posted on May, 20 2014 @ 03:17 AM
a reply to: jefwane
I read his post, quite frankly I disagree with him. The basis of his argument (for those that didn't read or didn't understand it) is that the
ISP's need to pay to upgrade their network no matter what and that by being able to discriminate data based on user they can make those that use the
most data pay the cost of the upgrades. The problem is that if this works as he claims it doesn't actually shift costs, instead it delays the need
to build upgrades to the network. It's a strategy to reduce demand. What he isn't mentioning is that the US is dead last among developed nations
and just about average among every nation on earth when it comes to internet quality. To take a broadband example, I have the best internet
connection available in my town it's cable 20 down 1 up for $60/month.
In Seoul South Korea (one of the top nations in internet quality) the lowest tier of service is more along the lines of 100 down/20 up for $5/month.
You can actually buy gigabit internet there now for $20/month. Gigabit for those unaware of the distinction between megabit and gigabit is about 10x
faster than a 100mb/sec connection.
Our wireless networks are in even worse shape. In the US we have some of the worst quality phones and they don't work overseas, we also pay
absolutely ridiculous rates. My stepsister while living in London a couple years back had unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited talk, and 500
minutes/month credited to people calling her before they would be charged. This was on a month to month basis, no contract. It cost roughly
$15/month USD. Oh, and it came with a free phone. Unlike those of us in the US when she went overseas (including to the US) her phone would continue
to work. Japan, Mexico, China, England, US, South Africa... it worked in all of them.
The reason for this is that our ISP's simply don't want to upgrade the networks, why improve a service when you have a monopoly? There's no
incentive to improve. There is however every incentive to make things more expensive.
What's happening with streaming video is that it takes a lot of bandwidth and it takes more every day from additional people using it and streaming
resolutions increasing. The network needs to be improved. The last time a major overhaul was done was in the early 2000's. The federal government
built the network and then handed it over to the ISP's free of charge to maintain and upgrade. We need to upgrade it again but this time the feds
aren't going to build a network and hand it over and the ISP's don't want to do it themselves (similar to how the oil companies need new refineries
but refuse to build them unless the feds pay for it) so the strategy is to discourage use in order to get more mileage out of the existing network.
By making websites pay additional money demand is going to drop, which alleviates pressure on the network.
In addition to all of this there's the TV angle which is the real motivator. The telcoms also provide TV service and people are cord cutting in
favor of watching their shows online. The ISP's don't like this because they're losing TV viewers which means fewer subscriptions and fewer
advertising dollars. The ISP's want to shut down companies like Netflix because Netflix is delivering their product at 1/10 the cost. The ISP's
claim it's a bandwidth issue but they've made moves that indicate that isn't true. For example Verizon has come out with FIOS which has a
bandwidth cap. However, the bandwidth cap doesn't apply to on demand TV shows that they offer. Comcast has done the same thing, as has Cox. If it
were a matter of bandwidth they wouldn't be capping internet but letting you skip the cap if you have TV service and are getting the TV shows from