Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
To me, it just seems like this is the culmination of the ISP shakeout that started years ago. Now mom and pop shops are no more, there are only a few large players at least for retail customers (non-fairly large business). And it is time to get deeper into the pockets of customers with additional lubrication provided by legislatures and bureaucrats. After observation over the years it is pretty plane that the ISPs at some level do traffic shaping, ignore priority tags, etc, etc and seem to give 'favoritism' to those that pay more or have the largest ability to be a source the next quarters profit. Right now, DSL is no offered where I am. Cable is not offered where I am. Propagation delay on satellite makes it in the same realm as dialup. Even dialup is only able to go to 24kbps due to the phone company wires, so I guess the satellite still eeks out a 'win' over our extra slow dialup. So we are dong a shared network thing on the back of a wireless data card from a cell phone company. But I do live in the 'sticks', and folks 3 miles away in almost any direction have DSL and cable available. And yes, I pay my $1/mo (or whatever) like we all are forced to, to 'ensure internet to the under served areas' ... and BTW that money goes directly to the companies that I can't get service from, the best I can tell anyway. Our legislature has prohibited the power company in this area from providing service (like Clarksville does). Of course they get their advice from current providers in the area (that won't provide the service). Now network neutrality? Is it going to be as 'fair' as they say? I am to much of a realist to believe companies, legislative bodies at any level or any bureaucrat until they show me they DO provide service. So far, I am believing that this is just another scheme to allow companies to 'enhance their revenue stream'. An no matter who they extort the money from, the only source of nickels into their revenue stream is from you and me. Companies and other 'providers' that may have to pay just make that another part of their 'cost of doing business', that jacks up the price to you and me for those companies goods and services. I may be unduly cynical, but I have been proven right to many times to believe things the way they are fed to us. Let's all hope I am wrong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
- Original Message - So far, I am believing that this is just another scheme to allow companies to 'enhance their revenue stream'. An no matter who they extort the money from, the only source of nickels into their revenue stream is from you and me. Companies and other 'providers' that may have to pay just make that another part of their 'cost of doing business', that jacks up the price to you and me for those companies goods and services. How would network neutrality 'enhance their revenue stream'? As I had laid out my belief of it, it should cause the cost of the ISP to be more transparent as they couldn't charge the client on the far side of yet another ISP for access. So if Comcast had to charge more because they either wanted higher profits or to cover costs, then it would be transparent to us paying the bill and we could better compare with the possible alternatives. -- Steven Critchfield cri...@basesys.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Chris McQuistion cmcquist...@watkins.eduwrote: Unfortunately, the government-approved monopolies on cable and such do a pretty complete job in preventing any significant competition in broadband. And THAT is the reason behind regulating them so heavily. They are allowed the monopoly so long as they play nicely. The problem is there is no way in place to remove them from the monopoly once they are in place. The real way to solve this is to either: - Restrict the monopoly to to nothing but being a carrier (i.e. they don't supply the internet or TV programming, just the underlying hardware network) - Put in place a publicly funded and maintained network that has bandwidth available to be purchased by anyone / any company. Andy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris McQuistion cmcquist...@watkins.edu wrote: I understand where you're coming from and I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but the part that worries me is the idea that this problem could be self-correcting by consumers voting with their feet, so to speak. Most Americans have 1 or 2 choices for broadband. That's it. I'm fortunate enough to have 3 (fast Comcast, slow DSL, or even slower wireless). If I don't like what Comcast is doing, I can't leave them for an equally high speed connection. Unfortunately, the government-approved monopolies on cable and such do a pretty complete job in preventing any significant competition in broadband. What, exactly, is Comcast doing to prevent competition? The issue is two-fold: 1. Coaxial cable is the only currently deployed technology in this area that can deliver modern network speeds (10Mb down, 512Kb or so up). Copper pairs (phone) can't do it. Fiber optics can, but see the currently deployed part. 2. It is wickedly expensive to run *anything* - wires, pipes, fiber optic cables - to every house in a given area. The cable company has already done so and subsidized it with their TV service. This is what we call a natural monopoly. I don't know that Comcast is actively keeping others from running their own cable, it's just that few people with enough money to do that are stupid enough to try. So Comcast wins. The only way to add competition to the mix is to either fund a fiber optic network (which could also replace cable TV) or force Comcast to open their network so that their competition can use their cables to compete with them. That trick rarely works. As I said, Comcast is in an odd position. Two of their service offerings now compete against each other, and it's easier to monetize the old one (TV) than the new one (Internet). Part of their response has been to squeeze Level 3 (which carries Netflix) for money. In the past, they've made up for this by charging Akamai to colo content in their data centers. It's very complex, but the bottom line is that they're a monopoly and need to be treated as such. The free market doesn't exist in this case :( Michael -- Michael Darrin Chaney, Sr. mdcha...@michaelchaney.com http://www.michaelchaney.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
2. It is wickedly expensive to run *anything* - wires, pipes, fiber optic cables - to every house in a given area. The cable company has already done so and subsidized it with their TV service. Another thing here is that the cities/municipalities have to provide franchising to the operators. Most of the time they are also paying rent to be on the poles be it city owned poles or electric/phone/whomever else owned. or force Comcast to open their network so that their competition can use their cables to compete with them. That trick rarely works. This is entirely unrealistic in coax as compared to twisted pair. most cable companies are running their coax at near capacity for what the coax can handle (if you understand how RF works you understand how this can be so). for example if you have had comcast tv service in the past few years in this area you have more than likely been told that your analog service is going away and will have to get a digital box from them as your analog tuner in your tv will no longer work. An analog channel takes up roughly the same bandwidth as 4 High definition channels. For the company to be able to provide more high def channels they have had to rid the system of analog channels because the bandwidth is at or near max. bottom line, to even assume that cable companies are a government sanctioned monopoly is generally a falsehood. there are many places around the country where you have the option between 2 or more cable tv providers.. i believe NYC is one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
In a town where I went to college, there were two separate, competing cable companies. Two complete cable plants across the entire town, both paying homage via pole rental to the phone and/or power companies. The cost of 'basic cable' was $6/mo and turn on/off was $50 (they stuck it to the college students whenever possible, it seemed like). At the same time, telephone service was $12/mo. All these are what I actually paid, burdened with all taxes. Now it has been 40 years ago. (Both companies have been purchased by a one of the big ones, I don't know who, so competition is out the window there too.) Today it is not unusual to have $100/mo or more phone and cable bills. Personally I know a few folks that pay more than that on cable alone, and in reality they can't afford it. I could understand $25 or $30, but over $100 is just trying to 'revenue enhance' until the customers say 'i'm madder than hell and won't take it anymore' and throw out enough politicians till the regulators stop handing out our money like it is nothing. Politicians and bureaucrats pocket to much of our money (or favors that boil down to some version of compensation from 'regulated vendors'). grump and whine... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
[nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
Since the other thread was so thoroughly hijacked, I'll see about starting this one. I already started this with the topic correct, and with the warning about the content being of my own opinion. Net Neutrality, at least in the definition I have for it, is a good thing. I think it could easily be handled by some truth in advertising laws and some FTC enforcement of it. I don't think the FCC need be involved. To help explain that, let me explain what irks me about non net neutrality. The first thing to raise my annoyance level was when the cheif of SBC made a public remark about being upset with google making money off of serving content through his network to his customers. The idea that his customers really wanted anything from his network other than transit to things off of his network annoyed me. In his statement, he basically said we as customers paid them for the privilege of being his cattle. He would herd us around to where ever he could make more money. It also annoyed me that google pays for it's ISP to connect to any number of other networks. I pay my ISP to connect to any number of other networks. The product is connectivity, not the network. If they can't get the network up and keep routes to all the places I want to go, I want to drop that ISP as I would drop a car that couldn't go on the interstates. I pay my part to my ISP, google pays their part to their ISP, we are connected. When I hear that my ISP wants to charge those who I would use for the ability to serve me, I get annoyed because if the free service I use has the money to pay for me to access it, they better be paying me. Where truth in advertising laws would come in to fix this is that if Comcast or ATT formerly SBC had to disclose all of the meddling they did with the your connection, and who all they charged a toll to allow you to access them, you might just think twice about that ISP and the price you pay for the service. Just think about the true cost of your internet connection. You pay for hardware, and service, and then many services on the net charge as well. My Netflix account might have to increase if Comcast chooses to charge Netflix to access their network to get to me. So then I have to factor in the increased prices of services like that into my ISP connectivity charge as well. Would be quite telling if Netflix and similar started saying that if you access their service from Comcast, you have an extra $3 per month up charge to pay for the peering with Comcast. Soon you might think twice about continuing with Comcast when you could reduce your monthly rates on many services if you only changed to a different provider. So oddly enough, as I write this, I see a way for the market to self correct on Comcast and ATT(SBC). It just requires a large set of balls, and the willingness to potentially steer some customers off of those ISPs while driving the point home. As is, Comcast is already loosing TV subscribers pretty fast. -- Steven Critchfield cri...@basesys.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] NN and what it started as. (my opinion)
I understand where you're coming from and I think I agree with most of what you're saying, but the part that worries me is the idea that this problem could be self-correcting by consumers voting with their feet, so to speak. Most Americans have 1 or 2 choices for broadband. That's it. I'm fortunate enough to have 3 (fast Comcast, slow DSL, or even slower wireless). If I don't like what Comcast is doing, I can't leave them for an equally high speed connection. Unfortunately, the government-approved monopolies on cable and such do a pretty complete job in preventing any significant competition in broadband. I'm not sure I want the government making a bunch of laws that govern how ISP's can work, but I also don't want the government preventing free market competition in broadband. It seems to me like they need to do one thing of the other; either regulate ISP's or undo the regulation that have given those ISP's the monopolies that are giving them the power to hold us over a barrel. As for Comcast (for instance) putting the screws to Netflix (for instance), if the costs go up for Netflix because of some unscrupulous behavior on Comcast's part, then Netflix will raise the price for ALL of their customers. It won't matter what ISP that customer is using, so the guy with ATT U-Verse or Verizon FIOS ends up getting his bill raised because of something that Comcast is doing. He may hate Comcast's practices and may have left them to go to their competitor, but he still ends up paying for it because of the enormous power these monopolies hold. I'm not sure that I have an actual conclusion, here, but there's my two cents to add to the topic. Chris On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Steven S. Critchfield cri...@basesys.comwrote: Since the other thread was so thoroughly hijacked, I'll see about starting this one. I already started this with the topic correct, and with the warning about the content being of my own opinion. Net Neutrality, at least in the definition I have for it, is a good thing. I think it could easily be handled by some truth in advertising laws and some FTC enforcement of it. I don't think the FCC need be involved. To help explain that, let me explain what irks me about non net neutrality. The first thing to raise my annoyance level was when the cheif of SBC made a public remark about being upset with google making money off of serving content through his network to his customers. The idea that his customers really wanted anything from his network other than transit to things off of his network annoyed me. In his statement, he basically said we as customers paid them for the privilege of being his cattle. He would herd us around to where ever he could make more money. It also annoyed me that google pays for it's ISP to connect to any number of other networks. I pay my ISP to connect to any number of other networks. The product is connectivity, not the network. If they can't get the network up and keep routes to all the places I want to go, I want to drop that ISP as I would drop a car that couldn't go on the interstates. I pay my part to my ISP, google pays their part to their ISP, we are connected. When I hear that my ISP wants to charge those who I would use for the ability to serve me, I get annoyed because if the free service I use has the money to pay for me to access it, they better be paying me. Where truth in advertising laws would come in to fix this is that if Comcast or ATT formerly SBC had to disclose all of the meddling they did with the your connection, and who all they charged a toll to allow you to access them, you might just think twice about that ISP and the price you pay for the service. Just think about the true cost of your internet connection. You pay for hardware, and service, and then many services on the net charge as well. My Netflix account might have to increase if Comcast chooses to charge Netflix to access their network to get to me. So then I have to factor in the increased prices of services like that into my ISP connectivity charge as well. Would be quite telling if Netflix and similar started saying that if you access their service from Comcast, you have an extra $3 per month up charge to pay for the peering with Comcast. Soon you might think twice about continuing with Comcast when you could reduce your monthly rates on many services if you only changed to a different provider. So oddly enough, as I write this, I see a way for the market to self correct on Comcast and ATT(SBC). It just requires a large set of balls, and the willingness to potentially steer some customers off of those ISPs while driving the point home. As is, Comcast is already loosing TV subscribers pretty fast. -- Steven Critchfield cri...@basesys.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this
