Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmillen]

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.

[dk117]

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. 

[triplebq]

You're enabling Facebook, Google, and Amazon and thousands of virtual entities. 

Can you explain this statement?

[dk117]

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. 

[Kristin Meredith]

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.

[ArborAgent]

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.

[ArborAgent]

Kristin,

Here's a theoretical example of what pricing could look like:


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:

[Kristin Meredith]

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.

[dk117]

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

[SmokinHandyman]

I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?

[triplebq]

I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?

Good thread.

[slaga]

I only started this thread to show what Burger King was doing?

What was Burger King doing? Talking about Net Neutrality?

[GatorDave]

     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.

[pmillen]

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.

[Bentley]

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.