Here's the real problem with that. I already pay a ton of money so
that I can stream video well. Most people could get away with a
much slower, and cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like
streaming services.
We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet
connection 15 years ago and it was fine. Now we all regularly pay
around $100 give or take for a faster connection so that our netflix
comes over at decent quality.... Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8
a month, it cost $108 dollars a month, it just so happens that the
connection that gives us Netflix also gives us some other useful
services.
Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the
money so that we can get these streaming services want a piece of
the pie of every service that has managed to be successful on the
Internet... From services I might add that make the network
providers service worth getting in the first place. The network
providers play it like we would all have these expensive connections
no matter what and that all the services that make their network
connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their service
that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube, facebook...
etc...etc... In my view it's the other way around and they should
be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to
cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure
out how to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in
business because of the current way they do things.
For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could
quite likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one
that cost less than $20 a month so that they could check their
email.
And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka
you and me. Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print
money, so they have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end
user.
Brian Cluff
On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen
wrote:
well,
considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90%
of the news information outlets these days, that situation is
already happening. what we need is a specified statement like
this:
all internet services providers are required to allow
competing content to cross to the end user without censorship
(that is, they cannot block it). However, they might be allowed
to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it through.
now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee?
the content provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double
dipping would definitely not be allowed.
now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years.
the content providers got a small percentage on each cassette
sold and users got to tape their favorite songs. why not the
same thing here: charge a small percentage (like 1%) to the end
user on a monthly basis to be paid into a general fund for all
content providers? that 1% is small considering individual
users, but adds up fast when you consider the number of
customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that
would be about 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a
lot, doesn't it?
-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank
operations Dept.
On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
Most network devices these days, including
wireless, firewalls, as well as you standard routers and
switches tend to do layer 4 and up application inspection,
primarily for creating policies like "limit
youtube|netflix to 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic",
and "limit google to safe search only" that muck with your
content when at work, school, anywhere you have an network
admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing
things to break the network, or at least them all at once
doing so.
Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth
network hogs for providers, so rather than let storming
elephants trample the village, they would "queue" that
traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things,
like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases
(still likely do). As Stephen said, they eventually got
smarter, or Netflix did, to peer directly with the mega
providers, and put local content distribution nodes
directly into them on 100gb switches so they didn't have
to slaughter your traffic (and take the bad press
eventually in being the internet cop ala comcast).
Is this really what the net neutrality debate is
about anymore? No, politicians don't care about
internet speeds, it's really about media consolidation
occurring that you will be pretty much left with att,
comcast, and news corp for all television, internet,
phone, and news in general. What could go wrong, other
than enabling maniacal billionaires to buy their way
into the white house.
-mb
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss