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.
They are only sending content that the end user has requested. The content publishers are paying their ISP for every bit that they send out and receive (via a leased line of a specified bandwidth) and the end user is paying for every bit that they send out and receive from their ISP. They want to be able to double charge though. They want to charge the end user to receive the data, but also want to charge the content publisher for letting the customer receive the data.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
It was a well-known business model to offer cheap insurance and then drop people or charge them 10 times as much when they got sick. This isn't possible anymore under the ACA. A huge fraction of those saying "I can't get cheap insurance anymore" are people who were being ripped off and now are not. But they complain anyway.
Is the bandwidth in your home network unlimited?
We're not talking about something "impossible" or by hardware constraints, we're talking about artificial caps imposed by the providers to encourage people to move to more expensive plans.
The artificial caps have a very good reason. Because the ISPs connection to the internet is not unlimited either. There are physical and hardware limits on the ISP side. Sure, your connection to them might be 100 mbps and the hardware is more than capable of handling that. The problem is that the ISP has 10k customers and they don't have a 1,000,000 mpbs connection to the internet capable of handling all 10k customers at max throughput at the same time. There needs to be some sort of system in place to ensure fair access to all 10k customers. You could make it a free for all and give everyone 1/10k of the currently available bandwidith (which is what your home network does) but this is probably not the most optimal way to make all your customers happy. You are always going to have peak periods when everyone is trying to watch Netflix at the same time so probably the most beneficial way for ISPs to reduce their upstream bandwidth needs is to either peer with big producers like Netflix or to encourage their customers to do their non-realtime downloads during non-peak times.
> Nonsense. ACA banned catastrophic health insurance/health saving accounts.
Not even remotely true. I still have my HSA.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein
ACA banned catastrophic health insurance/health saving accounts.
Since I currently have a HSA, I'm gonna have to point out you're wrong.
The ACA banned catastrophic health insurance plans and HSA-backed plans from the ACA marketplace. The ACA marketplace is not "insurance". In fact, it's a small percentage of insurance plans. Employer-based plans can still be HSA plans, and employer-based insurance dwarfs the ACA marketplace insurance.
Where you pay for your own routine doctor visits and only have coverage for actual medical emergencies.
The problem with this plan is people just don't do routine doctor visits when they have this plan. Which means they end up getting far more medical emergencies.
If your response is something like "but I paid for my checkups!!!!", you're forgetting the cost-sharing aspect of insurance. You paid more for your insurance because the vast majority on these plans did not get regular medical care
It's much cheaper to pay for someone's $100 annual visit for a couple decades and catch that they have high blood pressure instead of waiting for them to show up in an ER with complications. Strokes aren't cheap.
When they pass 'ACA for car insurance', it will require coverage for oil changes, which will cost you $5,000 once all the costs are rolled in.
This might be funny if you forget most states have mandatory car insurance, as well as minimum requirements for that insurance.
Does lying on the behest of your boss pay that well?
with net neutrality, content publishers and distributors get to peer directly with an isp
False. Netflix pays an ISP, just like anyone else. That gives them an Internet connection with a specific bandwith limit.
and flood their network with whatever data the content provider wants
Again, their Internet connection has a specific bandwith limit. If your network can't handle the bandwith you've sold, that's you committing fraud, not the "content provider" being a free rider.
ISPs eat the cost
False. ISPs sold bandwith to a customer (Netflix). They also sold bandwith to consumers. There is no cost to eat, they are being paid for what they sold.
Without net neutrality, content publishers must pay the transit costs
Oh, I see. You didn't sell any bandwith to Netflix, and want to charge them anyway. That's not how peering works.
If you're peering agreement is not currently making enough money for you greedy fuckholes, then you need to renegotiate your peering agreement.
in the end, we the consumer will pay more
Yes, that is currently your plan, thanks to the lack of net neutrality. Your C-suite is masturbating over the thought of selling a "Streaming package" and "gaming package" to consumers to turn off the arbitrary throttling you are applying. Heck, when they want a bigger bonus, they can just turn down the bandwith a little more.
you are never prevented from going with a non-subsidized provider (e.g. cogent, xo, or running and lighting up your own fiber).
I am fascinated by your delusional world where every ISP serves every geographic location.
Switzerland: 10Gbps symmetric for ca. 50 USD/month, no limits (Salt.ch)
Sweden: 10Gbps symmetric for ca. 60 USD/month, no limits (Bahnhof.se)
Frankfurt, Germany: 1Gbps symmetric for ca. 35 USD/month, no limits (FiberOne.de)
Netherlands: 1Gbps symmetric for ca. 45 USD/month, no limits (Tweak.nl)
No plan with a data volume limit is simple. You should be outraged.
Because american ultra capitalist culture admires greed, treachery, and deceit. Until social norms will change, what you call "lying-ass trash" will continue to be celebrated as heroes.
Right? Let's put those greedy lying-ass ultra capitalists in perspective for a moment, shall we?
You would think that the companies with the most resources would be interested in helping invest in the infrastructure needed to reach their customers (and their customers to reach them), rather than spending money on a slick marketing campaign to have the government for the (much less wealthy) ISPs how to manage traffic on their last mile.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia