Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
It's not. And that's the point. This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth. Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable. Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:
How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the speed.
In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is done over those 3G and satellite connections?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields - medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the sum affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a whole, the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.
This is just the start. Providers will push the limits slowly and will eventually get to where they want to be. t-mob is doing this in such a way that consumer's will not object. When the general public doesn't object (because they are getting "free" data) that makes it a lot easier for the FCC to look past the fact that this is a violation of basic net neutrality. Reminds me of the boiling frog analogy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog). Clay On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
It's not. And that's the point.
This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth.
Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:
How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the speed.
In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is done over those 3G and satellite connections?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields - medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the sum affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a whole, the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.
Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I missing? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
It's not. And that's the point.
This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth.
Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use. In other words, you may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth. 'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies continuously.' But I think this answer is more in line with the intent of your question, why would someone want to try to startup a new service that doesn't fit within the guidelines of these 'free' services. Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc. On 11/20/2015 12:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I missing?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
It's not. And that's the point.
This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth.
Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I missing?
Cross-subsidy. It's a standard tool of monopoly abuse. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
participants (5)
-
Blake Hudson -
Clay Curtis -
Joly MacFie -
Lyle Giese -
William Herrin