FCC backs allowing providers to screw their high-volume customers

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TrainableMan, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    Source


    You just know this will be used to stick it to us and charge more for downloading videos.
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    If you are downloading multiple videos a day, all day long, each and every day, day in and day out, then maybe. If you download one, or maybe two videos a day from Netflix, it is not likely to affect you at all.

    We must be careful not to get caught up in the rhetorical extremes of the debate. There are several issues here involving net neutrality but they boil down to two; (1) hogging bandwidth and (2) censoring content/privacy.

    If my next door neighbor is using 10 times more bandwidth than me downloading videos and playing high resolution interactive on-line games all day, I should not have to pay as much as him just to keep my speeds acceptable. To me, that just seems fair.

    Where the controversy (and extremists viewpoints) comes in is with companies like Comcast saying they will monitor the content of our data to determine what type of data is being up and downloaded, and then charging, or worse yet, blocking depending on that content. That's where I draw the line. If they could monitor and block only illegal content such as child porn, terroristic plots, pirated software (programs, songs, and videos) organized criminal activity; etc.) without trampling on our individual First Amendment Right to Free Speech, AND without seeing what else we were doing, AND without gathering and saving information about what else we were doing, then I would be all for it. But ISPs don't have the technology to ONLY pick out illegal activities without seeing what else we are doing. And I simply don't trust Comcast and some of these other companies to not use gathered information for profit - that is, I am certain they would sell that information about our Internet surfing habits to marketers. And I am certain some of those "marketers" would be scammers and identity thieves posing as marketers.

    There needs to be compromises and that comes from debate. It is important to understand both sides of the argument.
     
    Digerati, Dec 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    I probably download or stream 3 to 6 hours of TV/movie programming per day from Hulu, TVLand, SyFy, NBC, ABC etc. There are probably only about 3 hours of TV per week, total, that I watch when it is actually broadcast.

    My concern is not what the lawmakers are thinking they are preventing from happening, which is to prevent cable and telephone companies from restricting bandwidth as you said. My concern is that they will allow fees for the bandwidth used. The regulated wired phone and cable industries have been loosing ground like crazy to wireless and satellite and they will use this as justification to raise rates by basing it on bandwidth So unless there is something specific in the law to specify how much bandwidth is too much and how much they can charge when this is exceeded then this will unleash the floodgates on taxes & fees for these companies to in a round-about way raise their currently regulated rates. This is a huge concern when, especially in my area, one land-line phone company controls the DSL lines; if there is no competition, by denying multiple companies from running DSL lines in the same area, and a loophole is created to allow rates to be raised ... then these companies WILL use it to stick it to us.
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 22, 2010
    #3
  4. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    And I am saying that may not be a bad thing. If you are downloading 10 times more data than me, why should I have to pay as much as you just to keep my performance levels equal? If you are downloading that much video content every day, you are certainly not the norm. Many would consider you one of those who are hogging neighborhood bandwidth!
    Whoa! That's a whole different issue and has absolutely NOTHING to do with this FCC ruling! Many areas have more than one DSL provider just as many areas have multiple cell phone providers. There are many areas with options besides DSL. So while I understand your concerns when there is no competition, your local City Hall should be on top of price fixing in those cases.

    I understand and COMPLETELY AGREE with you about the potential for abuse. ISPs are in the business of making money first, providing Internet access second. But right now, there are no regulations - all up to the honor system of the ISPs and you trust that system now? Regulations, if written properly, are there to protect the majority, not hurt us.
     
    Digerati, Dec 22, 2010
    #4
  5. TrainableMan

    catilley1092 Win 7/Linux Mint Lover VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    I just hope that it doesn't affect my bandwidth. Normally, I use at least 100GB monthly, mainly downloading form TechNet, or Linux OS's. I watch a few news clips, but not much video.

    Currently, Time Warner has unlimited high speed (7 Mbps) for $34.95, which is a total price.

    I'm totally against a cap on usage, unless I agree to it. If a cap is imposed, I'll just use the public internet to do my downloading with. From where I live, all I have to do is walk to the middle of the cemetery, across from my apartment, and I can receive signal good enough for downloading.

    I was against it, but am becoming more and more for public wi-fi.

    Cat
     
    catilley1092, Dec 23, 2010
    #5
  6. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    No, that's what the FCC proposal says, they can't cap it. They'll just charge you $300-$800/month bills like you hear about the cell phone companies doing to their customers.

    I already feel I get inferior service - I only get 1.5Mbps for $35/mo and that is the fastest available here without going cable. Cable would cost around double plus installation. Frankly I don't feel I should pay more for the pittance I already receive.
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #6
  7. TrainableMan

    catilley1092 Win 7/Linux Mint Lover VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    That's way too high for that level of service. When I had that speed (called Road Runner lite here), it was $24.95/monthly. The Turbo (10 Mbps) is $44.95/monthly here.

    I guess it's all in wherever you live, and the competition around you. Here, you have AT&T or Time Warner Cable. Cable internet & phone service is half the price of AT&T in this area.

    Cai
     
    catilley1092, Dec 23, 2010
    #7
  8. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    How much data is transmitted back and forth for folding in a day or week?
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #8
  9. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    Folding uses very little. You download a small batch of data, crunch it, then send back the results. The most Folding does is cause your CPU to work, running up your electric bill! ;) At least that's for a good cause and in the winter, the extra BTUs help keep the room warm.

    Cat is right in that it is all about where you live. No doubt, if your area has competing providers you can get some better deals than areas with just DSL or just cable. The best deals come if you bundle your Internet, TV, and phone with one provider. Even though it costs me more, I can't see having all my communications on one-wire so I bundle my TV and Internet on cable, but I still have regular phone service too. If my power goes out, or Cox cable is disrupted, I still have communications through my phone.

    If you keep watch, most cable companies periodically offer specials for free installation. And they usually have 3 - 6 months of cheap introductory fees too. Sure, the price goes up after the introductory period is over, but most former DSL users are very happy with cable's typically superior performance. With my cable, even though the drop to the house is copper, there's fiber out to the closest j-box. Since I put this new router on line 204 days, 15 hours ago, I have not lost connection to the Internet once. And that's saying something living in Eastern Nebraska in the middle of Tornado Alley.
     
    Digerati, Dec 23, 2010
    #9
  10. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    When I was a kid they hadn't even run cable out here so it wasn't available at all. We always used over-the-air from an antennae on the roof and we received plenty of signals from Baltimore and Wash D.C. When this country went digital we lost 3 or 4 channels and gained several x.2 x.3 etc. Of the ones we lost only one was unique programming we couldn't get off another number. So we aren't willing to pay out good money for something we get free, so we won't pick up cable TV even though they did run it out this way 10 or 20 years ago. The truth is I like getting my programming over my internet; I can watch it at my convenience, pause it any time the phone rings or I need to do something else and all without the added cost of a cablebox or a DVR ... AND THAT IS WHAT SCARES THE HECK OUT OF CABLE COMPANIES. that we can get TV cheaper and more satisfying by using the internet portion of the cable than their actual CableTV, so they want it regulated in such a way as they can either block it (which the FCC opposes) or they can charge for it (which the FCC supports) - either way it is just a way to screw the customer out of more money for something they already currently get.

    I would be willing to get Internet via cable and they do occasionally offer Internet service for 29.99/mo and free installation so I called them and the conversation went something like this; "oh that's if you bundle it to your existing cable TV" ... "But I don't have nor want cable TV" ... "well then it's 69.99 + $100 installation (I don't recall the exact prices but it was more than double their Special)".

    What really hurts is, since we get our broadcast TV from Balt/Wash we see all the Verizon Fios commercials because they offer that down there. Fios is rated #1 in the country for customer satisfaction and their upload speeds are as fast as their download. I sound like an advertisement for a service I've never had and cannot get out here but it makes me drool to imagine.
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #10
  11. TrainableMan

    Nibiru2012 Quick Scotty, beam me up! Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,955
    Location:
    Planet X
    FIOS is not available yet in Austin, but it is in the Dallas Metroplex. I hear it really kicks butt! An all fiber optic connection would be sweet.
     
    Nibiru2012, Dec 23, 2010
    #11
  12. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    What irritates me most about cable TV (and it's the same with DirectTV and satellite TV) is that I am paying for the TV channels, but then I have to put up with commercials too. While certainly some commericals are very entertaining, they are still marketing fluff I didn't ask for (visual spam?) and I feel I am paying twice to watch TV. :(
     
    Digerati, Dec 23, 2010
    #12
  13. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    Well the commercials pay the networks to provide programming; what they get from the cable companies is penny's per customer. And then the cable company bills you to maintain their lines. Everybody wants their piece of the pie and then they fight and scrape to get more of your piece.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2010
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #13
  14. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I don't have a problem with everyone wanting their piece. It's the greed that often follows that is the problem.

    I will say this about Cox Cable - when a falling branch took out my cable, Cox was there quick and instead of just connecting the cable again, and it was just yanked out so they could have done that, they ran a whole new run not just to my house, but into my house right up behind my cable modem, then gave me a quality splitter to feed my modem on one side, the TV wiring on the other. I can't complain about that.
     
    Digerati, Dec 23, 2010
    #14
  15. TrainableMan

    clifford_cooley VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,920
    And if you actually buy something from the advertisement, you are paying the company so they can advertise. I have often wondered how much less merchandise would cost if there was no advertising.

    I find it interesting at how a high volume customer thinks they are getting screwed, when the low volume customers are not being forced to pay equal amounts.
    It is my opinion that the low volume customers are being screwed by paying for bandwidth the high volume customer is using.
     
    clifford_cooley, Dec 23, 2010
    #15
  16. TrainableMan

    Digerati Post Quinquagenarian Microsoft MVP

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,093
    Location:
    Nebraska, USA
    I agree with that. Pay as you go is a good concept, as long as ISPs are monitoring volume and not content.

    Well, I suspect every economics, marketing and business management professor has their own expert opinion on that. Certainly, some products sell themselves because we need them. But other products would just sit on the shelves if not marketed. No business leader would spend money on marketing if he did not have to. But if you don't get the word out, the customers don't come in and you sell nothing. If you sell many, you can lower costs to the consumer. And if you don't lower costs, the competition will. So advertising to a certain point is a good thing. Determining that fine line is the tricky part.
     
    Digerati, Dec 23, 2010
    #16
  17. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    I pay for a 24/7 connection of 1.5M. If I use this and they don't then they are wasting their money; it doesn't mean I should pay more because they don't utilize what they pay for. The fact is the company offers me 1.5M but they hope I won't use it so they can sell off that much to my neighbors as well. In essence they sold 1.5M to 3 of us but then only run one 1.5M line; I just want what I contracted for which is my own 1.5M line.

    It's like paying for cable TV and then turning it off for 19 hours a day. Should the person who watches TV all day pay more to the cable company than the person that works all day and only watches a few hours before bed?
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2010
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #17
  18. TrainableMan

    clifford_cooley VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,920
    Paying for extra bandwidth so that pages render more quickly is utilizing the service. Just because someone has the bandwidth doesn't mean they should suck up every last drop.

    The question I have is, if I only use so much per month, why should I have to limit my upload and download speeds just to keep a fair price?
     
    clifford_cooley, Dec 23, 2010
    #18
  19. TrainableMan

    TrainableMan ^ The World's First ^ Moderator

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8,508
    Location:
    PA, USA
    You don't pay for extra bandwidth to load pages - heck, basic dial-up can load a webpage. You pay to upload and download files/video etc.
     
    TrainableMan, Dec 23, 2010
    #19
  20. TrainableMan

    clifford_cooley VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,920
    One guy watches video for 30 minutes a day
    Another guy watches video for 8 hours a day

    What you are suggesting is that both guys should pay the same in order for the videos to download at the same rate. The first guy is not utilizing his bandwidth when he simply wants his videos to download at the same rate as the second guy.
     
    clifford_cooley, Dec 23, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeffreyobrien

    Windows 7 offers US Customers Only

    Jeffreyobrien, Jun 25, 2010, in forum: Windows 7 Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    998
    catilley1092
    Jun 26, 2010
  2. Nibiru2012
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,769
    beamish
    Feb 14, 2011
  3. JCO

    IE-9 Search Providers

    JCO, Jun 3, 2011, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,816
    Tester
    Jun 6, 2011
  4. Jens Riedel

    Volume level too high

    Jens Riedel, Dec 26, 2011, in forum: alt.windows7.general
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    5,136
    Maywood
    Jan 9, 2014
  5. Big Steel
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    548
    Robin Bignall
    Sep 21, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page