Pellet Fan
All Things Considered => General Discussion--Non food Related => Topic started by: SmokinHandyman on January 27, 2018, 02:53:17 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q
-
It is commendable they are trying to raise awareness of Wi-Fi neutrality!
-
I am quite surprised that any large company would take a side in a political issue with an ad campaign.
On a side note, I like that commercial where the guy takes a bite our of every pizza slice he serves and calls it a "fee".
-
That just blows me away..Perhaps a two year old would be taken in.
-
That just blows me away..Perhaps a two year old would be taken in.
This is one of those issues that makes me realize I live in a bubble. I work for one of the top tech companies, my wife works for another one. Nobody in our sphere questions why net neutrality is a good thing. Why internet service without the protections are bad. We look at Portugal as an example of the worst possible outcome for the ability to innovate (https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/).
I can understand not caring, but for the life of me, I can’t understand in an environment like ours where broadband internet is not an open and competitive market (few people have more than one choice in internet providers) why there are so many people celebrating the end of the protections net neutrality offered.
-
There's a lot of confusion here. If you have experience with MPLS, multi-protocol-label switching, you know not all packets are equal on the internet. You're generally not going to notice that your email came in three seconds late because a voice call or video call was trumping it COS1 vs COS 3/4.
The furor around ending net neutrality is people assuming this will lead to content censoring by telecommunication companies. I understand the fear, but that is not the goal. These telecommunications companies have spent billions building out the internet for you. Now you have to pay. 100MBPS, $50 a month. 1GPS $100 per month, whatever it might be. You pay for what you receive just like any other commodity in the marketplace.
All internet traffic that is and was has never really been treated the same. Telecoms maximize profit. If there is collusion around content, then we'll go back to regulation, until such time, nothing has changed.
DK
-
There's a lot of confusion here. If you have experience with MPLS, multi-protocol-label switching, you know not all packets are equal on the internet. You're generally not going to notice that your email came in three seconds late because a voice call or video call was trumping it COS1 vs COS 3/4.
This is true for a private service (intranet). Not on the internet as there is no QoS (Quality of Service). Service Provider A is not going to place my voice/video traffic over your data traffic. As you know MPLS circuits are quite expensive compared to an typical internet connection you get from your cable provider. This is why you see MPLS circuits for business and not home users.
Telecommunication companies have spent millions of dollars so they can make billions. Net Neutrality means everyone has equal access to the internet. You currently pay for how fast you want to connect to the internet, not how fast your data moves through the internet.
To me the Burger King commercial was an excellent way of explaining what Net Neutrality is about.
-
The end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer. It's as simple as that.
-
What I do not understand is why me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry, my internet is $115/month, and that only gets me 50GB, not unlimited and only about 12/6mpbs. And the folks living literally 5 miles away in Mayberry not only get unlimited internet, but Cable and phone for $89/month for 2 years and there's is like 50/25mpbs!
-
The end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer. It's as simple as that.
I believe you are correct.
-
What I do not understand is why me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry, my internet is $115/month, and that only gets me 50GB, not unlimited and only about 12/6mpbs. And the folks living literally 5 miles away in Mayberry not only get unlimited internet, but Cable and phone for $89/month for 2 years and there's is like 50/25mpbs!
I just received a notice from Spectrum/Time Warner Cable saying my bill is going up another $5.00 a month. It just went up $5.00 after the merger went through. I guess when you have a monopoly you can do this.
-
What I do not understand is why me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry, my internet is $115/month, and that only gets me 50GB, not unlimited and only about 12/6mpbs. And the folks living literally 5 miles away in Mayberry not only get unlimited internet, but Cable and phone for $89/month for 2 years and there's is like 50/25mpbs!
Do you have Satellite? Hughesnet has 25 mbps for $100 now. I can't use it because the kids stream too much xxxx, so I'm stuck with At&T DSL at 3Mbps(top speed) at $51! :( :( :( They can get 50 via cable for $60 in Lewisport, 4 miles away which, I can't get because they are in a different county. :'(
-
Sorry, didn't get much out of it.
Fascinating that in rehearsed programing they have people say xxxx so the they can then bleep it out.
Classy
-
What I do not understand is why me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry, my internet is $115/month, and that only gets me 50GB, not unlimited and only about 12/6mpbs. And the folks living literally 5 miles away in Mayberry not only get unlimited internet, but Cable and phone for $89/month for 2 years and there's is like 50/25mpbs!
Ha! I'd kill for 12/6 mbps. We pay about the same amount you do, Bentley, for AT&T U-verse here in Indy and on a very good day I get consistent 1.5/1 mbps. Most of the time that's only achieved after a wait of about 30 seconds to make any kind of connection to any external speed testing site, or any website for that matter. Videos routinely stop to spool over and over again, or they downgrade to resolutions of 240 or so, making them virtually unwatchable. Youtube is pointless, and just forget about things like Netflix, they just don't work.
-
Wow! Didn't realize how bad people have it. I pay $70/month before taxes for 100/10mbps. And sometimes I wish I paid the extra $20/mo to get 150/10
-
I pay $60 for 60/20. I don’t live in an area that Comcast serves so I’m lucky. For some reason, here in mason county, you only have one cable provider wherever you live. I guess our choice in cable / internet starts when you look for a home.
Luckily the provider in our area has never slowed down Amazon video or Netflix on purpose, like Comcast started doing a few years ago.
-
Its the metered amounts that get me the most...you can forget ever hooking your Direct TV up, you have to limit things like youtube, and you can forget Skype or Netflix!
-
There's a lot of confusion here. If you have experience with MPLS, multi-protocol-label switching, you know not all packets are equal on the internet. You're generally not going to notice that your email came in three seconds late because a voice call or video call was trumping it COS1 vs COS 3/4.
This is true for a private service (intranet). Not on the internet as there is no QoS (Quality of Service). Service Provider A is not going to place my voice/video traffic over your data traffic. As you know MPLS circuits are quite expensive compared to an typical internet connection you get from your cable provider. This is why you see MPLS circuits for business and not home users.
Telecommunication companies have spent millions of dollars so they can make billions. Net Neutrality means everyone has equal access to the internet. You currently pay for how fast you want to connect to the internet, not how fast your data moves through the internet.
To me the Burger King commercial was an excellent way of explaining what Net Neutrality is about.
QoS/COS (class of service). Everyone else here is talking about the plumbing if the internet. Yes it costs more to get to Mayberry than it does to 101 Wall Street in Manhattan. It has nothing to do with net neutrality. Simple economies of scale. Large companies yielding of investment made to build the internet.
Listen I get it. The debate will never be won because the language has already been defined. Of course everyone wants to be neutral and free. It's the American way right? I happen to disagree. The American way is capitalism. You pay for what you use. And at least in the case of First Responders and Fed Govt, yes there is a fast lane on the internet.
Burger King did have a few laughs, but what about every other commodity that isn't first come first serve? Healthcare, First Class Airline tickets, hotels, concert seating. I don't think there has been an analogy that could trump the framing of the conversation of equal internet for all. But we hardly have equal anything for all in this country.
DK
PS please understand I hate being the anti net neutrality voice. But blindly arguing for net neutrality through ignorance (not stupidity) is IMO naive at best. And please this is not at all a personal attack on anyone, but nor is it as simple as paying $26 for a burger.
-
I do not know enough on Net Neutrality to comment on it. I was just using this thread to make rants about things like I always do.
I paid $25 for unlimited internet from AT&T in 2011 in Pasadena with 5/3 speeds. I paid what I thought was a ridicules $45 in Las Vegas in 2013 for 11/5 unlimited...$45, those were the days
No one can or will, including my current provider or any of the other 3 I have had over the last 5 years, explaine to me why it is twice as expensive and this is what I really don't get METERD for me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry...and it is NOT for the folks in Mayberry!
To me that seems like a $26 Whopper!
-
But blindly arguing for net neutrality through ignorance (not stupidity) is IMO naive at best. And please this is not at all a personal attack on anyone, but nor is it as simple as paying $26 for a burger.
You have your opinion like everyone else. Not sure why you feel people are ignorance to net neutrality. I guess one can say that about anything.
-
Now you have to pay. 100MBPS, $50 a month. 1GPS $100 per month, whatever it might be. You pay for what you receive just like any other commodity in the marketplace.
Then why did the providers spend so much on lobbying to have it changed? They certainly didn't do it because they want to earn less. The subscribers aren't going to be the winners.
-
I’m going into this eyes wide open. I have an opinion on a subject. I’m talking about net neutrality. I’m talking about providers/telecommunications companies maximizing their profit on a huge investment. Fast lanes on the internet will be build and paid for. Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high. Those are different topics.
DK
-
Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high.
Yes, a portion of the outcry is, "My Internet access is already too costly." That's simply a preface to the following statement, "Don't make Internet service more expensive." We haven't seen the full impact of eliminating net neutrality. But be assured, the result will be more money flowing into Internet service provider (ISP) pockets.
Who will provide this additional money? The companies with a large Internet presence, like Amazon, Facebook, Find a Mate, youtube and the like. Without net neutrality, the ISPs can deliberately speed up or slow down traffic to or from specific websites. The ISPs will increase their charges and Amazon, facebook and others will just pass the increased costs on to their customers. Our request that Internet service not be more expensive will be honored. But it will cost us more to buy from Internet merchants. We see little difference.
Will the body of Internet end user subscribers contribute to the ISPs' windfall? Sure, if the ISPs decide to charge more for accessing some web sites, like those that stream full motion video or those that seem to be more valuable to you.
I stand by my statement that the end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer.
-
I see your point, but if I am paying $115/month so someone else can have cheaper Netflix I aint down with that...But I will have to do a lot more research before I can comment on the situation. Should I pay the same amount for the internet as someone who uses 100 times more data then me? Or someone that needs speeds that are 10 times faster then mine?
-
Most on this string are saying my home internet cost is too xxxx high.
Yes, a portion of the outcry is, "My Internet access is already too costly." That's simply a preface to the following statement, "Don't make Internet service more expensive." We haven't seen the full impact of eliminating net neutrality. But be assured, the result will be more money flowing into Internet service provider (ISP) pockets.
Who will provide this additional money? The companies with a large Internet presence, like Amazon, Facebook, Find a Mate, youtube and the like. Without net neutrality, the ISPs can deliberately speed up or slow down traffic to or from specific websites. The ISPs will increase their charges and Amazon, facebook and others will just pass the increased costs on to their customers. Our request that Internet service not be more expensive will be honored. But it will cost us more to buy from Internet merchants. We see little difference.
Will the body of Internet end user subscribers contribute to the ISPs' windfall? Sure, if the ISPs decide to charge more for accessing some web sites, like those that stream full motion video or those that seem to be more valuable to you.
I stand by my statement that the end of net neutrality is a way for rich people to get richer.
Now this is a fantastic well reasoned response. So lets continue. Are you going to say that Amazon, Facebook, and Google pay for the "internet" that they use? See the slight little difference there? You're calling the ISP's bad guys. ISP's are calling content providers bad guys. That is the root of net neutrality.
You want to talk about rich getting richer?
AT&T 232.177B
Verizon 223.227B
Comcast 200.037B
Facebook 552.104B
Alphabet (Google) 818.823B
Amazon 675.609B
So your argument that the rich get richer is correct, but the ISP's are not the villains. The content providers and virtual companies are. Just my opinion, I sincerely hope this helps with the debate. Net neutrality enriches the virtual content billionaires, not the ISP's that created the internet. Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas.
DK
-
Should I pay the same amount for the internet as someone who uses 100 times more data then me? Or someone that needs speeds that are 10 times faster then mine?
I'm not familiar with your ISP's rate structure and it probably hasn't changed since Internet neutrality was eliminated, but you and that "someone else" probably pay for bandwidth or data speed. You're both probably paying for capability, not necessarily use. People who want more speed are usually willing to pay more for it.
My ISP hasn't made any pricing changes to residence subscribers since net neutrality was eliminated. I pay quite a bit for GB service to my residence. It's a lot more than my neighbor pays. But I use the new fiber facility, he doesn't. But without net neutrality they can charge their customers more for connecting to youtube, or Netflix than they do for connecting to our email providers.
-
I have no knowledge of this topic, but something in the last post caught my eye. "Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas."
I am not sure what this means. PelletFan is a "content provider" correct? So if some other pellet forum pays more, does that mean that access to PF is slowed down making it harder to load the site or view it or whatever the term would be?
-
I don't know much about this topic either but my head was heading in a similar direction as Kristin's. Here is where I see this going.
ISP will increase the prices to host websites. The small guy will no longer be able to pay for it. Thus, internet content will diminish leaving us with content primarily provided by large companies that will pay anything to advertise their goods or stories.
I sure hope I am wrong.
-
I sure hope I am wrong.
You are not wrong.
-
I have no knowledge of this topic, but something in the last post caught my eye. "Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas."
I am not sure what this means. PelletFan is a "content provider" correct? So if some other pellet forum pays more, does that mean that access to PF is slowed down making it harder to load the site or view it or whatever the term would be?
It gives the the ability to charge PelletFan more to reach viewers quickly, or charge users more if they want to reach PelletFan.
The idea of Net Neutrality is that all content providers are equal and can’t be slowed down by the network providers.
-
I'm sorry, I'm not following this argument–
Are you going to say that Amazon, Facebook, and Google pay for the "internet" that they use?
Of course Amazon, Facebook, and Google pay for their Internet access. It's part of their common corporate overheads and is a component of their ratemaking.
-
I sure hope I am wrong.
You are not wrong.
correct. Incredibly insightful for Kristin who expressed lack of knowledge on the subject. And scary for small sites.
Are you all ok with websites being worth 4 times the physical, union labor, actual live people who built the internet? You're not wrong. all of you are insightful careful individuals. I do however hope you're seeing the big picture. You're enabling Facebook, Google, and Amazon and thousands of virtual entities.
DK
PS hey all, I'm just here to learn about BBQ. I am however a contrarian on net neutrality. I trust we're not burning bridges.
-
You're enabling Facebook, Google, and Amazon and thousands of virtual entities.
Can you explain this statement?
-
you guys are dissecting what has been a very difficult and I hope thoughtful response in this thread to single sentences but ignoring the overall message.
I thought this spelled it out
AT&T 232.177B
Verizon 223.227B
Comcast 200.037B
Facebook 552.104B
Alphabet (Google) 818.823B
Amazon 675.609B
net neutrality brought you the above. AT&T and Verizons and Ma Bell's of the world brought you the internet.
You are all totally justified to disagree and say small sites shouldn't have to pay more. Let's then just call this what it is, you want the internet to be a utility equal for all. It's not a terrible idea, but it's not how the world works today and it's not capitalism. And it only benefits the big sites. And yes Kristin you win, it could hurt pelletfan.com in the N-X permutation of of the worst case scenario. I don't think it would ever come to that.
-
I have no knowledge of this topic, but something in the last post caught my eye. "Charging the content providers for their use of the internet is the intent of the latest legislation/legislative ideas."
I am not sure what this means. PelletFan is a "content provider" correct? So if some other pellet forum pays more, does that mean that access to PF is slowed down making it harder to load the site or view it or whatever the term would be?
It gives the the ability to charge PelletFan more to reach viewers quickly, or charge users more if they want to reach PelletFan.
The idea of Net Neutrality is that all content providers are equal and can’t be slowed down by the network providers.
OK, still not really following. So we are small and don't really have any money to pay someone so folks have the privilege of viewing the site. Does that mean we just disappear from the internet? Or only people who know we are here can find us?
And what does it mean to charge a user more to reach PF? We already pay the $115 a month Bent mentioned. How do they charge me more just to access a specific site?
Sorry if this sounds way too ignorant.
-
Electricity is run as a utility, so is water, gas, etc.
Internet access has become as important. Until we have real competition, we have to recognize that internet access isn’t a free market. Without net neutrality protections, there is nothing stopping Comcast or century link from charging more to access one type of site or another. Don’t like it? What are you going to do? Most people only have one broadband choice.
-
Kristin,
Here's a theoretical example of what pricing could look like:
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4252153/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg)
Here's a real world example from Portugal, which doesn't have any sort of net neutrality protection. It's in Portuguese, but you get the idea:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Screenshot-2017-10-28_MEO_-_Televis%C3%A3o%2C_Internet%2C_Telefone_e_Telem%C3%B3vel.png)
-
I guess since I use the internet for so little I just don't understand what anyone is trying to tell me. I understand that we pay a big fee to get access. And I use yahoo for my e-mail. And if I am searching for something -- I was looking for info on Queen Victoria and King Louis Philippe tonight -- I just put that in a search on yahoo. If I want to buy something from Amazon, I go to their site and buy it.
I don't skype or watch tv or movies or music on the internet. I visit this forum and my MG website and facebook pages all through yahoo. I read the Washington Post on line but I pay them a fee to read it.
So will all that stuff not come through yahoo anymore? I understand the concept of paying more if you consume more services like basic cable vs more expensive packages with more channels and HBO. I guess I just don't understand how it affects someone like me and my usage of the internet. Or will my big bill go down and then I have a basic service that I add on to? Because, frankly, if I have to pay $115 and then start paying more to access Amazon and the paper and e-mail that just makes no sense to me.
-
I think we're finally to the root of the issue here.
The main concerns are that someone like AT&T would prioritize DirecTv content over other providers. If their purchase of CNN goes through, they could literally prioritize CNN over Fox. It's a scary concept but I think unlikely.
More likely and not too far off from what already happens: let's say Burke contacts Google and wants to advertise. He pays to have a link posted when someone searches for pellet grills. He is put top of list, above pelletfan because he paid for that privilege. That is just reality today.
Now with no net neutrality Burke can also pay for a fast lane on the internet. His site could perform faster than PF. Capitalism at work. Please note, this doesn't mean PF wouldn't perform or that we wouldn't all enjoy exactly how this site performs today. It only means that paying extra will deliver extra. (pmillen eluded to the fact that this also already occurs in data centers and bandwidth utilization)
ArborAgent does a good job of illustrating some of the other side effects. Instead of paying $100 a month to Comcast. You'll be spending $5, $10, $50, $15 etc to a number of different companies dependent upon their value to you. We all want ala carte TV (only pay for channels you watch) but the concept of ala carte Internet is somehow overwhelming to us.
hope that helps. I'll try to resist anymore internet talk and get back to smoking.
DK
-
I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?
-
I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?
Good thread.
-
I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?
What was Burger King doing? Talking about Net Neutrality? ;)
-
Net neutrality is one of those things that has two sides that are correct. First of all, remember, there was no such thing as net neutrality until 2015. Up until then, the internet seemed to be pretty neutral to me. Basically deciding whether you are for or against net neutrality is deciding who you are going to give more money to, your ISPs, or your Netlix's. If you are for net neutrality, this means that in the end your ISP's are going to wind up charging you more. If you are against net neutrality, this means you are going to pay more for your streaming services. As a consumer, I'm probably pro net neutrality, but as a business owner, I understand the ISP's side of things. Remember, your ISP is the one that pays to build, maintain, and upgrade the internet that you use. Because of the advent of these bandwidth intensive streaming sites, ISP's have had to upgrade their infrastructure quite a bit. Basically these companies want to pass some of the cost of this off to these services so they don't have to be the bad guy who raised your internet rates. These streaming companies kind of like the free ride into your home. In the end, no matter which side you fall on, you will be paying somebody more money.
-
I do not know enough on Net Neutrality to comment on it. I was just using this thread to make rants about things like I always do.
I paid $25 for unlimited internet from AT&T in 2011 in Pasadena with 5/3 speeds. I paid what I thought was a ridicules $45 in Las Vegas in 2013 for 11/5 unlimited...$45, those were the days
No one can or will, including my current provider or any of the other 3 I have had over the last 5 years, explaine to me why it is twice as expensive and this is what I really don't get METERD for me living 5 miles outside of Mayberry...and it is NOT for the folks in Mayberry!
Bentley, early in the history of the telephone industry the phone companies were trying their best to accomplish "universal service." Everyone having a telephone was good for the population but it was also good for the phone companies. Having more other telephones to call made each individual phone line more valuable to the users. (That's why lines in big cities were more expensive than lines in small cities.)
But, as badly as they wanted to, the phone companies couldn't afford to set poles and string wire to serve the sparsely scattered rural homes. That's why the government created the Rural Telephone Associations (RTAs). The government loaned 6% money to the newly forming RTAs to provide the infrastructure to serve farmers. This was at a time when banks were paying 10% interest on money in savings accounts. So an RTA could borrow money at 6% and put it in the bank and earn 10%, or invest in telephone service and earn even more.
The same was true for the Rural Power Associations (RPAs) or Rural Power Cooperatives.
This isn't as easy to do today in order to provide reasonable-rate Internet access to rural subscribers. A few cooperatives are attempting it with less than ideal success and the federal government hasn't been heavily involved because of the public's fear of socialism. Branding a plan as socialist is a lethal injection. It's a good thing that the RTAs and RPAs weren't branded as such, or the socialized educational systems, socialized police and fire protection, socialized libraries, socialized roadways, socialized street lighting, socialized road intersection control, and more, that came before the RTAs weren't labeled as socialist. Can't you just imagine the outcry over a public library, "That isn't capitalism!"
To net it out—your utilities will be cheaper if you don't live in the country.
EDIT: Removed a redundant quote.
-
Oh well, it was a fun six months, ehh?
It gives the the ability to charge PelletFan more to reach viewers quickly, or charge users more if they want to reach PelletFan.
-
Oh well, it was a fun six months, ehh?
It gives the the ability to charge PelletFan more to reach viewers quickly, or charge users more if they want to reach PelletFan.
The reality is you’re too small for them to milk. I think the video streaming companies are going to be the first target. Want your stream to be smooth? Cough up.
-
I resist any new government take over and regulations as gut reaction. This was no different for me. Why would I want a 1934 law used as a basis for the government to take over control of the internet when it was moving along fine on its own? This is the same law and the same institution in charge that managed to stifle the 1945 invention of cellular until the mid 80's because they did not see a mass use for it. Maybe we could have had the iphone 20 years sooner? Why do you think Google and Netflix lobbied so hard for NN? They wanted a free ride even though they are responsible for the glut of data that has required massive upgrades for the providers. It is like a manufacturer lobbying for price controls on their shipping company. It opened the door for these large deep pocket companies to lobby and get in the back pocket of politicians to make laws that benefit them over the competition (Crony Capitalism). Nothing has been so misnamed since the (Un)Affordable Care act. :puke: I feel better now, back to BBQ. ;D
-
And I have no problem with this as a specific or a generalization...Maybe I am over simplifying it. I would Love a Hummer and a G-5...but I smoked pot and drank in college, so I drive a Dodge Ram and fly coach!
Now with no net neutrality Burke can also pay for a fast lane on the internet. His site could perform faster than PF. Capitalism at work. Please note, this doesn't mean PF wouldn't perform or that we wouldn't all enjoy exactly how this site performs today. It only means that paying extra will deliver extra. (pmillen eluded to the fact that this also already occurs in data centers and bandwidth utilization)