|
I understand the net neutrality idea that nobody should be able to have a say on what you do on it but at the end of the day, are't we using privately owned infrastructure to access it? At what point does the rule of "you will use the poo poo I own the way I want" stop applying? Let's say they get firm rules where they cannot throttle any type of content. Don't you guys think they will just up the prices so they can deal with the large increase of money needed to constantly upgrade the architecture because we consume more and more data? Since the US backbone is basically owned by a handful of entities, why would't they just say "gently caress you, your bill will all increase by XX% because we now have to install a shitton more cable/fiber lines" and then everybody is stuck with higher prices? Do we all have to believe they won't offer a capitalist solution to this and let people who want more steady bandwidth to pay more for a better service? The price for 20 Mbits for example could go up but whoever don't really see a need for it could get on a 10 Mbits plan instead. More fine grained pricing structure to make the heaviest user the biggest payers.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:The thing is, any such price increases have already happened, long ago. Also, we have shitloads of unused but relatively easy and cheap to restore backbone connectivity laying about due to overbuilds in the dotcom bubble. All of that probably still belong to the same few players. The price could still go up as they figure their plans were wrong all along. They probably didn't predict people would consume such high volume of constant bandwidth like streams and other related stuff. They probably made their plans based on what the usages was back then and will want to recoup what they are throwing out. If the big players raise the price as a block, the "independent" ones won't really have a choice but to follow since they rent bandwidth on the big guys network anyway so their operating cost could go up quite fast to rent at the new price. Buried alive posted:This is a highly dubious proposition. The internet got its start as a result of various federal agencies and public universities setting up networks for the sharing of information and there's arguably been federal money involved in the construction of the infrastructure at every single step of the way. No matter who invented/created it, someone still owns the pipes we use. Do the govt own part of it or is it completely privately owned by now? Theoretical question : Would it still be considered neutral if they were to limit based on type of usage but not on the source? Like throttle down streaming no matter where it is from because it's streaming without any look on where/who it comes from even if it's your own content as a content provider.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even with that in mind a lot of the internet development is paid for by private companies who aren't inherently racist (as least not in the way you're thinking of). If anything companies love inner city areas, because it's cheap to build their internet service and they can service millions of people in a small area. Now can you imagine how it is for Canada? Larger AND less dense pop. I don't understand how people can compare the 2 giant country from north america to Japan or Western Europe. The situation is vastly different yet they seem to think it makes no difference.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:00
|
|