This is @ Deuce. You win. I was going to quote your message and then respond, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I have no idea where to begin with you, you obviously have absolutely no clue how a network operates. I'm not trying to insult you, it's just that you've said so many things in this thread that show such ignorance of this issue that I have no idea what to say to you other than enjoy your Internet and when things go really wrong good luck getting your politician of choice to fix your technical issue. I'll be sure to steer clear of you in the forum from now on.
Rate of transfer is what limits internet connections, not total volume. It does not cost them significantly more to provide you 5mb/sec for 1GB versus 100GB.
And it definitely does not cost them more to send me 100GB of Youtube instead of 100GB of Netflix
Last edited by Deuce; 03-21-11 at 11:47 AM.
One of you will end up here next!
Slightly off topic, but not much.
My personal favorite "money for nothing" scam is "tethering" on smartphones.
Tethering is using your phone's data connection to provide internet access to your laptop or whatever. Most smartphones have this capability. ALL android phones released recently do this.
Only they don't. Unless you pay extra.
I just went through a nightmare with an OS update to my dell streak on at&t.
You see, most of the features that made me abandon my iphone were not functional with the OS version it was released with. (1.6, 1.5 was the original) Now, the r&d people who developed the phone used 2.0 to design it, and various demonstrations of features limited to the 2.0 release means it must work on the phone. Apparently, mkst wireless phone providers disable the tethering option before you buy the phone. On the open source Android platform, on devices designed to use this platform, it is virtually impossible to actually disable this feature. But they try, and in the course of doing so they radically delay os update releases, as well as creating issues with functionality overall.
Limiting tethering when everybody had unlimited data plans was annoying, but understandable.
When I got my new phone, I looked into adding the tethering option. I assumed that since new data plans are for a preset amount of data, that there must be some kind of value added. Faster speeds or priority or something.
On at&t, 6 gigabytes of data is $20 for your phone. If you want to be able to tether it costs an additional $25/month. For the exact same 6 gigs of data.
$25 a month to unbreak the phone they broke in the first place, which has caused considerable annoyance and performance issues with their phones.
Frankly, I feel that if you charge me by the bit, I should be able to use those bits however I please.
The carrier's networks are totally unaffected by the device using the bandwidth, as long as you're selling bandwidth by the bit.
They just want to sell you data service for all your devices separately. Sell you wireless data cards for your laptop or whatever.
It's their business, but once again, their business is our problem. And I will never pay extra for nothing but a less functional phone. $300 a year for NOTHING, and the functionality issues are still there even if you pay. They are the result of the "switch" being pasted on in the first place.
Anyway, this relates to the thread as net neutrality is also all about money. That and controlling access to information.
Kinda the internet equivalent of the Citizens United decision. Apparently, they now intend to charge for objective information, by making it possible to limit "free" information by restricting access to areas of the webs where such info resides to those who pay extra for the privelege.
The whole "BP paying google to redirect searches about the spill to BP sites" thing sucks.
I never really expected simple truth to become a commodity. Missed that one completely.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
If not I will explain what could happen. Say your local ISP throttles all speeds to anyone not willing to purchase a "preferred content provider" package. They throttle these to 0.1 kb/s while preferred members remain at the current speeds. Anyone not willing to pay would be rendered useless. While this is an extreme example it gives an idea to the tactic. Its all about ISPs strong arming to acquire more money which is exactly what they plan to do.