Congress introduces the 'Save the Internet Act,' a bill that could restore net neutrality

[DelJo63]

Have all the fun you wish @Burty117 -- just not interested in your castigation of the current marketing scheme(s). Did you know it's all done with QoS mapping of your NIC MAC address.

 

[RaXoR]

Sorry but that's just not true, The UK is a much smaller country than yours, we do not have a Gigabit option for homes, even experimental homes max out at 330mbps and that covers about 5 properties in the entire country.

Most of the UK still runs on copper wires from the 60's. At least you have the option for Gigabit.

If I desperately wanted Gigabit Fibre to my home, I did enquire about it, They wanted £2500~ to examine if it was worth it, another £4500~ to install the line down the road then another £1000~ a month to keep it.

And I don't live in the middle of nowhere either, I can get a Tube Train to (Central) London in 30 minutes...

Here in the US, you only get fiber if your home was built within the last 10 years. If your home is older than that, you're **** out of luck. Live in a rural area? You're limited to ADSL connections of up to 10mbps or extremely costly satellite connections which max out at 30mbps but are dodgy signal wise. We have gigabit, but is very limited and will remain so for a very long time. I feel for you though, however, we are still a first world country with some of the worst internet service available. Australia beats every other country in worst service.

 

[moobg]

Charging per GB is nothing but pure greed.

Not really IMO. If I buy a 42HP VW and drive 55mph, that's once choice. On the other hand, choosing a 600HP muscle car and drive 80-90MPH that's another. My gas consumption is a function of my usage(and so is my fuel bill).

Paying per usage is very fare and easily monitored.

Same argument applies to cell phone roaming charges.

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem paying per GB if the ISPs charged a fair price. Of course, if they did charge a fair price, and we all paid per GB, most of our bills would be a tiny fraction of what they are now (currently paying $65 with Charter for 100/10 and there's 0 competition): https://broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

 

[Evernessince]

Not really IMO. If I buy a 42HP VW and drive 55mph, that's once choice. On the other hand, choosing a 600HP muscle car and drive 80-90MPH that's another. My gas consumption is a function of my usage(and so is my fuel bill).

Paying per usage is very fare and easily monitored.

Same argument applies to cell phone roaming charges.

Big problem with this analogy is that data doesn't have a fixed cost like gasoline. Your ISP is not paying a unit cost per GB of data and this kind of a "consumption" analogy has never grafted well to data. Data is not consumed upon use, it's an infinite resource who's cost to produce is next to nothing.

I have a large home network that spans two buildings and many PCs. Do you know how many TBs I transfer over the network? Much much more then the average bear. Do you know how much I paid to have that data transfered? 0. Ditto goes for your ISP. The only difference is the scale.

 

[Robertrogue]

Okay, my 2 pennies worth here. If I build the system and you want to use said system, why can I not charge for that system, and any amount that I choose? Yes, the internet is free, but some company with people trying to make an living put forth the effort and capital to supply the customers with said access to the product. However, one thing I do not agree with, is the feds supplying tax payer money to said company to build the infrastructure and then charge the very people who supplied the funds for the business to get the product availability!! Net Neutrality will not fix that, only slow down the progress of the infrastructure to the places that only have DSL or Satellite.

 

[DelJo63]

Big problem with this analogy is that data doesn't have a fixed cost like gasoline. Your ISP is not paying a unit cost per GB of data and this kind of a "consumption" analogy has never grafted well to data. Data is not consumed upon use, it's an infinite resource who's cost to produce is next to nothing

From the view from a personal router, the user's connection "eats, ingests, devours" -- aka consumes -- data. The "consumption" of the data per se is not the problem, but the bandwidth impact that activity produces from the ISP gateway to your router. The gateway is a limited point-of-access and the more data pushed thru it starts degrading all users bandwidth and latency.

Start monitoring gaming systems and the variable latency complaints from gamers. At specific times-of-day, some game hosts become so overloaded that the game(s) become unplayable. These servers need the variable resources of a cloud solution -- to bring extra network nodes online by demand -- but that's an expensive solution for "a game" service.

 

[Evernessince]

Big problem with this analogy is that data doesn't have a fixed cost like gasoline. Your ISP is not paying a unit cost per GB of data and this kind of a "consumption" analogy has never grafted well to data. Data is not consumed upon use, it's an infinite resource who's cost to produce is next to nothing

From the view from a personal router, the user's connection "eats, ingests, devours" -- aka consumes -- data.

The user's connection consumes data? What? Where exactly did you learn networking again?

The definition of consume is as such

"To use up (a resource)."

Routers do not consume data in any fashion. They do what their name implies, direct it to it's destination. I don't know if you were going for a creative definition but I've never see it explained like you have and that's through stacks of textbook I've read, countless lectures, and multiple jobs. FYI I majored it CIS and minored in web design.

The gateway is a limited point-of-access and the more data pushed thru it starts degrading all users bandwidth and latency.

This is not true at all. I'll demonstrate

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000BVYT3/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

"5 ports deliver up to 2000 Mbps of dedicated, non-blocking bandwidth per port."

Key words are per port, which means there is zero affect on all users. This is only a basic cheap switch, not a big boy. FYI "more data pushed thru" falls under speed, not bandwidth. Even this basic switch can handle 2000 Mbps and if you do the math that works out to 172.8 Terabits in a single day. So how in the world does charging people per data make sense again? Now imagine the capacity of a commercial switch and realize that charging for data transfered over time is scam.

Start monitoring gaming systems and the variable latency complaints from gamers. At specific times-of-day, some game hosts become so overloaded that the game(s) become unplayable. These servers need the variable resources of a cloud solution -- to bring extra network nodes online by demand -- but that's an expensive solution for "a game" service.

I fail to see how some games having problems meeting demand has anything to do with ISPs charging per GB. In fact it has nothing to do with the topic. FYI most online games at launch don't have a bandwidth problem, as in the point you were trying to argue, they have a server problem (not enough of them). I hope you understand the distinction between the two as you seem to be implying that it's their internet connection being overloaded and not in fact the servers.

 

[PcePce]

My internet is working fine and free as ever.

Statists gonna state.

 

[Evernessince]

My internet is working fine and free as ever.

Statists gonna state.

Good thing this is net neutrality and not "PcePce's network neutrality". You fail to realize the scope and duration this is intended for. Off the top of my head I can link 3 situations where net neutrality was needed

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/06/net-neutrality-bill-democrats-house-senate-save-the-internet/
https://www.freepress.net/our-respo...iners/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
https://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm

So yes you can take that incredibly selfish point of view "well it doesn't affect me so why should I care!" but the fact is companies have and continue to engage in behavior that hampers the average citizen, internet startups, and the competitive nature of the market. Burying your head in the sand does nothing to further society and contributes nothing to the conversation.

 

[Danny101]

I don't mind paying for a specific speed, but I shoudn't have to pay for data.

 

[DelJo63]

Routers do not consume data in any fashion. They do what their name implies, direct it to it's destination.

Of course they are not the end-user and pass it all to something else -- BFD -- if you're so sensitive, the use the term ingest.

I fail to see how some games having problems meeting demand has anything to do with ISPs charging per GB. In fact it has nothing to do with the topic.

Yes, I noted you're having problems with abstraction. I'm done with the subject.

 

[RaXoR]

Okay, my 2 pennies worth here. If I build the system and you want to use said system, why can I not charge for that system, and any amount that I choose? Yes, the internet is free, but some company with people trying to make an living put forth the effort and capital to supply the customers with said access to the product. However, one thing I do not agree with, is the feds supplying tax payer money to said company to build the infrastructure and then charge the very people who supplied the funds for the business to get the product availability!! Net Neutrality will not fix that, only slow down the progress of the infrastructure to the places that only have DSL or Satellite.

Nothing wrong with charging for the service, the problem arises when you start charging more than a reasonable price and segment the service into "consumable" portions such as data caps or charging per GB used. There is no limitation to the amount of data that can be transferred through the network, what is limited is the amount that can be transferred at once. ISPs charging for data as if it's a limited resource is the issue and them charging an arm and a leg for a now essential service is called price gouging.

 

[Evernessince]

Of course they are not the end-user and pass it all to something else -- BFD -- if you're so sensitive, the use the term ingest.

Yes, I noted you're having problems with abstraction. I'm done with the subject.

That's not problems with abstraction, it's understand the difference between internet speed and internet bandwidth. This conversation was on Internet bandwidth and why you'd want to charge per GB. As I pointed out, even a cheap switch can handle 172.8 terabits a day so clearly charging per GB is a waste of time. The only reason to charge per GB when the costs are effectively 0 to transfer that GB is greed, plain and simple. You can't argue with the math.

 

[Robertrogue]

Nothing wrong with charging for the service, the problem arises when you start charging more than a reasonable price and segment the service into "consumable" portions such as data caps or charging per GB used. There is no limitation to the amount of data that can be transferred through the network, what is limited is the amount that can be transferred at once. ISPs charging for data as if it's a limited resource is the issue and them charging an arm and a leg for a now essential service is called price gouging.

This is how everything should work in a business, if there is a high demand for your product, you charge more until the demand shrinks an requires a price adjustment. If there is competition for the same thing it will adjust the price to keep customers or to woo new ones from the competitor. Pricing is only unreasonable if it is beyond the consumers expectations. If Verizon or Spectrum start charging more than we feel comfortable paying for the services we can move to a different company that has the services that are more wallet palatable. In this aspect the dollar controls the terms not the government.

 

[RaXoR]

This is how everything should work in a business, if there is a high demand for your product, you charge more until the demand shrinks an requires a price adjustment. If there is competition for the same thing it will adjust the price to keep customers or to woo new ones from the competitor. Pricing is only unreasonable if it is beyond the consumers expectations. If Verizon or Spectrum start charging more than we feel comfortable paying for the services we can move to a different company that has the services that are more wallet palatable. In this aspect the dollar controls the terms not the government.

That's all nice and dandy until the companies begin partnering and fixing prices. That's where the issue arises and yes the cost is at a point where no one that I have spoken to feels comfortable paying it.

 

[imakidder]

Okay, my 2 pennies worth here. If I build the system and you want to use said system, why can I not charge for that system, and any amount that I choose? Yes, the internet is free, but some company with people trying to make an living put forth the effort and capital to supply the customers with said access to the product. However, one thing I do not agree with, is the feds supplying tax payer money to said company to build the infrastructure and then charge the very people who supplied the funds for the business to get the product availability!! Net Neutrality will not fix that, only slow down the progress of the infrastructure to the places that only have DSL or Satellite.

Never better said Robertrogue. Try federally bankrolled with consumer tax dollars and authorized increases in consumer charges for development that never came through. Here, the company made bank then bailed on its promise to bring fiberoptics "right to the door" choosing, instead, to pursue another market while Uncle Sam, asleep at the wheel, said nary a word. Later, the company came out with a new, bigger, faster "fiberoptic" package at double the price of their previous service that oddly was no longer available at term's end even though their "fiberoptic" came in on the same twisted copper wire in place for the last 30 years. As said a few comments back, rural monopolized areas are like shooting fish in a barrel to these guys. Without protections of net neutrality, companies like this one know no stops to exploiting consumers for every penny they can cap, throttle, redirect, and 404 out of their oversold bandwidth and under-performing speeds. And you're exactly right. I'm no economic genius but I've never known a backlash of corporate profiteering to define a decent ROI on consumer-financed development, either [told Uncle Sam to go to rehab but you know how that goes . . . lol!].

Who can guess the company in this case nightmare? (Hint: sleeps with the NSA - go figure, right?).