It's a cash grab. The providers aren't necessarily losing anything- everyone will need a data pipeline. The problem for them is that cable cutting is becoming more popular, and they are trying to stave off the pending loss of customers as more of us come to the realization that traditional TV service (and phone service) just aren't necessary. Providers offer their own services (Comcast and DirecTV both had on demand video when I subscribed to them) but they want to gain an unfair advantage over their competitors because they own the wire coming to your house- either pay more for adequate access to their competitors, or stick to what they can provide, preferably a higher-priced TV contract. It's unethical and shouldn't stand. AT&T doesn't charge me more to call a non-AT&T phone number. If they want to provide an incentive to STAY in their ecosystem (ex: AT&T does offer free calling between cell customers) I'm good with that. Broadband is typically a captive audience- I have no other choice but Comcast in my subdivision. At best you have 2 choices; cable and FIOS. DSL has gotten so comparably slow that it's no longer a viable option for me. If there were more choices Net Neutrality wouldn't be an issue- customers would flock to the provider that advertised free access to whatever you want.
On Feb 10, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Luke Jaconetti <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it's got to be a mix of both. The cable companies see money leaking > out, and want to shore that up and raise revenues. At the same time, most of > these companies are run by people who have no idea how the technology they > manage actually works. > > > > On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:04:25 AM UTC-5, Shag wrote: > Seems the next step is to increase rates on heavy bandwidth users, without > decreasing rates for low bandwidth users. Even though the technology can > support the current bandwidth needs of our society, they want to control it > more and charge more for it. I can't decide if high priced companies like > Comcast and Verizon are just desperate for crazy high profits or are they so > poorly managed that they need more revenue to survive. > Shag > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Luke Jaconetti <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Madness. At some point we'll be at a "what runs good on what network" >> matrix to decide which provider to use. Like it used to be with long >> distance phone service. >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:02:00 PM UTC-5, cwpreston wrote: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/05/verizon-denies-using-net-neutrality-victory-to-sabotage-netflix-amazon/?tid=pm_business_pop >> >> Verizon denies using net neutrality victory to sabotage Netflix, Amazon >> >> >> (PeterJBellis) >> >> After a federal court said last month that the government couldn't prohibit >> Internet providers from slowing or blocking Web traffic, at least one ISP is >> being accused of taking advantage of the ruling. >> >> On Wednesday, a Texas man named David Raphael wrote on his blog that Verizon >> was intentionally throttling Netflix subscribers and other Internet users >> who rely on Amazon's cloud computing service. Verizon quickly denied the >> complaint, saying it continues to treat all traffic equally. >> >> Raphael, a software engineer for the cloud-based security firm iScan Online, >> said he was first alerted to the problem on Jan. 26 when the president of >> his company complained of "major slowdowns" while using iScan remotely. >> After determining that nothing was amiss with iScan's product, Raphael >> returned home to find that his own connection to Amazon Web Services -- on >> which iScan runs -- had been degraded. >> >> Connections to AWS were limited to 40 kBps, Raphael said -- about 240 times >> slower than the 75 Mbps fiber optic connection Raphael was paying for. >> Raphael discovered that even content hosted on AWS by others, including >> Netflix, was also slower. >> >> "This scenario is impacting different AWS folks," he said in an interview. >> >> >> Thinking the error could be part of a wider phenomenon, Raphael said he >> tried loading the same content as though he were in the office by "remoting" >> in. The office connection was normal, at 5,000 kBps. So the problem appeared >> limited to Raphael's home and that of iScan's president -- both of which are >> on Verizon FiOS. >> >> When Raphael contacted Verizon about the issue, a customer representative >> acknowledged that Verizon was "limiting bandwidth to cloud providers": >> >> >> (David Raphael) >> >> It's worth treating the rep's statement with a great deal of skepticism; the >> chances that this one person is completely aware of everything the company >> is doing seems pretty remote. Still, this was after the representative asked >> Raphael to perform various diagnostic tests, including a speed test using >> Verizon's own software, which showed Raphael's service was otherwise running >> normally at 75 Mbps. >> >> "We tested some Google downloads and tested downloading SketchUp [a form of >> 3D design software]," said Raphael. Everything seemed to perform smoothly; >> only AWS loaded slowly. >> >> An AWS spokesperson did not immediately reply to a request for comment. >> >> In a statement to the Washington Post, Verizon said it was investigating the >> report and that the customer rep was misinformed. >> >> "We treat all traffic equally, and that has not changed," the statement >> read. "Many factors can affect the speed of a customer's experience for a >> specific site, including that site's servers, the way the traffic is routed >> over the Internet and other considerations. We are looking into this >> specific matter, but the company representative was mistaken. We're going to >> redouble our representative education efforts on this topic." >> >> Under the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, >> broadband companies were forbidden from slowing down or blocking connections >> to content. That prohibition was struck by the D.C. Circuit court last >> month, enabling companies to legally throttle service if they chose. Verizon >> suggested in oral argument last fall that it was interested in different >> service models. >> >> "I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we >> would be exploring those types of arrangements," said Verizon's lawyer, >> Helgi Walker. >> >> The FCC has said it intends to seek other ways to help keep the Internet >> open. >> >> Both the report and the denial leave us in a pretty murky situation. Since >> I'm a FiOS subscriber, you can be sure I'll be testing this myself from home >> tonight. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Unique Geek" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Unique Geek" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Unique Geek" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/theuniquegeek. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
