Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
If some companies start limiting their users' choices the companies that don't are going to see a surge in business. I'm ready to migrate at the drop of a firewall.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The death of the Internet
- Thread starter Alferd_Packer
- Start date
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Chances are that even if you have the option to switch providers you will end up using the same carrier who can still preferentially route your traffic to their sites and restrict it to competitors.
In fact most people would never even realize what's going on and would simply assume the Comcast streaming service is just better because NetFlix is always slow and choppy. They have no way of knowing that it's Comcast themselves causing this.
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
I should have used a sarcasm smiley.
Warren Buffet's railroads (among others) are currently hauling that oil.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I think "death of the internet" is not a term which would likely ever apply to any possible outcome of this situation.
Belz...
Fiend God
That's exactly what I'm afraid of: ISPs blocking content they disagree with, charging more for certain types of content regardless of the bandwidth it uses, or being paid by companies to facilitate access to their content and make access to their competitors harder, etc.
elbe
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,983
I don't believe we are particularly at risk of them blocking content they don't agree with but hindering content of competitors is certainly a concern.
It's all about the rise of oligopolies. It's the Standard Oil of the 21st century.
In my mind, the local utilities have predominately paid for the infrastructure. Why this isn't regulated like other utilities seems to be the germane question here. If Comcast/Xfinity or Verizon FIOS already control the majority of the infrastructure and are able to squeeze out any competition, then they should not have the privilege (and that's what this is) of further controlling and limiting the business practices and free-flow of information on the Internet by further squelching competition.
I heard a story on Bill Moyers this morning about how Comcast/Xfinity has only contributed 5% of their earnings (i.e, profit) to maintaining/upgrading/research-development of the Internet infrastructure. That's 95% in their pockets. And, now they want more?
One of the truly remarkable things about the Internet is that small business have the ability to carve out a niche and compete with the big boys. You destroy that, you destroy the very thing that makes the Internet unique in today's world compared to other huge, multi-national conglomerate business.
~Dr. Imago
In my mind, the local utilities have predominately paid for the infrastructure. Why this isn't regulated like other utilities seems to be the germane question here. If Comcast/Xfinity or Verizon FIOS already control the majority of the infrastructure and are able to squeeze out any competition, then they should not have the privilege (and that's what this is) of further controlling and limiting the business practices and free-flow of information on the Internet by further squelching competition.
I heard a story on Bill Moyers this morning about how Comcast/Xfinity has only contributed 5% of their earnings (i.e, profit) to maintaining/upgrading/research-development of the Internet infrastructure. That's 95% in their pockets. And, now they want more?
One of the truly remarkable things about the Internet is that small business have the ability to carve out a niche and compete with the big boys. You destroy that, you destroy the very thing that makes the Internet unique in today's world compared to other huge, multi-national conglomerate business.
~Dr. Imago
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
Net neutrality in the U.S. might be dead, but not necessarily elsewhere. As I understand it, Brazil and Chile have both passed laws enshrining net neutrality, and the EU, while not having gone that far yet, is certainly leaning in that direction. Hence my question earlier about how it would work if the U.S. had no effective net neutrality but others nations did.
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
I would love to know how he got that number because the cost of labor, maintenance, etc etc should be very high even not considering the costs of the upstart and how they defer that. Only 5% of their earnings go back into development and maintenance? There is no business that can do that, and they definitely aren't pocketing 95% as profit (any business that keeps 95% of its earning as profit is lying, even if only 5% were going back into infrastructure which I don't believe, that 95% would go back into the business somewhere I mean that's just the truth of it.) Maybe Comcast keeps a profit growth of 10-20% as most companies probably do but a LOT of their earnings go back into labor, maintenance yadda yadda. What I would be more interested in however is whether the cost of a customer increases with their bandwidth usage; IE I get capped at some amount of gigabytes before I am charged again for going over the cap. Does that charge "bring" me in line with the cost of other customers who aren't receiving that much traffic or is it essentially a scam? I can't imagine why my traffic usage costs an ISP more unless it increases labor or affects their opportunity cost against the traffic in which case it's murky whether it's ethical to make me pay over a cap.
I have looked, I have emailed tech reporters about these things but can't find a damned thing relating to that cost. What's even more worrisome to me is that there is no audit, no meter on my side to measure my total usage ( the logs in my router are the closest but they aren't providing a summary audit, they simply measure connections). And as far as I know the ISP has no responsibility or capacity to measure that either (I say capacity because they told me that over the phone -.-). There's something fishy about the cap thing...
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
Bandwidth costs more because it means more infrastructure.
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
True but the way the companies offer their services right now I pay for ~30 Mb/s at ~720 dollars a year. I can reach my cap relatively quickly if I left netflix to stream every second but I'm still within my 30 Mb/s traffic. Was there an error in their pricing risk where they assumed that while I pay for 30 Mb/s they didn't expect me to be using it at the most? Is my usage for the service I'm paying for and they are giving me actually costing them more than they expected? The cap makes no sense unless the my usage at the package they sold me costs them more (either in labor or maintenance. The infrastructure must already exist for me to receive 30 Mb/s so I don't cost them more infrastructure unless it actually does in which case that 30 Mb/s package should have integrated that cost before I subscribed to it instead of adding a cap which they cannot audit independently and with my discretion; same as a water bill is audited independently and with my discretion). Right now I have no way to verify my usage (bandwidth isn't usage) so the cap doesn't make sense at the moment.
My issue is with the use of the cap to monetize my usage even though I paid for the bandwidth. If it is because my usage costs them more and the cap brings me in line with other customers then I want a bandwidth that meets my usage so I pay appropriately. A 30 Mb bandwidth is about 30/8= 3.75 MB bandwidth and total week testing has my average noon inbound bandwidth from wireless at 15 Mb/s (no one who pays for 30 Mb/s will ever get that per device) using an N-band with at channel 11 with 4 other wireless devices on the same channel (minimal interference though). I don't know what my bandwidth would be at a lower size but at 15 Mb/s I should be able to receive strong uninterrupted Ultra HD streaming (4k may not be okay but I don't plan on having a 4k device anyways). So at the moment all infrastructure supports my usage...so why the cap? If it really is about my usage affecting my cost as a customer, where is that cost coming from? It can't be from the infrastructure since it supports my usage unless that usage influences multiple nodes which means I cost more maintenance, labor, and possibly the need for more infrastructure. If that's true then the 30 Mb/s or even any higher service doesn't provide what I need for usage and the cap is legitimate since it brings my cost in line with the expected cost of its consumers. However I haven't seen any evidence that my usage increases these costs and again...I've asked tech reporters from Gizmodo and Brian Fagioli from Beta News (Google his name and you'll see the results are...interesting) but haven't received any reply. If I want to get involved in higher quality streaming or more importantly streaming video games then bandwidth AND usage are going to cost and I don't know why because that usage exists WITHIN my bandwidth already and the ISP has not indulged me with the cost of my usage. I think this is an issue of potential cost for the ISP's where my usage means they aren't making money they could be making, either from the streaming providers (the crux of Net Neutrality) or basically because they can, but so far I cannot tell whether the extra fees are to bring me in line with the cost of other customers (as the cap is advertised to do) or whether it's just there because they want more money out of me and can't get it through the bandwidth subscription.
The TL: DR is that my usage shouldn't cost more due to infrastructure because it's already within my 30 Mb/s existing infrastructure (there is no extra infrastructure needed unless my usage actually goes beyond that ie through extra nodes; basically my usage involving external infrastructure that the 30 Mb/s service needs). The cost of my usage isn't clear and I am bothered that I cannot contest my usage because I have no means to verify through audit.
Last edited:
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
You have the means to check your usage. But yes, the cap is meant to bring you within means.
Just because you CAN stream every second at 30MB/s doesn't mean the system can support it, and yes they need extra infrastructure.
Let's say one person is streaming 30MB/s a second. They only need the capacity to carry 30MB per second. (duh). Let's say 10. Now 100. That's 300MB. 3GB/s. THere is a fixed limit to how fast mediums can carry traffic, so if more people are streaming, they need more point to point connections to carry the traffic.
Just because you CAN stream every second at 30MB/s doesn't mean the system can support it, and yes they need extra infrastructure.
Let's say one person is streaming 30MB/s a second. They only need the capacity to carry 30MB per second. (duh). Let's say 10. Now 100. That's 300MB. 3GB/s. THere is a fixed limit to how fast mediums can carry traffic, so if more people are streaming, they need more point to point connections to carry the traffic.
The commentator on Moyers' program supplied the data. You'd have to check with her. But, I will say that people probably completely underestimate just how "captive" the market is, and the outrageous sums of money (and regular increase in charges) that these companies charge. It wouldn't surprise me if these numbers are close.
http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/x1196474316/In-Our-Opinion-Time-Warner-Cable-hike-is-outrageous
~Dr. Imago
lobosrul
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,313
All ISP's oversell their bandwidth, going back to the analog modem days. No ISP (OK maybe Google) has the capacity for all their users to max out their line at the same time. Not even close. In recent years more bandwidh intensive services have become available (Hulu, Netflix, Steam). The issue is ,instead of upgrading their equipment to allow for greater bandwidth, the likes of Comcast want to sit back and rake in gargantuan profits. And then send out letters to anyone going over their arbitrary cap, that 99% of users are just fine with it, etc (I got one like that from my ISP, Centurylink).
That's where the cost comes from, upgrading their equipment. The actual cost of you using more bandwidth is virtually negligible (probably under .1 cents a GB). Its hard to calculate and it depends on just where that traffic goes, but they have to pay whatever internet backbone the traffic goes through a carriage fee.
Here is where things get nasty though: besides not wanting to spend money to upgrade their internet service, Comcast also wants to limit how much video you can watch on your internet connection. They'd much rather you spend $4.95 to watch a movie on their on demand service, rather than you watch it on Netflix. Anyways, that isn't net neutrality. If an ISP limited their customers to 100MB a month, that still wouldn't be a neutrality issues.
Net Neutrality means treating all traffic the same, no matter where it comes from. Comcast was caught purposely degrading traffic from Netflix, that makes their own VoD system more attractive.
Which leads to carriage agreements. For example I cannot use ESPN3 (their internet TV service) no matter how much money I'm willing to pay. The ISP has to give them some cash so that their customers can use it. That's one side of it, the other is less in demand websites having to pay an extortion fee to be view-able on a given ISP. Imagine every website having to pay a fee with every ISP that they wan't to be available on. This will lead to a nasty fractured internet (using the term internet loosely). I don't believe their is currently any regulation preventing this. Which makes me think its only a matter of time.
Also, you *might* be only getting 15Mbps because your using WIFI. I know 802.11n is theoretically capable of much more, but if there are some walls between you and your router it can slow down drastically. Plug an ethernet cable from your router to a computer and test your bandwidth that way.
Last edited:
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Yea I know I went off on a tangent from net neutrality; it stemmed more from the Comcast merger which I am not a fan of and kinda...became the stuff I was talking about. I want to reiterate a previous point though that I am wondering the degree of how net neutrality will be treated considering new tech. I used streaming gaming as an example. If ISP's potentially interfere with new tech growth I can see a potential wrench against ISP's. More importantly I don't think ISP's can actively prevent the services from working by keeping them in the slow lane as that would be extortion. I don't think even the FCC would allow any ISP to control the speeds for non-primary content to a point where it makes those tech's unable to function properly. But maybe I'm an optimist.
As for the wireless I know I should be getting much higher speeds using N-band; I figured that between ~6 devices linked to the router at any given time (unsure of each devices usage) that I was getting 15Mb/s because the router keeps it there. It's been over 20 Mb/s before however I was doing these noon speedtests and got an average a bit over 15 Mb/s and I just call it 15 Mb/s because I want to
Last edited: