My point. Are they paying the same price as everyone, or are they paying more because they use more?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Sets End Date for Net Neutrality on June 11 as Democrats Lead Vote to Block Repeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point. Are they paying the same price as everyone, or are they paying more because they use more?
Well... the delivery truck is damn near infinitely large. The size of the package is irrelevant as when bandwidth becomes an issue at the Tier 1 or 2 levels, they throw down another fiber line like nothing - these are wire-to-wire connections, not limited by the available spectrum over the air. Netflix buys access to those Tier 1 and 2 levels, that's their supplier for access into the internet. Comcast charges end users for access to the internet at Tier 3. The consumer. They already got paid, they're trying to double dip and charge someone that already has a presence there. What you've purchased as a consumer is a *speed* tier, and if the package getting delivered is within that scope, you've not inhibited anything other than the ability of others *in your home* to use the full amounts of what you've already purchased. In other words... If I hook up a fire hose to my water pipes, the rest of the water pressure in my house - and only my house - goes down.
Wow. You can't see the forest through the trees.
Those are just the examples that were found out.
Why do you want your ISPs to have so much power over what you see, purchase, etc.. over the internet?
Make no mistake, greed will drive access and the average consumer will be powerless. Most people will not even know that their internet access is being censored.
THAT IS NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS.
How many times does this have to be explained to you?
Please. So please explain this to me. Really, I can’t wait to hear from an expert.
Net neutrality is not about the amount of data that’s used. I think you’ve completely mixed up the argument.
ISP’s are free to implement data caps and even charge per GB if they want.
What NN says is they must treat all data equally, not manipulating data.
Netflix pays more, the same way that someone pays more for a 1Gb unlimited package vs a capped 100Mb/s package.
I don’t understand where you’re going with this argument? Netflix pays for the data they use, the same way you and I do.
Sudden link offers a 1GB download speed with unlimited data, just because they decided you are paying enough into their coffers. But they could change the data part tomorrow if they wanted to. Not said as a counter to any pro-net neutrality argument.
You’ve ignored two pages of brilliant explanations, I’m not going to spoon feed you.
This is the explanation of NN I keep seeing everywhere, and it's the worst one. Users are already divided into fast and slow lanes in that they pay for bandwidth! You use more, you pay more, net neutrality or not. Now people think it just has something to do with charging more money for service, which is actually the opposite of what will happen.
The short version is this: Handle all packets equally. Nobody knows how bad in the long term it is to lose it. And short term, they'll spin it in a way that makes consumers happy.
[doublepost=1525974313][/doublepost]
Don't call people ignorant. What you're describing has nothing to do with net neutrality. The poster GFLPraxis a couple of replies up was accurate.
"the cost of delivering the data is essentially the same regardless of how much is used" - No, data takes processing and electricity, and ISPs only build to support the peak aggregate, not the aggregate peak, so long term they even have to build more if people use more. With NN, ISPs can and do charge more if you use more data.
Last edited:
I can't believe the American public are not forcing NN. What Americans don't understand is that, you are not just voting for yourself, your voting for everyone else on the planet. If it becomes OK in America, it will be OK everywhere else, because thats how "the big companies" do it in "the developed countries".
The fact is you misunderstood what NN is. You imagined that NN will tell ISP to charge someone who sends an 1 GB video the same as someone who sends an 1 KB text file. But that understanding is wrong. NN tells ISP that whoever sends 1 GB of data at the same rate should be charged the same, be it one 1GB video, or one million 1 KB text file.
It's the most unifying thing in the country at 86% approval to maintain the current rules... which themselves were pretty loose.
But then you add in the Faux News mind-eraser and it gets dicey because you have a voting body that votes directly against their own best interests in every single election because a TV personality told them to.
I wish every news outlet gave exactly this explanation once instead of the thousands of long-winded articles they've been pushing for a year.
And you think the government is the answer to that? They’re 1000 times worse. You can’t pick a worse entity for keeping something “fair” than the government.
Everything here is different with wireless networks. Even with wired, as I explained above, the size of the package is not irrelevant.
... the government is regulating the internet in China... which is what proponents for NN want.
The government is the answer whenever we're talking about resources everyone is forced to share. Natural monopolies exist for water and power because it doesn't make sense for multiple companies to build infrastructure for that, which is why the gov't either owns them or heavily regulates them.
About corruption, say whatever you want about politicians being corrupt. It's a lot rarer than the perfectly legal and ethical agreements between corps that would end up shoving a few major services down everyone's throats and ruining the Internet. All the incentives are lined up.
Funny how Democrats use facts and logic when presenting their arguments, while Republicans just shout non-sensical oneliners. It would be tempting to draw conclusions about their intelligence
Last edited:
You folks are hilarious. You do realize before the turnover towards the end of the Obama administration, that the Department of Commerce had a contract with IANA/ICANN for control of the root dns file? And that ICANN operated at the contractual pleasure of the federal government. Bu
The government has always been involved, to a degree, with the Internet.
I've heard that Trump is racist, homophobic, a woman-hater, a Nazi, a fascist, a Russian puppet, and... before the election, a Democrat trying to get Clinton elected. I've heard this from Democrat friends (look where I live), most media outlets, and the former First Lady. When he was elected, a huge number of Democrats staged violent protests across the country, destroying property, blocking roads, and assaulting peaceful Trump supporters in rallies (I walked by and saw this in Berkeley). Some argument skills there!
About the facts and logic vs one-liners, NBC argues through so-called comedy shows. Every single comedian just makes fun of Trump through the most absurdly forced and uncomfortable humor I've ever seen. Fox News has opinion shows too with morons at the helm, and their arguments suck, but at least they make actual arguments.
I saw in the humanities circles of universities (I just finished) blatantly political and brainwashing education, and some universities also take skin color into account for admission. This makes it understandable why Republicans are turning against colleges, a horrible and sad result. It's not as bad as they say it is, but it's still pretty bad.
Look, I don't like Trump, and I support net neutrality and environmental protection. I didn't vote for him. But your statement is ridiculous, and the Democrat party has thrown away their credibility, making it no mystery why they're losing.
Last edited: