• High monthly internet bills to pay? FCC kicks ISPs into submission, with new ruling
    36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Keys;47320955] [b]edit:[/b] Plus, the FCC STILL is keeping the details of the agreement under tight lips. Which is rather concerning to me. Something tells me we're not going to get what we want in the end.[/QUOTE] What agreement? You can read the recent filings in whole. All 400 pages of it.
[QUOTE=Rents;47320982]That's fucked, and illegal in most of europe I pretty sure.[/QUOTE] It is. They have to clearly advertise that as a result of a few court cases.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;47321115]You're right it isn't free. But ISP profit margins are upwards of 90%. It's the digital equivalent of bottled water.[/QUOTE] Just playing devils advocate here, but there is no law against having insane profit margins. There just needs to be room for competition to move in and compete, lowering the prices for everyone.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47324576]Just playing devils advocate here, but there is no law against having insane profit margins. There just needs to be room for competition to move in and compete, lowering the prices for everyone.[/QUOTE] Like the ISP's wouldn't do everything they can to avoid competition so they can keep increasing their profit margins. The US needs a repeat of the breakup of Bell telecommunications, except with all major ISP's. And also proper legislation to ensure healthy competition in all areas of the country.
[quote] but new disclosure requirements require an additional approval by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.[/quote] I find this funny. To comply with the paperwork Reduction Act more paperwork has to be filed. :v:
[QUOTE=Van-man;47327298] And also proper legislation to ensure healthy competition in all areas of the country.[/QUOTE] Don't worry guys! I'm sure our representatives in "Clowngress" will support the FCC's decision.
[QUOTE=Rents;47321087]It's pennies per GB, and even less than a penny in areas with good infrastructure.[/QUOTE] The cost of transmitting internally may be cheap, but cost of transmission isn't the only cost. Imagine if someone streamed a 4K video 24/7. That isn't fair on other users of the same exchanges/hubs. Yes it's all well and good being able to provide a [B]peak rate[/B] of 100mbps, but that doesn't mean the network is designed to permit all users to be able to stream at that bandwidth 24/7. It just simply isn't, because that would be unnecessary and very costly. So we end up with [B]contention[/B] - I.E. you and other users "fighting" for the same resource, in this case, it could be connection speed at the local exchange. For that reason, the amount you use your internet does affect other people's speeds in the area, because you share local resources. So, the question becomes: How do you stop someone from playing a constant 4K stream on loop sucking all of his available bandwidth for a year, slowing down the local area marginally? Okay ignore that bloke, he won't affect speeds too much. Now how about 2 people in the same area? Ah now we see the problem... That is why we have fair use policies/data caps. I don't like them very much either.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.