A house price crash for mansions in London Town area. Oligarchs losing millions of pounds on their vacant properties in London. I like the sound of that.
Prefer better jobs up north. Just without the house price rises that often come with more jobs.
Isn’t the real issue, and I’m no expert, that ultimately someone needs to be paying for the data being used, and currently telecoms providers are being slammed from both sides; they can’t charge the high data using entities on their network and customers are unsubscribing from cable usage.
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Isn’t the real issue, and I’m no expert, that ultimately someone needs to be paying for the data being used, and currently telecoms providers are being slammed from both sides; they can’t charge the high data using entities on their network and customers are unsubscribing from cable usage.
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Unless I’ve got this totally wrong.
in the bad old days I used to have a phone bill for about £150 a year and a TV licence for £100 a year
Now I spend about £1700 a year on my TV/Broadband/Telecoms requirements so I am pretty sure that this consumer is paying for the infrastructure.
Isn’t the real issue, and I’m no expert, that ultimately someone needs to be paying for the data being used, and currently telecoms providers are being slammed from both sides; they can’t charge the high data using entities on their network and customers are unsubscribing from cable usage.
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Unless I’ve got this totally wrong.
in the bad old days I used to have a phone bill for about £150 a year and a TV licence for £100 a year
Now I spend about £1700 a year on my TV/Broadband/Telecoms requirements so I am pretty sure that this consumer is paying for the infrastructure.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
Isn’t the real issue, and I’m no expert, that ultimately someone needs to be paying for the data being used, and currently telecoms providers are being slammed from both sides; they can’t charge the high data using entities on their network and customers are unsubscribing from cable usage.
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Unless I’ve got this totally wrong.
in the bad old days I used to have a phone bill for about £150 a year and a TV licence for £100 a year
Now I spend about £1700 a year on my TV/Broadband/Telecoms requirements so I am pretty sure that this consumer is paying for the infrastructure.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
crudely could it not be said that high data users will be buying better connectivity?
What makes it unnecessary in your opinion, Goo? Genuinely interested, not looking for an argument.
Firstly I'm really not sure that spending £65bn (current cost) of taxpayers money on a train line that will get from London to Manchester 15 minutes quicker than the current service is value for money.
Secondly the rolling stock is still essentially based on a Victorian technology of using metal wheels on metal track.
If HS2, 3 and 4 was going to be a Maglev or other new cutting edge system then I would be all for it.
Steel wheels on steel rails are actually pretty good. Maglevs are eye-wateringly expensive. If your concern is the cost of HS2, then maglevs are not the answer.
Yes, the Nagoya - Tokyo magnetic rail was staggeringly expensive. $51bn for 286km.
..or £176000 per metre.
Seen as the economy is going to slow down after Brexit, perhaps a revamp and an extension of the current canal network would do the trick. All that excavation (with shovels) and building horse drawn barges; think of the employment it will create.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
The users, or the providers will be passing the charges onto the users, so the users.
Or the providers pass the charges onto middlemen, who charge the users, so the users. The users.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
The users, or the providers will be passing the charges onto the users, so the users.
Or the providers pass the charges onto middlemen, who charge the users, so the users. The users.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
The users, or the providers will be passing the charges onto the users, so the users.
Or the providers pass the charges onto middlemen, who charge the users, so the users. The users.
So it isn't the issue?
I doubt it. Companies will charge whatever they can get away with. People will pay whatever it costs up to the point where they decide it is not worth it. I think the issue is more about controlling content and throttling.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Isn’t the real issue, and I’m no expert, that ultimately someone needs to be paying for the data being used, and currently telecoms providers are being slammed from both sides; they can’t charge the high data using entities on their network and customers are unsubscribing from cable usage.
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Unless I’ve got this totally wrong.
imho you've got it totally wrong
if an end user pays for x bandwidth (subject to contractual terms), that end user should get what they paid for, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they use the bandwidth they paid for to watch netflix, bikeradar, the bbc or any other content - this is essentially what net neutrality protects
netflix, like every other content provider, pays for bandwidth at the point they connect to someone else's infrastructure, they pay for it, no subsidy, they are free to haggle (and if the someone else were stupid enough to provide a fat pipe for free that'd be their own fault)
everyone pays for transit or peers/exchanges on the basis of the traffic they exchange, no subsidy, they are free to haggle, the rise of free peering between providers is their own choice (imho an extremely dumb one)
it's a free market, these providers have a choice how they peer and do business (with net neutrality, as long as they treat all traffic as equal, without net neutrality things can go bad, it's anti-competitive and the consumer will pay)
no one is subsidizing netflix/other content providers, they pay for internet access like everyone else and they use the access they pay for
a bit is either 0 or 1, the only way to differentiate is on price (and availability, jitter, latency etc., but for the average punter these need not be anything special)
that many isps are in a race to the bottom to build/retain market share isn't the fault of customers or netflx
it's what happens when a service that could be more efficiently and effectively delivered by a single entity is instead subject to competition between umpteen entities
Posts
Just as ridiculous.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Prefer better jobs up north. Just without the house price rises that often come with more jobs.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Customers want it both ways and are moving to low cost high data usage online services to save money.
I don’t know the ins and outs but if the internet is this massive productivity boost, none of us have really paid for it.
I mean, some economists say it’s actually knocked GDP numbers. Wikipedia fills half a screen begging for donations.
Isn’t the question who starts paying for it. Is it the providers who ought to subside Netflix etc and pass the costs on to the consumers, or should the providers charge the heavy data users instead.
Unless I’ve got this totally wrong.
in the bad old days I used to have a phone bill for about £150 a year and a TV licence for £100 a year
Now I spend about £1700 a year on my TV/Broadband/Telecoms requirements so I am pretty sure that this consumer is paying for the infrastructure.
I think the matter is complicated in the US by the lack of actual true competition between providers, meaning that there is no actual free market.
OK fine, but the issue is still who pays for it, right?
Is it the provider, who will subside the high data users, or will the high data users pay themselves, right?
crudely could it not be said that high data users will be buying better connectivity?
Don't forget the horses too.
Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
Scott CR1 SL 12
Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
Scott Foil 18
Or the providers pass the charges onto middlemen, who charge the users, so the users. The users.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
So it isn't the issue?
I am not sure. You have no chance.
imho you've got it totally wrong
if an end user pays for x bandwidth (subject to contractual terms), that end user should get what they paid for, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether they use the bandwidth they paid for to watch netflix, bikeradar, the bbc or any other content - this is essentially what net neutrality protects
netflix, like every other content provider, pays for bandwidth at the point they connect to someone else's infrastructure, they pay for it, no subsidy, they are free to haggle (and if the someone else were stupid enough to provide a fat pipe for free that'd be their own fault)
everyone pays for transit or peers/exchanges on the basis of the traffic they exchange, no subsidy, they are free to haggle, the rise of free peering between providers is their own choice (imho an extremely dumb one)
it's a free market, these providers have a choice how they peer and do business (with net neutrality, as long as they treat all traffic as equal, without net neutrality things can go bad, it's anti-competitive and the consumer will pay)
no one is subsidizing netflix/other content providers, they pay for internet access like everyone else and they use the access they pay for
a bit is either 0 or 1, the only way to differentiate is on price (and availability, jitter, latency etc., but for the average punter these need not be anything special)
that many isps are in a race to the bottom to build/retain market share isn't the fault of customers or netflx
it's what happens when a service that could be more efficiently and effectively delivered by a single entity is instead subject to competition between umpteen entities
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/2 ... complaint/