This message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (lostincalifornia) on Sun Aug 3, 2014, 09:03 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)
durablend
(9,270 posts)With the $5 fee for Youtube and $5 for Netflix, etc.?
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)And the companies listed will have to pay in from their side. Which means places like DU will be gone. The revolution will not be televised or allowed on the internet.
TygrBright
(21,362 posts)
kysrsoze
(6,446 posts)vs. an entire beach of netflix traffic. Granted, there is no guarantee they won't ream all providers, but I think they do have a legitimate gripe against sites which are extremely heavy bandwidth users (Netflix, YouTube, DirecTV on demand, etc). It costs money to carry all that traffic. You can argue we pay already with ISP fees, but $8 a month for unlimited streamed content seems under-priced. Ultimately, they'll get their money, but would you like to pay Netflix for the usage or pay higher ISP prices?
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)and charge you for going over the cap not of course that they will pay you for the data you "did'nt use" that month.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)
KeepItReal
(7,770 posts)Verizon's greed knows no bounds. Gotta pump up that share price at all costs, right?
"Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) Chief Executive Officer Lowell McAdam’s total compensation more than tripled to $23.1 million after the company’s shares rose 11 percent since his promotion from chief operating officer."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/verizon-ceo-mcadam-s-compensation-triples-to-23-1-million.html
groundloop
(13,849 posts)And it certainly didn't take Verizon long to start screwing it's customers after the ruling either.
IMO it'll take a well thought out law being passed by Congress to fix this, the FCC's hands have been tied by the Supreme Court ruling. And of course we all know what kind of chance anything like this has of making it through the House.
KeepItReal
(7,770 posts)The court said that the FCC could impose Net neutrality regulations if it changes the classification of broadband service to a telecommunications service.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57618273-38/new-senate-house-bills-would-restore-net-neutrality/
durablend
(9,270 posts)Something about the "free market" with all its "competitors" keeping this nasty stuff in check.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Call 'em. Trash 'em online. Stop your cell service with them. Do whatever it takes to shut them down.
Javaman
(65,711 posts)Lasher
(29,577 posts)The technology is here for true competition among TV service providers. Verizon and others, assisted by their corporate toadies in the Federal government, are doing whatever they can to prevent it by killing net neutrality.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
on point
(2,506 posts)That compete on price and quality to carry traffic.
Lasher
(29,577 posts)Obama deserves a lot of blame for this. For example, he recently appointed an FCC chairman who does not support net neutrality.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)as does Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014732126
Lasher
(29,577 posts)If Obama supports net neutrality, then why would he appoint an FCC Chairman who worked as a venture capitalist and as a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry? And if new Chairman Tom Wheeler supports net neutrality, then why did he say he is unopposed to prioritization of traffic by service providers?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/fcc-chair-isps-should-be-able-to-charge-netflix-for-internet-fast-lane/
The DC Circuit Court left room for the FCC to create more specific rules to preserve neutrality. If Wheeler really supports neutrality, then could you explain why he is not interested in pursuing this option? And since he is not interested in that, then why won't he appeal last month's court decision?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014717803
But no, he'd rather seek public comment about new rules that keep providers from blocking and slowing access to websites. We are left to guess what those rules might look like or how long Wheeler's process might take. Verizon is slowing down Netflix traffic right now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024528885
tridim
(45,358 posts)And much cheaper than any of the alternatives.
Yes, I consider myself lucky to have it. The problem is the connection is faster than 99% of the servers on the Internet, the bottleneck isn't at my house.
lostincalifornia
(5,362 posts)time for this to become an actual competitive force, and with all the politics involved, it may never happen
naturallyselected
(84 posts)Google Fiber, currently in just three markets nationally, is not the solution, and will never be the solution. Even if they can successfully spread to almost every metropolitan market in the country (very unlikely given the cable giants' opposition), it will never be profitable for a private company to wire rural areas. This is just simple math: number of subscribers per mile of fiber.
I don't want to see any solution that contributes to the two Americas we already have. Hopefully there will be solutions that can benefit all - opening up more satellite bandwidth being the most promising alternative. But this will take a very long time. Without net neutrality in the meantime, the cable model will be fully entrenched and virtually impossible to undo.
I don't contribute frequently to DU discussions, even though I browse many discussions every day. But this seems so important to me, that it's very frustrating to see, even here, the complacent belief that the free market and competition will prevail and we will all have unlimited broadband access at reasonable rates.
Verizon did not spend all that money to get that court decision unless they had plans to take advantage of the ruling. I can see this as one of those issues where people will look back five years from now and wonder how it all happened, how the Internet became one more way that the haves and the have nots live in very different worlds.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)If the math worked for copper, it will work for fiber even better when you consider there's just one line to run vs one line for phone, cable, and internet. Fiber will eventually replace all copper. We may not all get to the promised land together, but someday it will happen or there will be wireless technology that will render everything else obsolete.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)perhaps folks need to start picketing the stores
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)is doing.
When my contract is up in a few months, I'll look into getting another provider. Also, I'll drop Verizon for TV and get DirecTV again.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But we pay extra for our internet in order to have the bandwidth to carry the internet.
I think that carriers will discover they are making a big mistake if they put the squeeze on consumers who subscribe to Netflix. Many will choose to up their internet bandwidth and drop their cable coverage. We like it much better this way.
You can't watch all those cable channels at once anyway, and cable doesn't let you pick which channels you want. No matter what, you are going to pay to get Fox News at least in my area. Why should I do that when I can get the entire internet, Netflix and Pandora included if I put the money I would pay for cable into paying for bandwidth.
I suspect the Time Warner/Comcast merger has to do with the threat to cable that the internet poses. We get Time Warner cable. We had AT&T before and had problems all the time. We even switched our phone service to internet service. Internet for our home phone and then cell phones for security is fine. We still have a ground phone service but we never use it. We are going to cancel it.
A lot of people are starting to question the wisdom of getting cable TV. We can get some of the best TV shows on a service that I think is called Hulu or something like that.
On edit: I think cable and traditional TV's days are numbered. The internet will take over. More individual choice.
AndyTiedye
(23,538 posts)With cable TV, THEY DECIDE what you can watch. If they don't want you to see it, you don't.
They intend to do the same for the Internet.
First slow down the sites that won't give them a piece of the action, like traffic in Fort Lee. Slow down to the point you just can't get there.
Eventually they will block them entirely, and redirect us to their own sites or their "marketing partners".
They own much of the backbone too.
We may have to effectively rebuild the Internet around them.
Local WiFi and mesh can go a long way at the community level.
Not sure what to do about the long-hauls.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)If they're not going to honor net neutrality, they lose their safe harbor protections. Turn the Copyright MAFIAA loose on them and see how fast they come begging for help.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)I'm not up on those issues.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)especially in cases of illegal downloading. By removing that, the MPAA/RIAA now have some very deep pockets to go after.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Oh wait,...that would cut into PROFITS by forcing them to buy new stuff.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(5,186 posts)This is about more than bandwidth.
kysrsoze
(6,446 posts)Look at AMC and Dish, or Weather Channel and DirecTV. The poster above nailed it by suggesting content and bandwidth be completely separate. That is the solution. Unfortunately, it's heading in the opposite direction, and Comcast/Time Warner are prime examples. Man, I hope they kill that deal.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)There's no need to innovate anymore, and the market is getting progressively more monopolized. Soon you'll just have Comcast and AT&T charging hundreds for 30Mbps connections while the rest of the world points and laughs at us.
The government doesn't care about breaking up obvious monopolies anymore. There's too many Ayn Rand-worshiping extremists.
durablend
(9,270 posts)That at some point providers are going to be pushing people into 5-10GB/month plans (same as wireless providers) with substantial overage charges. As it is, many of them claim that "most people only use a few GB per month so people that use more should pay more"
You say..."how can they do that...caps are in the hundreds now?" Simple...you offer both but make sure the rate increases on the larger capped plans become stratospheric so that the low capped plan seems like a bargain. Given the political atmosphere as well as the general idiocy of the population the sheep will happily acquiesce ("damn TAKERS raising my internet bills! Of course they should PAY if they use it!!!!!"