Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

(08-22-2018 11:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Technically, it's still unlimited data, it's the speed of that data that changes after a certain amount.

Legally I don't think that would be an issue.

It's kind of dirty pool, but not illegal.

Precisely. Legal. But not ethical in the least.

in the consumer market, if you know this going in, how is it unethical???

I need transportation.....my legs cost zero, the bus costs X, a bike costs Y, motorcycle costs Z, 4 wheels cost AA, a plane costs AAA......

git it???

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.

(08-22-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.

Those low cost providers, there are plans out there (if you don't use a lot of data on your phone either by choice or if you are connected to wifi most of the time) for national unlimited calling and unlimited text for $10 a month.

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

(08-22-2018 11:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.

Those low cost providers, there are plans out there (if you don't use a lot of data on your phone either by choice or if you are connected to wifi most of the time) for national unlimited calling and unlimited text for $10 a month.

If there is a need, somebody will provide it. See Southwest Airlines or Fox News. Unless government keeps them out.

(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

why?

when X company has to invest in infrastructure and Y company comes in and piggybacks or has to invest in the same (i.e. laying fiber cable), how does charging more for enhanced services not create demand for reduced consumer costs due to competition relative to demand....

did you know that all that hook to the poles have a pay a percentage/pole to the utility corp that buried the pole?

why do you think they're burying everything now?

one might think weather conditions....they'd be wrong....

(08-22-2018 11:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.

Those low cost providers, there are plans out there (if you don't use a lot of data on your phone either by choice or if you are connected to wifi most of the time) for national unlimited calling and unlimited text for $10 a month.

If there is a need, somebody will provide it. See Southwest Airlines or Fox News. Unless government keeps them out.

XACLY!

#capitalism101

(08-22-2018 10:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

I don't know about you, but my electric bill goes up if I use more electricity. Water does too.

This.

But also, the installation of smart meters (gas, water & electricity) make it easy for utilities to increase & decrease cost/unit as demand spikes/slows.

The end state of smart meters is:

1. Variable pricing depending on demand load. Higher demand drives prices up while lower demand drives prices down.
   
   Peak time usage happens in the mornings before work, after work in the evenings, weekends, extreme temperature days. It only makes sense that usage rises when you're at home.
   
   To avoid high demand pricing people start doing tasks after hours such as laundry. This could be a bad idea.
2. The ability to control brown-outs and black-outs. Some outages can target specific smart appliances with high draw such as refrigerators and ACs.
   

Power Savings of Smart Meters Prove Slow to Materialize

From California Public Utilities Commission

Quote:Beginning on May 1, 2010, large commercial and industrial customers will be placed on new Peak Day Pricing rates. Customers on these rates will pay different prices for electricity depending on the time of day. On the few hottest days of the year, prices for electricity used between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. will increase further. However, PG&E will notify customers about these peak days one day in advance, so customers can plan accordingly. Beginning on November 1, 2011, medium and small commercial and industrial customers will begin moving to new Peak Day Pricing rates.

Quote:Residential customers may elect to enroll in PG&E’s Smart Rate program, which is designed to encourage customers to reduce their electricity usage at during peak periods. Participants in Smart Rate may also elect a bill protection option for the first full summer of participation.

Regulation can be good in some instances and bad in others.

Do I want internet access regulated? No.
Do I want internet providers to play fair? Yes.

Let the free market pick winners and losers. But this means I need more choices of internet access than just Xfinity/Comcast.

(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

I think it already is.

They aren't refusing to sell Internet for gay marriages or anything.

You want to buy it? If they have it, and you can afford it, you can buy it.

That is what a utility does. Ever have pay to run the water line to your house? That's not free. The water coming in isn't free. If you use too little or too much, you may be charged a different rate because of it.

That's water coming in, but there is also water going out. As a household, your waste water is again your problem. You either have a septic tank or pay a sewer fee. If you have a LOT of waste water, you have to have special connections to the system and you pay a premium for the service.

This is what a utility is. Not some free service for everybody where everybody has the same size water main and the same size sewer drain. It is where people buy what they need and the utility provides it when they can.

(08-22-2018 12:09 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 10:36 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

I don't know about you, but my electric bill goes up if I use more electricity. Water does too.

This.

But also, the installation of smart meters (gas, water & electricity) make it easy for utilities to increase & decrease cost/unit as demand spikes/slows.

The end state of smart meters is:

1. Variable pricing depending on demand load. Higher demand drives prices up while lower demand drives prices down.
   
   Peak time usage happens in the mornings before work, after work in the evenings, weekends, extreme temperature days. It only makes sense that usage rises when you're at home.
   
   To avoid high demand pricing people start doing tasks after hours such as laundry. This could be a bad idea.
2. The ability to control brown-outs and black-outs. Some outages can target specific smart appliances with high draw such as refrigerators and ACs.
   

Power Savings of Smart Meters Prove Slow to Materialize

From California Public Utilities Commission

Quote:Beginning on May 1, 2010, large commercial and industrial customers will be placed on new Peak Day Pricing rates. Customers on these rates will pay different prices for electricity depending on the time of day. On the few hottest days of the year, prices for electricity used between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. will increase further. However, PG&E will notify customers about these peak days one day in advance, so customers can plan accordingly. Beginning on November 1, 2011, medium and small commercial and industrial customers will begin moving to new Peak Day Pricing rates.

Quote:Residential customers may elect to enroll in PG&E’s Smart Rate program, which is designed to encourage customers to reduce their electricity usage at during peak periods. Participants in Smart Rate may also elect a bill protection option for the first full summer of participation.

Regulation can be good in some instances and bad in others.

Do I want internet access regulated? No.
Do I want internet providers to play fair? Yes.

Let the free market pick winners and losers. But this means I need more choices of internet access than just Xfinity/Comcast.

Cspire is coming soon.....

if they're burying here, I can only imagine where else it's happening.....

they've already laid in JXN.....

hell man, when we moved here in '74, it took 5 years for them to wire us in only a few miles outside their current geo mapping....

there's a big difference between hard wiring and wireless transmission....

w/o a splitter and ethernet connection, my ds/us is off the chain fast.......177/12.5.....

here's my latest....

Speed Results
DOWNLOAD SPEED
176.0 Mbps
UPLOAD SPEED
11.9 Mbps
Latency
13 ms
Protocol
IPv6
Host
Memphis, TN

(08-22-2018 11:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.

^^^^^

Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.

Those low cost providers, there are plans out there (if you don't use a lot of data on your phone either by choice or if you are connected to wifi most of the time) for national unlimited calling and unlimited text for $10 a month.

If there is a need, somebody will provide it. See Southwest Airlines or Fox News. Unless government keeps them out.

Yep, Freedom Pop has a free monthly plan, 200 minutes of talk, 500 text messages, 500 MB Data. Some other do it also.

What is coming is the privacy bargain.

If we can monitor what you do, you will pay less.

If you want encrypted, private services, you will pay more.

(08-22-2018 12:25 PM)Claw Wrote:  What is coming is the privacy bargain.

If we can monitor what you do, you will pay less.

If you want encrypted, private services, you will pay more.

For the most part do you toss away privacy with most apps?

(08-22-2018 10:02 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

How about the major social media outlets on the internet?

Social media outlets are private business on the information superhighway.

The way the media and communication in general has changed through the use of social media sites, can we really draw a distinction between the internet itself and the way the vast majority of individuals and businesses communicate over the internet?

I think the way we look at Facebook/Twitter/etc. really changed when they started applying their 'standards' haphazardly. When they did that they ceased to be an open platform and started 'picking favorites' or 'silencing opposition'. Have they opened themselves up to anti-trust suits in future years?

(08-22-2018 11:59 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

why?

when X company has to invest in infrastructure and Y company comes in and piggybacks or has to invest in the same (i.e. laying fiber cable), how does charging more for enhanced services not create demand for reduced consumer costs due to competition relative to demand....

did you know that all that hook to the poles have a pay a percentage/pole to the utility corp that buried the pole?

why do you think they're burying everything now?

one might think weather conditions....they'd be wrong....

At a point costs are recouped and at a point the value to society as a whole, and the possible constraints on the artery of commerce, are so great that it is in society's interest to take over. We did it with roads and other instrumentalities before.

(08-22-2018 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

I think it already is.

They aren't refusing to sell Internet for gay marriages or anything.

You want to buy it? If they have it, and you can afford it, you can buy it.

That is what a utility does. Ever have pay to run the water line to your house? That's not free. The water coming in isn't free. If you use too little or too much, you may be charged a different rate because of it.

That's water coming in, but there is also water going out. As a household, your waste water is again your problem. You either have a septic tank or pay a sewer fee. If you have a LOT of waste water, you have to have special connections to the system and you pay a premium for the service.

This is what a utility is. Not some free service for everybody where everybody has the same size water main and the same size sewer drain. It is where people buy what they need and the utility provides it when they can.

I'm not arguing that it be free.

I'm arguing for the system to be treated like we treat roads. There is no private company manipulating our roads as to who gets on and how fast they can drive. We wouldn't allow that.

We shouldn't allow it here.

Also, the argument about "more you use the more you pay," doesn't hold water--no pun intended. The more water that is used by a consumer the more water must be treated etc. There is no cost for more data having been moved down the lines. It's purely private interests constraining trade for their own motives. The value to those private interests are vastly outweighed by society's interests as a whole in having those trade avenues unrestrained.

You should pay more if you use more. But that charge should be appropriate. Gigs cost fractions of pennies, not multiples of $10. You have a 50 dollar, 250 gig package from your provider, you're paying $48 bucks for the infrastructure, upkeep, profit, fees and a dollar or two for actual usage. You go over that 250 gigs your bill shouldn't spike. Even if you use another 250, your bill shouldn't rise more than a few bucks. Not the multiples of the $50 you paid for the first 250. It's price gouging.

It's like getting a 10,000 gal of water for $50 a month and then $10 a gallon if you go over.

(08-22-2018 10:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.

This

I think it already is.

They aren't refusing to sell Internet for gay marriages or anything.

You want to buy it? If they have it, and you can afford it, you can buy it.

That is what a utility does. Ever have pay to run the water line to your house? That's not free. The water coming in isn't free. If you use too little or too much, you may be charged a different rate because of it.

That's water coming in, but there is also water going out. As a household, your waste water is again your problem. You either have a septic tank or pay a sewer fee. If you have a LOT of waste water, you have to have special connections to the system and you pay a premium for the service.

This is what a utility is. Not some free service for everybody where everybody has the same size water main and the same size sewer drain. It is where people buy what they need and the utility provides it when they can.

I'm not arguing that it be free.

I'm arguing for the system to be treated like we treat roads. There is no private company manipulating our roads as to who gets on and how fast they can drive. We wouldn't allow that.

We shouldn't allow it here.

Also, the argument about "more you use the more you pay," doesn't hold water--no pun intended. The more water that is used by a consumer the more water must be treated etc. There is no cost for more data having been moved down the lines. It's purely private interests constraining trade for their own motives. The value to those private interests are vastly outweighed by society's interests as a whole in having those trade avenues unrestrained.

Of course it costs more to move more data. You are woefully misinformed.