Net Neutrality

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

Move more jobs up north so that ppl don't need to commute ridiculous distances.

Just an idea and I do not have a clue how to achieve this.

Or a house price crash in the south.
Just as ridiculous.

tangled_metal

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.

rjsterry

Funny: the London property market is now so divorced from normality that prices going up by 'only' 2-3% a year is considered a crash.

rick_chasey

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.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

mamba80

BT only made 1,7billion and Vodaphone struggled with 2 billion but feel sorry for poor old Telefonica who had to get by on £3.6 billion.....

Jez mon

Those earnings are dwarfed by Comcast and Verizon too...

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.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

daniel_b

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

...As with the unnecessary HS2...

That would make a good thread.

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.

Brickyards
Farriers
Carpenters
Shovel makers
Wheel barrow makers/repairers...

Don't forget the horses too.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

sungod

Rick Chasey wrote:

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

sungod

cable in the usa of course has had no neutrality, all kinds of things go on...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/2 ... complaint/