In the real world data caps have no relation to peak capacity needs. You could give 1M customer a one byte cap and if they use it all at the same time your need 1M byte capacity. If they all use it sequentially you only need 1 byte in capacity. Data caps are simply artificial constructs that are designed to raise prices.
If they were truly worried about congestion they would sell $20 plans like 100Mb, when 50% congestion it degrades to 50Mb, at 75% congestion degrades to 10Mb, over 90% you can't use the network. And then have $100 plans that never degrade.
That is the peak demand part of the equation. For sure it costs money to expand peak demand capacity. If you are going to sell people gigabit modems then you need to have the peaking capacity to handle them. So why don't they charge you for bandwidth limits during peak hours? Data caps have nothing to do with peaking.
Data caps are simply made up fiction to charge you more. They are similar to the made up fees like "HD access" and "multiroom DVR". They are charging a lot of money for things that cost nothing to implement. Only oligopoly suppliers can get away with fictional charges like these. If you don't pay those fees then they purposely break their service to make things worse for you.
The only true number that matters is aggregate peak demand. If aggregate peak demand exceeds network capacity then packets are going to drop. So if the ISPs were being truthful and selling real services instead of fictional ones, they would sell plans with bandwidth caps that kick in only during times of congestion.
I am 100% in favor of last mile ISP regulation back to POPs which allow free interconnect to any ISP provider. It is silly to run multiple sets of wires to each house. Instead there should be regulated wiring back to a POP supporting 25K homes. This model would allow you to subscribe to any ISP with a presence at the POP.
The end game here is for every politician's pages to simply have commenting suspended. What does that achieve? If you can't ban people you can't ban spam posting bots so what's the point in having comments at all?
There are two classes of ISPs, last mile ISP and transit ISP. Transit ISPs do not have a history of interfering with Net Neutrality. Transit providers are in the business of delivering packets and that's what they do, the more packets the more they get paid.
The problem is with monopoly/oligopoly last mile providers. For these companies there is a large incentive for them to violate Net Neutrality. This is an extreme example of net neutrality violation, but it could happen. Your monopoly ISP could sell off the search activity of its customers to Microsoft for $10M and put blocks in place preventing you from accessing Google. You can't do anything about this egregious behavior since your last mile ISP has a monopoly. This scenario has already happened in the past with ISPs blocking access to Netflix in favor of their own video offerings.
Net neutrality is only an issue when monopoly/oligopoly ISPs start interfering with Internet traffic flow in order to force you into using services you don't want. But, unfortunately, the ISPs have demonstrated that they will do this.
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP? The genesis behind net neutrality is to ensure fair access to monopoly pipes. Can a virtual ISP have a monopoly pipe?
There are multiple restaurants in my area that I won't go to any more because the noise levels are so high you can't have a conversation.
Recently I also experienced the weird situation of being able to clearly hear a conversation going on two tables away while simultaneously not being able to clearly hear what was happening at my own table. Some strange setup with the acoustics was reflecting that conversation at the other table right to where I was sitting.
I have gone from being a 1M mile frequent flyer to now only flying when I absolutely have to. It is disgusting to fly on most airlines today. The density of the seating is ridiculous. I've even had the person in front of me complain that I was breathing on their head when they reclined their seat. Lucky I didn't spit on them after a comment like that.
The Foundem comparison engine is just a bot. The owners go around getting affiliate kickback deals from the various vendors, then they generate a site containing those links.The reason people don't flock to it is because it doesn't produce actual good deals. This is not a website that can exist without a constant, expensive push marketing campaign.
Now enter Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to disrupt Google search. Microsoft put a huge amount of legal backing behind Foundem's complaint to the EU. The EU declared this unfair and took $3B for their troubles. The EU didn't even bother to come up with a remedy, they told Google to come up with one. I think the EU was just looking for an excuse to take $3B from Google since they are upset about Google's tax deal in Ireland.
So now with are stuck in the situation where Google is being forced to put Foundem into its Google Shopping results. So enter bidding on the ad placement. Google doesn't sell physical goods on Google Shopping, Google only sells ads to people who sell the goods. But wait -- that's exactly what Foundem does too via affiliate links. Is it surprise that Foundem's model which has another layer of middle man in it is not very profitable? Foundem is not offering any value add that consumers are willing to pay for, in fact most of their 'deals' are at list price. The other vendors purchasing ads for direct sale via Google Shopping have no problem paying the price of the ads.
So Foundem cries "unfair" with Microsoft amplifying that cry. Is Google suppose to provide enough free marketing to this bot so that it owners can get rich tricking people into buying stuff at list price? The core problem here is that Foundem business model is only profitable if it can figure out a way to get lots of free advertising. There is not enough margin in their model to pay for all of the advertising they want.
So to use the train analogy, you think it is ok for Google to build and maintain the tracks and then be prevented from running trains on them? With rules like that Google is not going to build any more tracks.
And that may be the outcome here, the EU may succeed in incentivising Google to shut down both Google Shopping and Google News in the EU. What the EU is missing here is that if they force Google to shut down Google Shopping they've pretty much handed the market over to Amazon. But that's ok, they don't consider Amazon a competitor. I would suggest looking at the US where Amazon dominates shopping and most people don't even know Google Shopping exists.
Read the article. Foundem is complaining that it does not want to spend money for the auctions and want the EU to change the terms so that the spots are free.
I agree that this is a huge uproar about a service that is in decline. As soon as Amazon gets established in the EU no one is going to care about Google Shopping anymore in the EU.
Foundem is not an apple farmer it is a competing railroad. They are demanding that since they don't have tracks and Google does then their trains should get to run on Google's tracks for free. Google is willing to allow Foundem trains on its tracks but says they have to pay for the privilege since it is not free to build and maintain tracks.
Imagine, you want to look for a product online. You type the Foundem into the Google search engine. What you'll right at the top of the page is a link to Foundem's comparison shopping engine. Click on that link and you be taken to a shopping engine completely devoid of Google content.
Maybe if these sites made an effort to marketing themselves people would use them.
These companies are complaining that they don't receive free advertising for their 'comparison' services which make all of their revenues via affiliate kickbacks. Maybe there is a reason why people don't use these competing services, ie they don't offer the lowest prices. So their 'remedy' is for Google to spend its resources promoting their service -- which is just a program which generates a website with the affiliate kickbacks embedded in the links.
That's a great business! Can't fail to make money since you have shifted all of your marketing costs onto another entity and all you do is collect the profit.
This situation in the media is being distorted by comparing Priority Mail rates to international EMS. My Priority Mail packages arrive in 2-3 days. My EMS packages take at a minimum of 9 days and many take closer to 21 days to arrive. These services are not comparable. If I want three day service from China it costs over $50.
This is being blown out of proportions. There is only an advantage for small packages under 1lb. Over 1lb international rates are much higher than domestic. Under 1lb there is about a $1 advantage to foreign shippers. But the USPS is not losing money on delivering these packages, the foreign rates cover the cost of delivery. The argument is over pension contributions and that extra dollar from a price increase for foreign packages will go into postal worker's pensions.
Slashdot Mirror
In the real world data caps have no relation to peak capacity needs. You could give 1M customer a one byte cap and if they use it all at the same time your need 1M byte capacity. If they all use it sequentially you only need 1 byte in capacity. Data caps are simply artificial constructs that are designed to raise prices.
If they were truly worried about congestion they would sell $20 plans like 100Mb, when 50% congestion it degrades to 50Mb, at 75% congestion degrades to 10Mb, over 90% you can't use the network. And then have $100 plans that never degrade.
That is the peak demand part of the equation. For sure it costs money to expand peak demand capacity. If you are going to sell people gigabit modems then you need to have the peaking capacity to handle them. So why don't they charge you for bandwidth limits during peak hours? Data caps have nothing to do with peaking.
Data caps are simply made up fiction to charge you more. They are similar to the made up fees like "HD access" and "multiroom DVR". They are charging a lot of money for things that cost nothing to implement. Only oligopoly suppliers can get away with fictional charges like these. If you don't pay those fees then they purposely break their service to make things worse for you.
The only true number that matters is aggregate peak demand. If aggregate peak demand exceeds network capacity then packets are going to drop. So if the ISPs were being truthful and selling real services instead of fictional ones, they would sell plans with bandwidth caps that kick in only during times of congestion.
I am 100% in favor of last mile ISP regulation back to POPs which allow free interconnect to any ISP provider. It is silly to run multiple sets of wires to each house. Instead there should be regulated wiring back to a POP supporting 25K homes. This model would allow you to subscribe to any ISP with a presence at the POP.
You are an idiot if you think on-line polls are accurate. Most on-line polls simply record the actions of spam bots.
The end game here is for every politician's pages to simply have commenting suspended. What does that achieve?
If you can't ban people you can't ban spam posting bots so what's the point in having comments at all?
There are two classes of ISPs, last mile ISP and transit ISP. Transit ISPs do not have a history of interfering with Net Neutrality. Transit providers are in the business of delivering packets and that's what they do, the more packets the more they get paid.
The problem is with monopoly/oligopoly last mile providers. For these companies there is a large incentive for them to violate Net Neutrality. This is an extreme example of net neutrality violation, but it could happen. Your monopoly ISP could sell off the search activity of its customers to Microsoft for $10M and put blocks in place preventing you from accessing Google. You can't do anything about this egregious behavior since your last mile ISP has a monopoly. This scenario has already happened in the past with ISPs blocking access to Netflix in favor of their own video offerings.
Net neutrality is only an issue when monopoly/oligopoly ISPs start interfering with Internet traffic flow in order to force you into using services you don't want. But, unfortunately, the ISPs have demonstrated that they will do this.
That's an interesting question, is bittorrent an application or a virtual ISP? The genesis behind net neutrality is to ensure fair access to monopoly pipes. Can a virtual ISP have a monopoly pipe?
There are multiple restaurants in my area that I won't go to any more because the noise levels are so high you can't have a conversation.
Recently I also experienced the weird situation of being able to clearly hear a conversation going on two tables away while simultaneously not being able to clearly hear what was happening at my own table. Some strange setup with the acoustics was reflecting that conversation at the other table right to where I was sitting.
I have gone from being a 1M mile frequent flyer to now only flying when I absolutely have to. It is disgusting to fly on most airlines today. The density of the seating is ridiculous. I've even had the person in front of me complain that I was breathing on their head when they reclined their seat. Lucky I didn't spit on them after a comment like that.
The Foundem comparison engine is just a bot. The owners go around getting affiliate kickback deals from the various vendors, then they generate a site containing those links.The reason people don't flock to it is because it doesn't produce actual good deals. This is not a website that can exist without a constant, expensive push marketing campaign.
Now enter Microsoft. Microsoft is trying to disrupt Google search. Microsoft put a huge amount of legal backing behind Foundem's complaint to the EU. The EU declared this unfair and took $3B for their troubles. The EU didn't even bother to come up with a remedy, they told Google to come up with one. I think the EU was just looking for an excuse to take $3B from Google since they are upset about Google's tax deal in Ireland.
So now with are stuck in the situation where Google is being forced to put Foundem into its Google Shopping results. So enter bidding on the ad placement. Google doesn't sell physical goods on Google Shopping, Google only sells ads to people who sell the goods. But wait -- that's exactly what Foundem does too via affiliate links. Is it surprise that Foundem's model which has another layer of middle man in it is not very profitable? Foundem is not offering any value add that consumers are willing to pay for, in fact most of their 'deals' are at list price. The other vendors purchasing ads for direct sale via Google Shopping have no problem paying the price of the ads.
So Foundem cries "unfair" with Microsoft amplifying that cry. Is Google suppose to provide enough free marketing to this bot so that it owners can get rich tricking people into buying stuff at list price? The core problem here is that Foundem business model is only profitable if it can figure out a way to get lots of free advertising. There is not enough margin in their model to pay for all of the advertising they want.
So to use the train analogy, you think it is ok for Google to build and maintain the tracks and then be prevented from running trains on them? With rules like that Google is not going to build any more tracks.
And that may be the outcome here, the EU may succeed in incentivising Google to shut down both Google Shopping and Google News in the EU. What the EU is missing here is that if they force Google to shut down Google Shopping they've pretty much handed the market over to Amazon. But that's ok, they don't consider Amazon a competitor. I would suggest looking at the US where Amazon dominates shopping and most people don't even know Google Shopping exists.
Read the article, Foundem is complaining that Google's prices are too high and it should be able to ride the rails for free.
Read the article. Foundem is complaining that it does not want to spend money for the auctions and want the EU to change the terms so that the spots are free.
Because we don't allow them to both help you search for goods *and* sell them to you. It's anti-competitive.
Someone should talk to Amazon about this.
Google has very nice options for paid advertising. Maybe foundem should advertise itself instead of demanding free marketing.
My company has to pay for advertising, no one gives it to us for free. Why is foundem special?
I agree that this is a huge uproar about a service that is in decline. As soon as Amazon gets established in the EU no one is going to care about Google Shopping anymore in the EU.
Foundem is not an apple farmer it is a competing railroad. They are demanding that since they don't have tracks and Google does then their trains should get to run on Google's tracks for free. Google is willing to allow Foundem trains on its tracks but says they have to pay for the privilege since it is not free to build and maintain tracks.
Imagine, you want to look for a product online. You type the Foundem into the Google search engine. What you'll right at the top of the page is a link to Foundem's comparison shopping engine. Click on that link and you be taken to a shopping engine completely devoid of Google content.
Maybe if these sites made an effort to marketing themselves people would use them.
These companies are complaining that they don't receive free advertising for their 'comparison' services which make all of their revenues via affiliate kickbacks. Maybe there is a reason why people don't use these competing services, ie they don't offer the lowest prices. So their 'remedy' is for Google to spend its resources promoting their service -- which is just a program which generates a website with the affiliate kickbacks embedded in the links.
That's a great business! Can't fail to make money since you have shifted all of your marketing costs onto another entity and all you do is collect the profit.
This situation in the media is being distorted by comparing Priority Mail rates to international EMS. My Priority Mail packages arrive in 2-3 days. My EMS packages take at a minimum of 9 days and many take closer to 21 days to arrive. These services are not comparable. If I want three day service from China it costs over $50.
This is being blown out of proportions. There is only an advantage for small packages under 1lb. Over 1lb international rates are much higher than domestic. Under 1lb there is about a $1 advantage to foreign shippers. But the USPS is not losing money on delivering these packages, the foreign rates cover the cost of delivery. The argument is over pension contributions and that extra dollar from a price increase for foreign packages will go into postal worker's pensions.
Why didn't they ask for their usual 6,386,456 * $250,000 = $1,596,614,000,000, call it $1.5 trillion, in fines?
Comcast will sell you 15Mb Internet for $10/mth and a brand new computer for $150.
https://www.internetessentials...
The US is littered with used computers. Just ask around and you will find some spare ones and can avoid the $150.
Don't know where you live by my commuter rail is $7.50 EACH WAY. Monthly passes are $300-400.
We've already failed. It is hopeless that mass transit can get fixed in less than 30 years, so self-driving cars is the solution.