Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?

[nismaratwork]

What is the industry norm when personal users reach or exceed their maximim? Is Comcast alone in suspending the accounts of heavy users?

In the USA they are AFAIK, and as for a national GB/month-person unit?... Not sure. I would imagine, from my experience, that it would be highly regional, and partially contingent on the EXISTING quality of service; after all you won't see a hot spot even in populated regions if people are sufficiently limited.

AOL probably stands as a good example of an early way that this was approached, when they charged by the hour. Remember however, that they took advantage of a time when the technical hurdle to use another service was prohibitive. Given the multinational exponential growth of the internet in general and the WWW in particular, I think companies like Comcast aren't so much trying to turn back the clock as just squeeze ever dime they can out the present. Oil companies are draining the resource that supports them (I'm not debating at what rate, but ultimately this is true), and that seems to leave them able to drill. Why?... well, there's money to be made now, and when there isn't... well, look at AOL now. If ever a dry well analogy worked...

 

[nismaratwork]

In the UK, the standard is to cut the speed of the person using excess.

For ADSL connections, it's usually a case of you having a monthly limit (mine is 40GB). The first time you go over it they warn you, the second time they slow your speed down to 10% of max for the next billing month. The third, well I haven't got that far.

For Cable connections, we only have the one and that's Virgin Media. They have peak caps. If you download more than 1500mb between 9am to 3pm and then a separate 4pm to 9pm, they cut your speed instantly from 10mb to 2mb for 5 hours.

For mobile users, they usually charge for excess use.

re: bold: We're all at the "AOL Hourly Rate" when it comes to mobile... that is an unfortunate, but true fact that we have to live with for now.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm going to add a small caveat to my previous post, in that I currently have an "unlimited use" policy for internet on my phone.

I can literally hook it up to my computer and download as much as I want through it. A lot companies are now looking to get rid of this option as there are a number of users paying for these unlimited use policies and simply letting them download continuously and this small percentage (I believe it was around 2%) is using a high percentage of network capacity.

However, as with all policies such as my "unlimited" plan, there is a 'fair use' clause and if I do "take the p*ss" as the guy in the shop explained to me, they "will get a bit sh*tty with me" (all the phone shops words not mine). Although this clause is there, the plan itself does provide me with unlimited data usage and they can't charge me for using too much. So I'm not sure what they do.

 

[Evo]

And rather than simply charging people for what they use, they want to charge based on what the content is, in order to protect their other interests.

It's probably best to say charge for the media provided, like movies. because there is content that results in data (bandwidth usage) and there are "content providers" which offer media, which is the problem being discussed with the Level 3 Netflix deal that is irking Comcast and the Comcast/NBC merger.

Comcast's current quarrel with the Level 3/Netflix deal is bandwidth. Comcast is accusing level 3 of exceeding the amount of traffic passed back and forth based on their peering agreement.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026071-266.html

This is also an excellent breakdown of this issues.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related

 

[nismaratwork]

It's probably best to say charge for the media provided, like movies. because there is content that results in data (bandwidth usage) and there are "content providers" which offer media, which is the problem being discussed with the Level 3 Netflix deal that is irking Comcast and the Comcast/NBC merger.

Comcast's current quarrel with the Level 3/Netflix deal is bandwidth. Comcast is accusing level 3 of exceeding the amount of traffic passed back and forth based on their peering agreement.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026071-266.html

Now, I just want to add... you need to keep in mind that Comcast isn't a company, but a region of utter darkness, at the heart of which is a crimson crystal throbbing with eldricht power and crackling with the ruinous flames of Gehenna. Within that, at the heart of the heart of the heart of Comcast, is a single guy in a well-cut suit flipping you off.

Just my take, I don't claim that I can back this up with MUCH solid evidence.

 

[Evo]

Now, I just want to add... you need to keep in mind that Comcast isn't a company, but a region of utter darkness, at the heart of which is a crimson crystal throbbing with eldricht power and crackling with the ruinous flames of Gehenna. Within that, at the heart of the heart of the heart of Comcast, is a single guy in a well-cut suit flipping you off.

:rofl:

 

[WhoWee]

It's probably best to say charge for the media provided, like movies. because there is content that results in data (bandwidth usage) and there are "content providers" which offer media, which is the problem being discussed with the Level 3 Netflix deal that is irking Comcast and the Comcast/NBC merger.

Comcast's current quarrel with the Level 3/Netflix deal is bandwidth. Comcast is accusing level 3 of exceeding the amount of traffic passed back and forth based on their peering agreement.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20026071-266.html

This is also an excellent breakdown of this issues.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related

This was very helpful. I didn't realize the central role of Level 3 in the discussion. NetFlix is relatively insignificant in the larger picture.

 

[nismaratwork]

This was very helpful. I didn't realize the central role of Level 3 in the discussion. NetFlix is relatively insignificant in the larger picture.

Apple and MS aren't, and what Netflix does, they're trying to do as well. Live/Zune service, PSN, iTunes and TV... Netflix just happens to be very popular and a good face for thisl.

 

[mugaliens]

Their idea is rubbish. The only way to maintain net neutrality is for them to keep their hands off.

Having read a number of articles written on the issue, I've changed my mind, and now believe it's a good idea that companies controlling the hard-wired pipes be prevented from applying QoS weights to content.

Of course, this brings up two issues:

1. The quality of service of some streaming content, including voice and video, will suffer.

2. Good luck, FCC, on figuring out a way to detect this, much less do anything about it.

On third thought, I believe broad QoS standards should remain, but only if undifferentiated by provider. Thus, VoIP should retain a QoS weight which affords normal human voice communication, but without any differentiation between whether it's Comcast's VoIP vs Vonage, Skype, etc.

I still think #2, above, will rule.

 

[skippy1729]

I don't think it matters if this particular regulation is beneficial or harmful. It is the camel's nose slipping in under the tent.

Skippy