much faster than dialup and these people are paying $59.95 for it.
They had a piece about a city which built a new baseball stadium but had no team. And any time another city would say no to their current baseball team demands, the team owner would say, "We could always move there." So, this empty stadium was continually used as an excuse for giving the team owners what they wanted. This city's empty stadium was constantly being used as a bargaining chip and a scapegoat.
I think of this story every time I read, "...deter investment and delay broadband deployment...in rural areas..."
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
One of humanity's greatest inventions should not be sold to the highest bidder.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You can't make dire predictions about something we already had for two years, and went away less than a year ago!
Obviously since net neutrality went away in Dec of last year, prices should have fallen. Where are those lower prices Frontier?
And nobody can use it.
The reason is because page 1 of the proposal says they would provide internet access to customers along the route. Buried in the legalese was the fact they only intended to build about a dozen taps. I've driven the route and some of those taps are in areas where nobody lives.
Basic telephone service here costs over $100/month from them, over barely maintained copper buried 20 years ago.
Oh and they are a monopoly and employ a single guy to work a 20 mile stretch of coastline.
I have a gigabit radio link to an independent ISP partnered with Hurricane & Electric. That means fiber to San Francisco. If a one man operator can do that, it seems blatantly obvious a large company could do better. That costs me 10% of what ComCast offered me.
Frontier and other ISPs are upset because they spend the minimum amount necessary on infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. They oversold their minimalist networks as much as they possibly could, and then the likes of Netflix and YouTube came along and ISP customers started all consuming massive amounts of bandwidth instead of it just being the file sharers that ate bandwidth like mad.
So now, in order to meet customer demand, ISPs have to use some of the profits they've been racking in hand over fist to go out an upgrade their networks. But, instead of just getting the job done, they'd rather spend a few million on a political propaganda campaign and buying off politicians to try and kill Net Neutrality so they can keep their grubby mitts on the most profit possible.
Now, make no mistake, either way consumers are still going to get screwed in the end, but, better they get screwed while getting an upgraded infrastructure, instead of letting the ISPs rip off Netflix and others for the crime of serving content. Because without Net Neutrality, the ISPs get to demand tolls from Netflix, and Netflix's prices go up, while the ISPs sit back and do nothing. With Net Neutrality, the ISPs will raise prices and implement data caps - but they also build infrastructure to handle the demand.
And Netflix already has all the incentive in the world to research, develop, and adopt new video codecs like AV1 to make their content smaller, because they still need to pay to have their content mirrored all around the country. And the smaller that content is, the less they have to pay.
I cannot believe ISPs expect any sympathy from their Customers. I have exactly one ISP I can use and they are actively suing to prevent / slowdown anyone else from providing service. The people that run ISPs are scum and it is easy to side with net neutrality.
The ISPs are claiming that the consumers will foot the bill if the likes of Netflix and Google aren't made to pay. But, who believes that if the big content providers are charged more, they won't immediately pass that increase on to their content consuming customers? Consumers pay for their data consumption one way or the other.
I suspect Netflix and Google are already paying for their Internet connections. If you think you're not charging them enough for each byte, by all means, charge them more for each byte. But if you want to charge people more or less for communicating with certain companies using the bytes they're paying for, then get fucked.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Google pays it's ISPs to carry all of it's traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to users, Google pays an ISP to carry it.
ISPs pay or peer with other ISPs to carry all of their traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to Google or users, ISPs pay an ISP to carry it.
Users pay their ISPs to carry all of their traffic. Doesn't matter if it goes to Google, users pay an ISP to carry it.
Who is getting free internet again?
Google and Netflix pay for their connections, same as us. And in fact, pretty much every commercial internet connection is metered. You pay for every bit.
If you don't work in the ISP/telco industry, you have no idea how cheap bandwidth is these days. You can get a full gigabit for less than $100. You can get 10 gigabit circuits for less than $2000. With the typical oversubscription rate of about 30-to-1, that means I can provide 300 people with 1 gigabit connections for $2000/month. And considering every one of those 300 people is paying roughly $70 month, that means the ISP is making about $20k/month just *on the bandwidth*.
The ISPs just don't want to do it. It's that simple. They don't want to spend more money on bandwidth, mostly because they don't want people watching Netflix. They want them watching cable TV, where their margins are much better, and they can sell their own advertising.
Since the public paid for and still is paying for the infrastructure one wonders how communications monopolies can decide the status of traffic.
but most estimates place it somewhere between $9-$20/mo for 100 mbps. This is based on their SEC filings. You'll generally pay $80-$100/mo for that service. $140 if you don't want a bandwidth cap (or if you go much over your cap).
ISPs go out of their way to hide this figure because if folks knew how cheap modern telecom is they'd be furious.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fuck Comcast and the others for implementing data caps to drive customers to their own services. And fuck Google, FaceBook, and the rest for declaring themselves platforms open to the public, then closing accounts for wrongthink (Jordan Peterson temporarily lost his Gmail for posting academic videos disagreeing with transidentity stuff).
The letter claims that net neutrality rules "will create significant new costs for consumers" but did not make it clear what those new costs would be.
That is pure, unadulterated horseshit.
Fuck you. I pay 5x more now.
Is that "fair?"
I've had to change providers 3 times because they've left our state. Next year, I bet my monthly health insurance will cost more than our mortgage and we'll only have 1 plan to "choose."
Fuckers.
Pre-ACA, there were 20+ companies offering plans of all sorts. We could choose which coverages and what deductible made sene. Not that the fucking govt is involved, I can't refuse certain coverages which will never be an issue and I can't choose a deductible to let the plan "fit" our budget.
Fuckers.
I'm not a single issue voter, but by far, the ACA has costed my family more than any other govt program in my lifetime.
Fuckers.
Respectfully yours,
Being crushed by ACA
In most all cases the ISP owns and controls both ends of the customer connection.
If I were running Comcast and wanted to make a lot of money, I would:
1) Remember that we are a content provider. Our main customers like to consume passive content
2) Fully embrace net-neutrality. Push for the most comprehensive, draconian version we could find. This would force the same restriction on our competition.
3) We were caught somewhat off guard with the whole over the top video streaming thing, but we’ve been doing VOD for years without the internet. It’s time to double down on our own VOD solutions that are explicitly NOT IP ( Internet protocol ) based.
4) We already have tight relationships with most all the big content providers. We could probably get exclusive content form folks like Disney.
5) Once we build out or non IP VOD solution, we start to tighten the screws on our Internet service. “Don’t want to pay $300 a month to stream videos from Netflix?” Buy our fully net-neutrality complaint minimal Internet service for $50 and stream all your videos from our ( not the internet ) Comcast streaming service.
6) “But this new generation of consumer like to watch movies on their computers.” IP is just one of one layer of the networking stack. They can install our Comcast Movie app, that also installs the “Comcast Network Protocol”, We also own the Set-top box and modem/router/WiFi in the consumers home, the newest models just so happen to support the same ( it’s not IP so it’s not the internet ) protocol.
7) Slowly build out our ( not the internet ) walled garden. At some point, I would bet Netflix, Hulu and the like will be willing to pay to have highspeed access to our millions of customers.
8) When those pesky consumer advocates complain, simple remind them that we are treating all internet traffic equally. That’s what they wanted right?
Consumers should indeed pay for data they use. The argument is ISPs shouldn't be able to attach to Netflix quasi-permanently by slowing them down, when nothing in my contract allows that. I pay for the data rate the ISP guarantees. If it isn't enough, increase the fee rather than extort some of what I pay Netflix by hurting Netflix-and-me's connection.
It's the light of day ISPs are smarmily trying to hide from.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The end user pays for his bandwidth
The company pays for their bandwidth.
Neither of us can exceed our purchases bounds already.
So how the fuck can they possibly claim Netflix gets free service? Just because they arenâ(TM)t being extorted the way the isp dreams of? Seriously fuck these piggies. Fuck them right on the eye socket
Without Google and Netflix, why would I spend cash on internet?
ISP is mad that companies exist that I would want to pay for access to, making their product valuable?
There's a reason AOL doesn't exist as an internet-substitute anymore.
Subsidies driving up costs overall, see also skyrocketing college tuition with student loans
The medicaid expansion*, raising the age to 26 for family plans, and requirements for what's covered**, generally make sense. *Making states pick up some of the tab, which turned out to be a legal excuse for them to reject it, didn't work out
** the contraceptive mandate I don't disagree with but it might be too much of a political football in practice
It's a messy compromise between single payer and market healthcare
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The History of Corporate Whining
The fact of the matter is that Netlfix/Youtube know exactly what they are doing, they just dump bandith onto the class C carriers and expect them to pay for it. All the large cloud providers do this to bypass cost.
When a Telco monopoly says .......... will hurt consumers, the exact opposite is true. Their pr thinks consumers are stupid... one thing for sure: regulators are. While there is truth that basic access is subsidizing Netflix consumers to some degree, the cost shift is peanuts.
Free adjective \ fr \ unable to charge extra for something we already charge for
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
If I pay UPS to deliver a 1 lb. box to me, why should they charge me based on who packed the box?
This is a waste of time and money for everybody. Instead, the state would be better off allowing state/local govs to put in gov-owned fiber based on simple vote. As soon as this goes through, all isp will change attitudes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"We haven't bothered serving rural areas, but if you remove legislation covering us, we'll be able to serve rural areas...probably...if we feel like it, but we haven't felt like doing it to date."
I had a company that hosted equipment and virtual sites for customers. We paid the backbone providers on a fixed price for a committed rate, plus cost overages for peak usage over our commited rate. We charged our business clients similarly. So Google, Facebook, Apple, et al. already pay for internet access. These ISPs are proposing something downright stupid. It would be like me charging my clients customer’s ISPs for accessing the sites we hosted. Since Google, etc. are “huge-enough” they have backbone connections, more or less, directly without an ISP as traditionally thought of, in the way. Much as our company did before selling access, we had a Sprint backbone connection and a backup MCI connection. So we decided to defray the cost, increase our bandwidth and become an ISP for businesses. Over 20 years ago. So the concept of an ISP charging Google, et al., for access by their clients/customers/the world is laughable. It’s purely greed driven.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Is all of the competition that abounds in the gas station market the reason that EVERY gas station in my county has the EXACT same price every day? I only have about 25 to choose from. I guess a dozen more would fix it amirite?
Face it, your free market bullshit is failing.
"...video and web pages are not the same kind of traffic and NEED different priority..."
When I load a webpage it downloads the text first and then images. Prioritized at the client level.
When I download a file on my computer and play a game on my PS4 the game takes precedent. Prioritized at the client level.
These decisions are made at my level on my machines. I don't want someone else making those decisions for me.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
You aren't the OP AC. You're trying to discredit his VERY VALID points, shill. Next time, learn how people type before you try to impersonate them.
Free from a second serving of charges and fees. Free from double-dipping. Free from Frontier's efforts to put the touch on those who have money and conceivably could pay handsomely.
This sad state of affairs is free from all of that. However Ajit Pai is working diligently to change all this corrupt anti-corruption, so have no fear Frontier, your knight and savior is riding to the rescue!
I've never used Facebook or Netflix or Apple streaming or Amazon's cloud, and I use Google sparingly and only for searches and the occasional map.
I'd happily see my ISP stop transporting data for ALL of that crap and watch the network traffic ease-up for everything I use. Just because some people live in social media and stream their movies and TV, that does not make it so for everybody.
Not one of those companies demanding free/preferential treatment via their "net neutrality" fraud is a good actor. They are all ruthless competitors who are all too eager to censor any of their users for any reason, and boot anybody off of their services on any whim and they're laughing as they fool useful idiots into campaigning on their behalf for cheap data transport. It's as if Shell and BP were conning the public into forcing gas stations and tanker truck drivers to carry their products for free. Most of the cable companies and telcos are pretty bad for the simple reason that they are mostly local monopolies, but Google, Facebook, Netflix etc are too.
Try doing your searches with somebody other than Google and your email with somebody other than Gmail. Try being consistent: either back Google/Facebook/Netflix/etc censoring and filtering and banning etc while also backing telcos who do it, or oppose ALL big companies doing it. You'll feel better about yourself when you grow a new set of principles and start exercising them - it's liberating to not be a corporate shill for the biggest gaggle of billionaires in world history.
fraud
n. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
n. A piece of trickery; a trick.
Google and Netflix pay for pipes to their data centers just like everyone else. ISPs DO NOT WANT them to build out the last mile.
I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
I predicted that ending net neutrality would kill cable ISPs.
We're getting closer.
Frontier just admitted it wants to charge Google and NetFlix more to send their content through. We can pretty much assume at this point that they'll slow transmission rates of Google and NetFlix traffic if they don't get it.
And this is the death kneel for Frontier and others.
Because if Frontier is allowed to slow...(effectively stop) transmission of Google and NetFlix traffic....then Google and NetFlix can slow (effectively stop) transmissions of their traffic to Frontier.
Google has already invested in backbone and last mile data (Google Fiber). There is NOTHING that would prevent Google from opening Fiber in Frontier's largest (most profitable) markets and slowly Frontier traffic to a crawl.
In fact...Frontier is DEMANDING that Google be allowed to do this.
Frontier hasn't realized that NO ONE buys Frontier access to view Frontier content.
that covered nothing whatsoever. They existed for divorced guys who were ordered to have insurance by the court and folks who couldn't afford healthcare but needed to pretend they had insurance or they couldn't sleep at night.
They cost $50-$100/mo, a lot less than the $200-$400 of a "real" policy. But they were literally useless. They covered almost nothing and had deductibles in the tens of thousands.
Anyway the bulk of the 1.5% was made up of these types of policies that were literally made illegal by the law.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
there was a sizable population of divorcees ordered to carry insurance by the court who bought these policies to satisfy a legal requirement. Those guys and gals were basically forced to buy actual insurance.
Of course the proper solution, one that every other civilized nation uses, is single payer. We even have the system in place. All we need to do is expand Medicare to cover everyone. I mean, it's not like I'm not already being taxed. They call them premium, but it's really just a tax I pay to a mega -corp.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hey jackass, he wasn't disagreeing with you. You're so damned hellbent on being "right" and getting the last word that you don't even take the fucking time to read what you *think* you are arguing about.
He said they don't TECHNICALLY (it's fucking implied) have to penalize you.
You said that that's still a penalty. Well no fucking shit, Sherlock. You get a goddamned Nobel Prize in Obviousness, Cap'n.
Apologize to the Pope, and then kindly go fuck yourself.
Your thoughts sound like some pro-ISP/anti-NN bullshit.
Did you know Bullshit Claim#1) NN does not prevent caching servers. All data OF THE SAME TYPE must be treated equally. "Dedicated pipes" are not subject to NN. That line is used by one customer. It's the definition of DEDICATED.
Did you know Bullshit Claim#2) Links or GTFO. Title 2 "reclassification" requires no such thing.
Did you know Bullshit Claim#3) It did not. I shall repeat: All data OF THE SAME TYPE must be treated equally.
You are purposefully conflating net neutrality for Quality of Service(QoS) protocols. NN has not ever nor currently applies to QoS. You fucking know that too, shill.
Corporations are a Dutch invention. They are a way of putting the risk in the public domain and the profit in the private domain. Corporations or Royal Charters were only granted for extremely high risk endeavours which noone would take up if they had to cover the loss or harm. Nowadays everything is allowed to be a corporation. Basically we should only allow corporations when there is a public benefit in the endeavour. For everything else the proprieter needs to be held personally responsible
**Life is too short to be serious**
How about all the snooping data facebook collects without our knowledge. Facebook should be made to pay for that badwidth instead of the end user.
**Life is too short to be serious**
So Google, FaceBook, Amazon and all those other companies pay someone for their connection to the internet. On the other side, I am paying for my connection to the internet. Who exactly is getting free bandwidth?
Not too neutral there.
You don't get any more ignorant than the people of California
And Google is showing itself to be just as slimy, too.
'Just be evil' is their new mantra, it would seem.
enumerate how this would add additional costs - and then maybe we'll listen. But this sounds like a spin in their favor, for sure.
Notice how corporations/industries or Republican Politicians will object to positions by just saying Regulations as if the word was an abomination and was sufficient and so no further argument need be made.
is the worst company I have ever worked with, both professionally and privately. Comcast gets trashed due to their practices, but Frontiers may be worse. Anything they say I take as a grain of salt. I don't trust them and I assume that everything that comes out of the mouths of their people is a lie. Just my 2 cents.
On toll roads, bigger vehicles, i.e. more axles, pay higher tolls.
That seems fair since those vehicles cause more wear and usage.
It only makes sense, in a capitalistic world, that higher usage of internet bandwidth pay more as well.
The neutrality I want is freedom to go where I want when I want to go there, at a reasonable rate.
A reasonable rate means NOT paying for a mega-million dollar CEO.
Capitalism is way broken in this respect!!!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.