<<   <   Page 2 / 2
tsreyb 12/22/2017 | 3:20:45 PM
Re: 2015 Taken to Court??? Seven,

Here's something you (and most net neut proponents) argue .. "paid prioritization would be the worst thing possible to put into consumer services".

It seems to me, however, that we've had 'paid prioritization' ever since consumer based Internet access began, including during the short-lived Net Neutrality era. It may come under a different name (e.g., tiered pricing), but is essentially the same thing. Today you can pay for 100mbps, 150mbps or 940mbps ($30/mo, $75/mo and $80/mo respectively) for FiOS based Internet-only service.

Does paid prioritization mean something different than today's current tiered levels??? Such as, marking packets with priority flags for priority users? That might guarantee a certain level of prioritization, but a tiered service that doesn't mark packets differently still looks like priority to the end user - I mean, they still get superior performance (for a cost) from today's (yesterday's?) tiered but non-prioritized packets.

I'm not arguing for or against anything here. I'm just trying to understand why everyone gets worked up about the paid prioritization aspect of netneut. I'm more than willing to be schooled on this, I freely admit plenty of ignorance.
tsreyb 12/22/2017 | 2:58:56 PM
Re: 2015 Taken to Court??? Mendyk, Can you be more specific? What exactly does he have wrong? I'm not taking Idol's side, I'm just trying to understand your argument. He explained his. There's a lot of fud from both sides regarding net neut.
mendyk 12/22/2017 | 9:40:12 AM
Re: 2015 Taken to Court??? Mr. Idol: Your take on reality is interesting to say the least -- and the most.
brooks7 12/21/2017 | 7:19:42 PM
Re: 2015 Taken to Court???  

First, Neutral Net usage has been the policy all along.  The question has always been how to instantiate it.  The current policy of implementation of Title II is just the latest.  I guess the GW Bush administration was liberal as well.

Second, there is no obligation for ISPs to build out Broadband Networks.  They do so because they make money in doing so. 

Third, without high bandwidth applications there is no reason for anyone to buy more than 1.5 Mb/s Internet Service...which the last time I looked went for about $15/month.  Heck even dial-up would still work which you can get for free.

Fourth, we disagree on details, but Duh! and I basically agree that the implementation of Title II has not caused any harm. 

Fifth, if you want to get rid of Net Neutrality then you must want paid prioritization.  Because connection fees are paid to those services you connect to on the Internet.  There is no form of reciprocal compensation like in the phone network. 

Sixth, my opinion is that paid prioritization would be the worst thing possible to put into consumer services.  If one is going to pay extra for a service, it better work - with guarantees.  Otherwise, people will opt to just continue to use best effort.  Once a service is paid for then people will monitor it for performance.  There will need to be compensation if performance guarantees are missed.  Note, that every endpoint can essentially measure performance - so everyone will have access to the information.  Do you really think its a good idea to have 15M users measure how well you are doing?

Austin Idol 12/21/2017 | 5:40:32 PM
2015 Taken to Court??? Everyone plays by the rules but when liberals lose by the rules they want to change the rules. Up until Obama the FCC was left alone but with Obama he had Wheeler(An Ex Cable Lobbyist) on strings and made him dance like a puppet. Obama wanted to be hip and was in with Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix etc...and crafted rules that favored them and allowed them to get a free ride on the backs of the ISP's hogging up huge swathes of bandwidth for their applications. The question I propose is why doesn't Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Netflix(Combined Market Cap of about $1.5T) go out and build their own dedicated network  to deliver their services and abide by Net Neutrality? Crickets.......... Net Neutrality was brought to you in 2015 by Obama/Wheeler/Google/Netflix/Facebook/Amazon to address a problem that never existed and only solidified the moat that those big 4 companies had. But throw out a term like net neutrality and big bad ATT, Comcast, and Verizon and you rile up the uneducated sheep and they cry and whine.
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Sign In