More importantly is who is paying for it.
More importantly is who is paying for it.
You have absolutely no idea what it costs to build a network. And for the rest of you gurus most everything (not just your internet connection) runs across a fiber backbone powered with 32TB routers. Data traffic is growing exponentially. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000% every three years. Billions are being invested just here in Oklahoma by everyone in the business just trying to keep up with demand. Five years ago an OC12 or 48 was considered a high capacity circuit. Then the standard carrier was bumped up to 1G three years or so ago. Just a year ago 10G became the new standard and starting later this year 100G has been approved for roll out.
Yes, and when the ISPs throttle their traffic and charge Netflix, Hulu, and Vonnage more for a "Fast Lane" who is paying for THAT?
The customers who use their services. What you're advocating is a form of socializing the Internet with a big brother deciding who wins and loses.
Yes, net neutrality has been great for the growth of the internet so far.
I'm not sure that will be true when we deliberately slow it down on a large scale.
Oh, and out comes the S word already.
The customers are already paying for that bandwidth.
I pay each month for a certain amount of bandwidth, determined by my ISP and Netflix pays for a certain amount of bandwidth.
How has it not already been paid for?
so what in the world does what I posted have anything to do with what you wrote above?
costs are in the $Billions in terms of capital invested .. but revenues charged to subscribers are also in the $$$$ .. that's what's paying for all the capital expenditures. ISP's customers are already paying for bandwidth costs supported by those capital investments. due to amazing technologies advances in amounts of data each fiber is capable of carrying .. bandwidth costs have dropped to a fraction due to excess capacities of existing optic fibers.
yes data traffic has ramped up but technologies has ramped up accordingly .. multiplexing technologies makes it possible for exponential increases in amount of data being carried on the finite number of optic fibers.
ISP customers are already being charged for set performance standards rated in MB/Sec .. yet throttling most costs are getting to roll down to ISP customers yet again. those charges extorted from content providers will be passed on the consumers.
this is why the FCC should reclassify ISP as title 2 common carriers .. this would force ISP to allow equal access to everyone.
The essence of what the issue boils down to is this:
ISP customers are ditching thier landlines and cable television in droves. We even have a thread here on OSA about cutting the cable.
The ISPs feel entitled to that profit margin and they intend to get it one way or another.
You ditch their cable TV but they get it from Netflix.
You ditch your landline but they get it from Vonnage.
The internet service providers love free enterprise until it makes 2 of their 3 products obsolete.
Might as well have blacksmiths charging car companies a fee because their paved roads are wearing horseshoes out faster.
ISP customers are ditching thier landlines and cable television in droves. We even have a thread here on OSA about cutting the cable.
The ISPs feel entitled to that profit margin and they intend to get it one way or another.
You ditch their cable TV but they get it from Netflix.
You ditch your landline but they get it from Vonnage.
The internet service providers love free enterprise until it makes 2 of their 3 products obsolete.
Might as well have blacksmiths charging car companies a fee because their paved roads are wearing horseshoes out faster.
Net neutrality is why we have some of the slowest internet in the developed world. Why should companies invest even more to speed things up to world class when at the whim of some unelected bureaucrat their business model can be gutted?
The truth can sometimes be painful.
What you and Netflix are paying for is connection speed not total packets delivered. The communication network is not built for everyone to run at 100% capacity 24/7 like some want to (and a very small percentage does). To make that happen it would take truly drastic (and expensive) increases in capacity. What you are demanding is that companies should make major investments in their networks without any real chance of ever earning a reasonable return on investment. Why is it unreasonable to ask that very small percentage that gobbles up an outsized amount of capacity pay a little extra?
I’ll say it again…you don’t know what you’re talking about.
A decade ago the mux’s I worked on cost in the tens of thousands and were scalable for a decade or more. Most of that SONET equipment is still being used but is being phased out. But now, the prices have risen into the hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars per box. The only thing that pays for that is profits from increased services because the available customer base hasn’t increased much at all…at least in Oklahoma.
Increasing capacity even more would place an even greater burden on customers that already feel they are paying too much. So, why should everyone subsidize a small fraction of high data users? Why can’t those users who move mountains of data pay for it?
LOL - I don’t know about cable but…
…the telcos would love it if everyone would call in and cancel their POTS lines. They have NEVER made money on those things. Business services are what SUBSIDIZED your home service for years. A couple years ago the large incumbents finally received an ‘ok’ from the FCC to turn off their old networks after years of asking. The drop dead date last I heard is 2020 were all POTS, frame relay, SONET, and the rest of the old stuff will become history.
Similar threads
