The ISP is free to pass on the cost of doing business to their customer. What is so difficult to understand?
OMG, Comcast is charging me MORE to be able to connect to Netflix, even though an anonymous coward said that Comcast could pass on the cost of "doing business" to me!
One question I always have for NN opponents like yourselves,
Ask someone else, then. I don't oppose the concept, only the implementation. And I oppose the nonsensical hypothetical "they could do rape and pillage" kinds of pro-NN arguments.
The whole point to NN regulations is to ensure there will be legal consequences to anti-consumer behavior, yet you want to just let the "free" market decide.
How about figuring out the difference between "free market rules" and "the right regulations need to be done the right way?"
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap
That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for
Except those numbers are not for "the data that Comcast's customers paid to access", they're for 1/50th of that amount. You can't prove how cheap it is for Comcast to provide the unfettered bandwidth that the customer is being sold by dividing the actual cost by 50 and then saying "look how cheap it is!"
$15 per customer is a huge amount of money. Providing "the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for" on the off chance that all of them will want to use all of it at the same time is untenable. By using the 1/50 number, you seem to accept that statistical methods to predict maximum load is an acceptable practice. Then comes Netflix which pushes a lot of data one way and skews the statistics. How does any ISP deal with that? Does it shell out the amounts of money it would take to remove the congestion ($15/user using your numbers) and then raise everyone's rates to cover the cost?
For those who have forgotten history, this exact problem happened when dialup modems became popular, along with ISPs and BBSs. The phone company used statistics to predict how much hardware they needed to support voice telephony and normal call rates and durations. Boom! All of a sudden there were people paying for residential service that were making 12 hour phone calls.
Do you accept that telecom companies cannot afford to pay for 100% service levels? If so, then you have to also accept that sometimes there will be congestion. Or that the company will need to find more money to upgrade -- and that money has to come from somewhere.
The entire "I'm talking about TV providers, not ISPs" is an incredibly disingenuous straw man.
The comment I responded to was talking about cable TV.
Let me point out that there are lots of ISPs that aren't "cable TV", so complaining about how "cable TV" is going to charge Netflix is ignoring the problem overall and trying to dump it onto one service that Netflix doesn't actually need to exist. Maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when "cable TV" was cable TV and not "cable everything", so I am able to differentiate. Maybe youngsters who have never known those austere days don't understand the difference.
Cable TV provider Spectrum loses business to Netflix, so Cable ISP provider Spectrum makes it cost more for Netflix to work
Except it wasn't that Netflix was causing Comcast (the non-hypothetical villain here) to lose business, it was that Netflix traffic was the primary cause of congestion at the border gateway. Everyone wants to pretend that bandwidth is free, but it really isn't. Everyone also wants to pretend that a congested gateway is being selective in what it drops, but it really isn't.
If you are scared that your ISP is going to try charging Netflix to upgrade the interconnect at the border gateway (which is what actually happened), then talk about your ISP. Is it really too much to ask that people in a technology-based discussion group refer to the correct technology?
in order to drive customers to Cable TV provider Spectrum.
I'm still at a loss to figure out how raising rates is going to get more people to become your customer. As you pointed out, most people, you included, do not differentiate between "cable TV" the "tv" and "cable TV" the "internet". Why would they see a higher cost for "the internet" as a reason to buy more from "the company" that provides both? Seems like it would drive folks away. Doesn't seem like it would result in "charge me more and I'll buy more stuff from you!"
That's prevented by existing laws and regulations, unlike traffic peering and shaping (now).
Well, why is it not prevented by existing laws? Because Congress SAID that the FCC should not regulate this. That's an existing law. Obama had the FCC find a loophole so he could get around the Congress.
Loopholes good, or loopholes bad?
Answer the question. It didn't happen in 2014, why magically will it appear today?
because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions,
Every time a NN proponent comes up with this kind of ridiculous hypothetical situation, they make their argument look ridiculous. Given that there can be serious, real issues, why do you folks keep trying to go further and further into imaginary-land?
Why not go fully nutzo? As long as the ISP tells you ahead of time that they're coming to confiscate your firstborn male child, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a child, yet, as long as they tell you they're going to come rape your wife, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a male child, they'll take your girl child and create a male child for you! And then burn your house down! All HUNKY-DORY because they told you in advance.
This didn't happen in 2014. Why do you think it will suddenly become a problem today?
as cable tv providers attempt to kill their competition with unwarranted fees
The more cable TV providers raise fees the more customers they drive to Netflix. I'm not sure how driving customers to the competitor is "killing" the competition.
Wireless still seems like a giant tripartate monopoly to me.
How do you have a "tripartate monopoly"?
You mean like AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, Metro PCS, and the 26 other wireless services that this website allows you to compare? Is "tripartate" a latin word for "31"?
Yeah, not all carriers cover all places, but there's a lot more than 3 in most of the US, and "three" is hardly a monopoly.
You need to read the article. This is not wireless.
You need to read the article. Layer 3 is a small cable company that uses fiber to deliver video efficiently using internet protocols. They're buying Layer 3 for the streaming technology, not for the existing fiber plant. They're not going to start trying to lay fiber everywhere to compete with the cable companies, they're going to be the same wireless that they've always been.
Yeah, they will probably maintain what Layer 3 already has, but even then Comcast will have nothing to do with the service and none of the data will touch a Comcast network. Layer 3 uses its own fiber to the home and their own STB to provide their service. Comcast cannot throttle packets that don't cross its network.
they are using it to chat with people on the other side of the globe.
They are also using it to train and practice for the times when lives depend on it.
So I--and all my neighbors--have to give up on 1Gb/sec Internet so that you can chat with Ivan in Ukraine?
No, you just have to use a system that doesn't obliterate existing uses of the radio spectrum, that is already recognized as a backup communications system when disaster strikes.
Of course when everything goes down, there's no power in the power lines so no interference then can do HF.
Maybe you don't realize that the reason people use HF to communicate out of a region that has lost long distance comms is because the RECEIVING END still has service and can send help? As in, all the RF interference from the RECEIVING END'S BPL will keep the receiving end of the emergency communications from being able to hear it.
We have an HF radio in an EOC to serve the county Emergency Manager, but it has so much interference that it is absolutely useless. When the backup generators kick in to provide power for the HF radio, they'll also be powering the crap that is causing the interference. What a great system. Glad we have it.
Starting tomorrow net neutrality is going to be voted down. Portugal's national ISP as an example
I've seen an internal Comcast memo that says that as soon as the FCC rescinds their regulations they're going to start hiring customer service reps who speak only Portuguese so they can better replicate the kind of service the national ISP of Portugal offers.
Of course it will just be cheaper to buy cable you know.
Huh? If cable is tacking on $60 a month for Netflix and Amazon, then it would seem to be a lot cheaper to go with T-Mobile and a $20/month internet service from them.
Tmobile will use the l3 background to blackmail you and your ISPs
What the hell is an "l3 background"? And how does a small cable company that is available in only a few cities blackmail anyone?
Comcast and Spectrum citing the revocation of network neutrality, throttle Tmobile video services to 2.1Kb/s
What a fantastic universe you live in, where Comcast can reach out to the local T-Mobile tower and throttle the LTE data it sends, or would even bother trying. Is the sky blue on your planet, like it is on Earth here?
Sling isn't a "cable company". Hulu isn't a "cable company". T-Mobile is not becoming a cable company. Cable companies deliver video using a specific medium. Can you guess what that might be? No, maybe not, because I think you fail to understand what differentiates a cable company from a wireless company.
Here's a hint. T-Mobile is one of those ISPs who aren't limited by the municipal franchise requirements for access to the poles and conduits. That's because they don't use __________
Anyone can name things. I call it Class Frog. Just because I can.
But as a regulatory agency, the FAA cannot.
Airspace is regulated in part to prevent interference with military aircraft.
Irrelevant and not true. A few regulations deal with military operations areas, but the vast vast majority of them have nothing to do with military uses, and it is not a reason why regulations exist.
This still leaves all the regulations that still apply in Class G, so claiming Class G is unregulated is untrue. It is "uncontrolled" because ATC (air traffic control) is not involved with it at all, but "unregulated" is just nonsense.
In that respect I see this new law going back to the courts to be debated. Again.
The reason the DC court overturned the original registration system was because congress said something about not regulating "model aircraft". (Most UAS are not models, they are functioning aircraft in their own right.) This is now a law saying the FAA can do that. Yes, the courts will be involved because people don't want the regulation; the reason the last one was overturned is now not relevant.
Class G airspace is not regulated except for drones
The fact that it is Class G means it is regulated. How can the FAA designate a class of airspace that it has no control over?
Also, whether the airspace is Class G or not, the FAA has regulations over aircraft flying in any airspace. For example, you may not fly faster than a certain airspeed below 10,000'. There are also restrictions on how low you can fly irrespective of class of airspace. At the most basic level, you still need a pilot's license to fly a manned aircraft in Class G. Claiming that Class G "is not regulated" is a bit disingenuous.
Just because something is capable of flying higher shouldn't really be relevant unless you actually intend to fly that high.
Higher than what? Ground?
Sorry, but there are all kinds of precedent for regulations about things you are capable of doing but don't intend to. Regulations have to be general enough so they don't expand to a million pages, with specific people's names attached, like because "omnichad" doesn't intend to fly higher than 1200' we don't need to define those airspaces for him.
Considering the complexity of the FAR-AIM designating minimums it's adequate enough when discussing powered flight by real aircraft with the general public.
Not when it misleads the general public into thinking that the FAA has no regulatory authority below 500'. It's a fine general comment when talking about how low they should see an airplane flying over their heads (which is actually higher in populated areas), but not when talking about how low regulated airspace goes.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISP is free to pass on the cost of doing business to their customer. What is so difficult to understand?
OMG, Comcast is charging me MORE to be able to connect to Netflix, even though an anonymous coward said that Comcast could pass on the cost of "doing business" to me!
One question I always have for NN opponents like yourselves,
Ask someone else, then. I don't oppose the concept, only the implementation. And I oppose the nonsensical hypothetical "they could do rape and pillage" kinds of pro-NN arguments.
The whole point to NN regulations is to ensure there will be legal consequences to anti-consumer behavior, yet you want to just let the "free" market decide.
How about figuring out the difference between "free market rules" and "the right regulations need to be done the right way?"
But isn't buying enough transit to carry the data that Comcast's customers paid to access expensive? No, it's ridiculously cheap
That means Comcast would have to pay between $0.30 and $1.50 to actually provide the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for
Except those numbers are not for "the data that Comcast's customers paid to access", they're for 1/50th of that amount. You can't prove how cheap it is for Comcast to provide the unfettered bandwidth that the customer is being sold by dividing the actual cost by 50 and then saying "look how cheap it is!"
$15 per customer is a huge amount of money. Providing "the internet access that Comcast's customers already pay for" on the off chance that all of them will want to use all of it at the same time is untenable. By using the 1/50 number, you seem to accept that statistical methods to predict maximum load is an acceptable practice. Then comes Netflix which pushes a lot of data one way and skews the statistics. How does any ISP deal with that? Does it shell out the amounts of money it would take to remove the congestion ($15/user using your numbers) and then raise everyone's rates to cover the cost?
For those who have forgotten history, this exact problem happened when dialup modems became popular, along with ISPs and BBSs. The phone company used statistics to predict how much hardware they needed to support voice telephony and normal call rates and durations. Boom! All of a sudden there were people paying for residential service that were making 12 hour phone calls.
Do you accept that telecom companies cannot afford to pay for 100% service levels? If so, then you have to also accept that sometimes there will be congestion. Or that the company will need to find more money to upgrade -- and that money has to come from somewhere.
The entire "I'm talking about TV providers, not ISPs" is an incredibly disingenuous straw man.
The comment I responded to was talking about cable TV.
Let me point out that there are lots of ISPs that aren't "cable TV", so complaining about how "cable TV" is going to charge Netflix is ignoring the problem overall and trying to dump it onto one service that Netflix doesn't actually need to exist. Maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when "cable TV" was cable TV and not "cable everything", so I am able to differentiate. Maybe youngsters who have never known those austere days don't understand the difference.
Cable TV provider Spectrum loses business to Netflix, so Cable ISP provider Spectrum makes it cost more for Netflix to work
Except it wasn't that Netflix was causing Comcast (the non-hypothetical villain here) to lose business, it was that Netflix traffic was the primary cause of congestion at the border gateway. Everyone wants to pretend that bandwidth is free, but it really isn't. Everyone also wants to pretend that a congested gateway is being selective in what it drops, but it really isn't.
If you are scared that your ISP is going to try charging Netflix to upgrade the interconnect at the border gateway (which is what actually happened), then talk about your ISP. Is it really too much to ask that people in a technology-based discussion group refer to the correct technology?
in order to drive customers to Cable TV provider Spectrum.
I'm still at a loss to figure out how raising rates is going to get more people to become your customer. As you pointed out, most people, you included, do not differentiate between "cable TV" the "tv" and "cable TV" the "internet". Why would they see a higher cost for "the internet" as a reason to buy more from "the company" that provides both? Seems like it would drive folks away. Doesn't seem like it would result in "charge me more and I'll buy more stuff from you!"
That's prevented by existing laws and regulations, unlike traffic peering and shaping (now).
Well, why is it not prevented by existing laws? Because Congress SAID that the FCC should not regulate this. That's an existing law. Obama had the FCC find a loophole so he could get around the Congress.
Loopholes good, or loopholes bad?
Answer the question. It didn't happen in 2014, why magically will it appear today?
because of the religious beliefs of the ISP management, customers will no longer be able to access any website that offers medical information about birth control or abortions,
Every time a NN proponent comes up with this kind of ridiculous hypothetical situation, they make their argument look ridiculous. Given that there can be serious, real issues, why do you folks keep trying to go further and further into imaginary-land?
Why not go fully nutzo? As long as the ISP tells you ahead of time that they're coming to confiscate your firstborn male child, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a child, yet, as long as they tell you they're going to come rape your wife, they're hunky-dory! And if you don't have a male child, they'll take your girl child and create a male child for you! And then burn your house down! All HUNKY-DORY because they told you in advance.
This didn't happen in 2014. Why do you think it will suddenly become a problem today?
Since the cable companies can now control bandwidth by data source
Oh. I get it. This is another example of confusing cable TV with cable ISP. I responded specifically to a statement about cable TV.
as cable tv providers attempt to kill their competition with unwarranted fees
The more cable TV providers raise fees the more customers they drive to Netflix. I'm not sure how driving customers to the competitor is "killing" the competition.
Actually, we don't have to do anything.
Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm sorry your first language isn't English and you can't recognize standard idioms.
In the event of an emergency where there's a local internet outage, any restrictions won't matter since a) there won't be anything to interfere with
And now you show it isn't a language problem, it's a brain problem.
Wireless still seems like a giant tripartate monopoly to me.
How do you have a "tripartate monopoly"?
You mean like AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, Metro PCS, and the 26 other wireless services that this website allows you to compare? Is "tripartate" a latin word for "31"?
Yeah, not all carriers cover all places, but there's a lot more than 3 in most of the US, and "three" is hardly a monopoly.
You need to read the article. This is not wireless.
You need to read the article. Layer 3 is a small cable company that uses fiber to deliver video efficiently using internet protocols. They're buying Layer 3 for the streaming technology, not for the existing fiber plant. They're not going to start trying to lay fiber everywhere to compete with the cable companies, they're going to be the same wireless that they've always been.
Yeah, they will probably maintain what Layer 3 already has, but even then Comcast will have nothing to do with the service and none of the data will touch a Comcast network. Layer 3 uses its own fiber to the home and their own STB to provide their service. Comcast cannot throttle packets that don't cross its network.
they are using it to chat with people on the other side of the globe.
They are also using it to train and practice for the times when lives depend on it.
So I--and all my neighbors--have to give up on 1Gb/sec Internet so that you can chat with Ivan in Ukraine?
No, you just have to use a system that doesn't obliterate existing uses of the radio spectrum, that is already recognized as a backup communications system when disaster strikes.
And If they intend to transmit 1Gbps, they better operate at VERY high frequencies. Higher than HAM.
The amateur radio service has allocations above 1 GHz. Lots of them.
Of course when everything goes down, there's no power in the power lines so no interference then can do HF.
Maybe you don't realize that the reason people use HF to communicate out of a region that has lost long distance comms is because the RECEIVING END still has service and can send help? As in, all the RF interference from the RECEIVING END'S BPL will keep the receiving end of the emergency communications from being able to hear it.
We have an HF radio in an EOC to serve the county Emergency Manager, but it has so much interference that it is absolutely useless. When the backup generators kick in to provide power for the HF radio, they'll also be powering the crap that is causing the interference. What a great system. Glad we have it.
Starting tomorrow net neutrality is going to be voted down. Portugal's national ISP as an example
I've seen an internal Comcast memo that says that as soon as the FCC rescinds their regulations they're going to start hiring customer service reps who speak only Portuguese so they can better replicate the kind of service the national ISP of Portugal offers.
Of course it will just be cheaper to buy cable you know.
Huh? If cable is tacking on $60 a month for Netflix and Amazon, then it would seem to be a lot cheaper to go with T-Mobile and a $20/month internet service from them.
Tmobile will use the l3 background to blackmail you and your ISPs
What the hell is an "l3 background"? And how does a small cable company that is available in only a few cities blackmail anyone?
SInce L3 owns the backbone for hte internet tmobile can now blackmail comcast
Are you deliberately confusing "Layer 3" with "Level 3" just so you can spread FUD and make stuff up?
cell phones before 2007 where you had to pay a monthly fee for each service such as adding a ringtone or a map program.
I've never paid to add a ringtone or a "map program".
Comcast and Spectrum citing the revocation of network neutrality, throttle Tmobile video services to 2.1Kb/s
What a fantastic universe you live in, where Comcast can reach out to the local T-Mobile tower and throttle the LTE data it sends, or would even bother trying. Is the sky blue on your planet, like it is on Earth here?
Here's a hint. T-Mobile is one of those ISPs who aren't limited by the municipal franchise requirements for access to the poles and conduits. That's because they don't use __________
No, they don't. They aren't paid by the publisher, but that doesn't mean "free".
It's not a publisher cost, which is what the GP was getting at.
I think "they aren't paid by the publisher" kinda covers that, but thanks for the admonishment anyway.
Not China. About four-fifths of all Chinese research is hidden from Western researchers eyes, and can only be viewed within China.
The most important Chinese research is published in English. This is one critical result; this is much more important work.
The scientists writing the papers do so for free,
No, they don't. They aren't paid by the publisher, but that doesn't mean "free".
and often have to do the final print formatting themselves.
Not for the reputable journals.
The paper is then sent to the peer reviewers, who perform the reviews for free.
But the review system is managed by the publisher, not the author. There is a cost to that management.
In the end, the publisher doesn't pay for content, layout or review,
Umm, layout and review are publisher costs.
so the journals don't have good reasons to be expensive.
Printing on archival quality paper is a costly process.
This isn't saying the current system is right, it just isn't as cost free to the publisher as you claim.
Anyone can name things. I call it Class Frog. Just because I can.
But as a regulatory agency, the FAA cannot.
Airspace is regulated in part to prevent interference with military aircraft.
Irrelevant and not true. A few regulations deal with military operations areas, but the vast vast majority of them have nothing to do with military uses, and it is not a reason why regulations exist.
This still leaves all the regulations that still apply in Class G, so claiming Class G is unregulated is untrue. It is "uncontrolled" because ATC (air traffic control) is not involved with it at all, but "unregulated" is just nonsense.
In that respect I see this new law going back to the courts to be debated. Again.
The reason the DC court overturned the original registration system was because congress said something about not regulating "model aircraft". (Most UAS are not models, they are functioning aircraft in their own right.) This is now a law saying the FAA can do that. Yes, the courts will be involved because people don't want the regulation; the reason the last one was overturned is now not relevant.
Class G airspace is not regulated except for drones
The fact that it is Class G means it is regulated. How can the FAA designate a class of airspace that it has no control over?
Also, whether the airspace is Class G or not, the FAA has regulations over aircraft flying in any airspace. For example, you may not fly faster than a certain airspeed below 10,000'. There are also restrictions on how low you can fly irrespective of class of airspace. At the most basic level, you still need a pilot's license to fly a manned aircraft in Class G. Claiming that Class G "is not regulated" is a bit disingenuous.
Just because something is capable of flying higher shouldn't really be relevant unless you actually intend to fly that high.
Higher than what? Ground?
Sorry, but there are all kinds of precedent for regulations about things you are capable of doing but don't intend to. Regulations have to be general enough so they don't expand to a million pages, with specific people's names attached, like because "omnichad" doesn't intend to fly higher than 1200' we don't need to define those airspaces for him.
Considering the complexity of the FAR-AIM designating minimums it's adequate enough when discussing powered flight by real aircraft with the general public.
Not when it misleads the general public into thinking that the FAA has no regulatory authority below 500'. It's a fine general comment when talking about how low they should see an airplane flying over their heads (which is actually higher in populated areas), but not when talking about how low regulated airspace goes.