Greed will always win out in the end. And that's exactly what happened. ISPs got greedy. Instead of upgrading their networks to keep up with increased activity/load, they decided to start trying to control the data flow and charge content providers for delivering the content without any bandwidth degradation. They claim it's in the best interest of the consumer, but it's only in the best interest of the ISP as the consumer is being harmed by this behavior. The Gov't sat back too long and allowed monopolies to be established, leaving the consumer screwed..... It's not that the laws or technology preventing ISPs from expanding their coverage as claimed. It's that in most cases they have agreements not to expand into each other's coverage areas where they don't already have a presence. ISPs see competition as a bad thing, because it forces them to behave responsibly.
Yeah if the Government would have stepped in when the .com boom happened then I think things would have been alot different now.
I imagine not wanting to spend money also has a lot to do with not expanding coverage areas. We wouldn't want them spending their hard extorted cash on silly things like bigger coverage areas or improving the customer experience when they can still profit sufficiently without :nerd:.
Speaking of expanding coverage, didn't the service providers in US get massive (multi billion) tax breaks so that they would expand their coverage and improve infrastructure in general.
Yes.... On multiple occasions. And they have yet to actually use the money for the stated purpose. The US Gov't is dumb enough to give away money to these corporations with no tracking of it's usage either.
That is because you are not looking properly. Everyone whose plans became illegal (you know, the ones who could keep them if they liked them, but could not ACTUALLY keep them because Obamacare made them illegal to provide) had to move to more expensive plans which included all the stuff their now illegal original plans did not have (which is why they were cheaper). Oh, and don't forget the "because you are too poor to have health insurance" tax that was added by Obamacare. The rich have insurance, the middle class has insurance, but the poor do not - so lets create a tax that only is paid by people who do not have health insurance...THE POOR! HUZZAH! Guess what happens when you have 60 year olds deciding how the Internet is supposed to work...you get the same debacle that is Obamacare.
Verizon was the only one that actually expanded their service. The monies were to provide higher speed Internet to more locations - and Verizon did that with FiOS. They met the requirement of number of houses passed (aka, able to be serviced). They were going to continue to expand, but the non-recovering economy, combined with their competitors keeping the money and not actually spending anything to expand, killed that off.
Here is the problem with NOT throttling certain types of data - they eat up ALL the available bandwidth, thereby starving more important types. Many of you have probably heard of Quality of Service (QoS). QoS is THROTTLING certain types of data, as needed, to insure the more important stuff can get through. What I see here are a bunch of people, all high fiving about being able to ensure VoIP calls are blocked by people watching kittens on YouTube because they are not thinking things through completely. Luckily, the FCC rules (per the EFF, at least what they have seen of them) are vague enough that Internet Routing Protocols, and other higher importance data, will get higher priority than Netflix.
And why is a VoIP call where Niece Cindy informs Aunt Margaret about her new Kitten more important than the Cat video I want to watch on youtube? If the bandwidth isnt sufficient, the answer is to provide more of it and not to throttle services that someone perceives as less important.
Because there is no difference, data wise, between a call to 911 for life saving help and the call you just mentioned. They all appear identical to the data network, so all of them must be treated as if they are 911 calls. And if there is not enough food in Africa, they should just grow more. Sounds logical and simple, but neither your suggestion, nor mine, as nearly as easy as they sound. Bandwidth increases many times require the installation of physical media to carry said bandwidth. Just try getting something done quickly in a union controlled, non-right to work state and city, such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It can take months just to get permission to start the impact study...then you have to coordinate the 500 different unions, who all hate each other, to do the work at the proper times...then throw in more bureaucratic delays...then a change of administration and you have to start all over again. It is now two years later and you can begin the bandwidth increase via physical media installation... Meanwhile, the union goes on strike and physically damages the CURRENT infrastructure, knowing mediation will let them off the hook for it (true story, happened in the last Verizon strike). And now the FCC will be involved too...not just state and local government...
And if you can just work around the problem it will take even longer to fix. The problems you mentioned (for increasing bandwidth) have more or less nothing directly to do with the FCC or net neutrality. Maybe this will force them to get their act together (yeah right). Easy short term solution for bandwidth management: Increase prices for "high speed" internet. The faster you are the easier it is for you to take up loads of bandwidth. If ISPs dont have the capacities to actually provide said speed to everyone due to bandwidth limitations then they shouldn't offer it. That way there is an actual incentive to upgrade because there is more profit in "fair" prices for the masses than there is in "expensive" for a few. Maybe I'm just naive about this.
QOS is not always throttling. Giving traffc priority and capping it are 2 different things. A VoIP call to 911 should always go through. I do not believe anyone has an issue with that. You are severely underestimating the backend though. None of the major ISPs have congestion problems. Their backends are more than sufficient, they just want full control and more ways to make money.
When bandwidth is used up, ensuring priority gets through always means dropping the other levels. You are correct if there is unlimited bandwidth, though. I used Philadelphia as an example on purpose...it really is congested and really is in the process (for years now) of getting the needed new physical infrastructure put in place...for exactly the reasons I listed. Sure, there are many places with extra bandwidth availability, but not everywhere. It is all based, in the end, on physical transport mediums that have to be physically installed under streets, over railroad tracks, attached to bridges over rivers, etc.
Why will broadband connections cost more? Because the ISPs can no longer charge Netfilx to insure better bandwidth. That cost will now fall on the consumer. Whatever happened to unfettered competition? I have yet to see any overlap of cable areas. It is still one cable provider per. Where is it common in the US to have Comcast(AT&T), Charter, Time Warner, and Verizon all offered in the same area? All of them have insatiable appetites. By all practical means they are monopolies; dictators of their realm. When unable to get their way, it will be taken out on the subscribers. Where I used to live, Pasadena, CA there is only one broadband cable provider and a two DSL providers. Tell me there is not enough of a population to justify the presence of at least two cable providers. Where's the competition? Net Neutrality rules will fail. Until there is true competition in the broadband market, failure is the only possible result unless it is treated in the same manor as electricity is handled. We all know how fast that infrastructure's desperate need for an upgrade is being accomplished. Being classified as a utility is not what all the Pollyanna's think it is. This ruling is feckless at best in regards to the individual consumer.
Now this happens. http://arstechnica.com/business/201...et-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/
You're gonna love the Internet now that the Feds have their hands on it! I mean... they're doing such a great job spying on everyone, using the IRS as a political weapon, taking control of the banks, getting between you and your new doctor (since you can't keep your old one), letting islamo-fascists perpetrate genocide, refusing to enforce immigration law, and illegally creating new laws without congressional approval. What could possibly go wrong? It's amazing that so many of you actually support this nonsense called "net neutrality" which is nothing more than an unnecessary solution to a problem that doesn't exist, all so the feds can regulate content, tax bandwidth usage, and more efficiently violate everyone's privacy. The internet has worked FINE since it's inception. It's been the only place Government doesn't have their filthy hands. Not anymore...
Here's an article from a far more moderate site.. http://www.wired.com/2015/03/fcc-better-call-saul/ Arstechnica is about as unbiased as MSNBC or Huffpo.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Net neutrality is to stop the bullying ISPs like Comcast and Verizon from taking advantage of the customers. Plus it is going to help the smaller ISPs from being pushed around by the bigger companies. This has nothing to do with people's privacy and I seriously doubt they will tax the bandwidth usage. This will not violate anyone's privacy.
