Comments on: Net neutrality: An American problem?

Executives at three Australian ISPs say that unlimited-access plans just aren't sustainable today and that the U.S. could learn a lesson from Down Under.

[ktmotox]

People who don't understand what Net Neutrality shouldn't write articles about it.

From the article:

<blockquote>"Net neutrality is a term coined by Internet users who oppose the increasing tendency among network owners (telecommunications companies) to tier or prioritize certain content on the network.

The debate was sparked after several American and British service providers offered to charge a premium to prioritize traffic connecting with some sites over others."</blockquote>

Net Neutrality means that all content providers get charged the same price for the same service. A broadband access provider can charge a premium for priortized service an still conform to Net Neutrality. They just have to provide the service to all content providers that desire to have the service, and they must charge them the same price.

[Imalittleteapot]

I don't understand these people. The Internet didn't used to be unlimited. My phone company called me one day and said, Hey! How would you like some cheap unlimited internet? Oh well yes, I'd like that just fine sir. Sign me up! It wasn't my idea. I didn't hold a gun to anybody's head. Now the ISPs are complaining because we have unlimited? WELL UH DUHHH!!!

If we don't have net neutrality then the net just becomes a software based version of cable TV where they control all the content. Their cheap rendition gets pushed and everything else goes out of business because people won't understand the ISP is slowing the competitor's connection down on purpose. This internet is the theatrical movie. That internet is the made for TV sequel. If I wanted ideas pushed on me then I'd just watch TV.

Look, these ISPs say they can't build more bandwidth. I'm sorry, I didn't know Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon's checking accounts were overdrawn. I was under the impression they had billions. How is Verizon doing FIOS then if they can't afford it? Is Verizon the only ISP with a magic bandwidth wand? The problem isn't lack of bandwidth. They did that on purpose. The problem is they want to control the content.

Lack of bandwidth, lack of bandwidth, lack of bandwidth. Yet my net bill hasn't went up in the last three or four years. However, when someone just mentions the words gas shortage the price at the pump goes up the next day. Explain that. That tells me there is no real lack of bandwidth. They created it because they wanted a shortage so they can control the content that flows through that shortage.

Meanwhile Japan is rolling out 1gbps internet. They can do it but we can't? We can't build bandwidth? Our banks are failing? We can't win the war? Jesus, what happen to this country? The can do attitude is just gone. Bail me out! Change the laws so I don't have to compete! Yada Yada. I guess I should just move out before the whole continent implodes.

[DENOBIN]

Everyone please get this point clear: internet carriers are NOT running out of bandwidth. What they are looking to do is increase their revenue streams. They are completely entitled to do this, however they are being completely disingenous about it.

The only thing that is allowing carriers to get away with service restrictions and bandwidth caps is that, for the most part, they enjoy exclusive access to a customer base. Very few households are covered by mutiple internet service providers.

I propose this regulation: Any carrier who wants to provide internet access to a geographic area that is not covered by at least three other carriers of similar capcity must maintain net neutral and provide caps that are within reason. Why three? To reduce the possibility of collusion. This would prevent carriers from unfairly capitalizing on thier monopoly status in a given service area and make them compete on features and price (what a concept.)

[buggermenot]

This has got to be one of the worst articles I have read on CNET.

The idea that *any* country should follow the "Australian Model" is ridiculous.

I live in Australia and we have crap broadband.

Australia is a first world country, yet our Internet is ridiculously slow, expensive, and megabyte capped, with ridiculously high charges per megabyte

Quoting infernalman7:
"But seriously, as an international student in Australia, the only thing that makes me miss home more and more is the traffic cap. My dorm allocated each of the resident 200MB per week, charging us $10 for extra 100MB. I find this ridiculous as I can download more than 3GB a night back in Thailand, a country recognized by many Australians as a Third-World Underdeveloped Country."

I would gladly live in the USA and use their Internet rather than Australia's.

[Nicholas Buenk]

I live in Australia and in terms of speed it's not that bad, we have 24mbit ADSL2+ and cable, that's better than the USA in DSL at least.
The problem is, the quotas.

[digitalshaman]

make bandwidth currency & trade on it ... balance privacy with piracy & attribution to real creators

[n1fcu]

worse, advertise 9 megabit speeds "blazing fast!" and the high use sites limit them to 1 megabit. Both Time warner and Comcast were doing this for a short while until someone made a stink. I foresee future fees and such to increase their bottom line. Like the banks, a fee for this, a fee for that... Of course the banks are getting there punishment at the moment...
if the service is bad in your country work to change it or go to where the service is more acceptable. It will never be what 'we' want as that is truly unlimited service for free. I guess a compromise is in order. I want fiber right to my home with 100 megabit speeds and no bottle necks and no advertisements and... and... hehe

[Imalittleteapot]

Well most people want unlimited, but I've heard for the most part people are willing to pay because they understand these things cost.

People understand that mbps has been increasing over the years and they also understand things like streaming video and streaming radio are taxing. However, the ISPs don't even want to hear that we may be willing to accept an extra $10 or $15 for the better service or pay smaller fees for less mbps.

They just say no no we can't do that. We have to add caps and give special preference to content providers. It's a scam all the way. The bandwidth shortage is artificial. They want those millions of dollars that companies like Google would pay them so their page gets moved faster. They're creating an artificial market. Google shouldn't have to pay extra for better service. They've already paid their ISP to provide them with their bandwidth. Basically the ISPs are making this up so that not only do they get to charge their own customers, but they all get to charge the customers of all the other ISPs too even though they've already paid for theirs.

[paulej]

What strikes me as strange is that operators keep saying that 3% of their customers are a problem. And, 3% of the customer base causes their whole business model to fall apart? That does not stand to reason. That's a very small percentage causing problems for the operator, which logically one would think could be addressed by increasing prices across all customers be, what, 5 cents?

Charging for bandwidth would mean everybody would use fewer services. So things like Internet Radio would go out the door. Personally, I think we should try to do everything we can to encourage growth of the Internet and the kinds and types of services we can access.

Also, more and more devices in the home will become IP-enabled. Why would we want to do something that potentially kills this major shift in technology? I view metering the Internet as roughly the same as holding up progress, staying in the 20th century, and retaining an old, unpopular business model. (Who like Ma Bell?)

My friends in Australia tell me broadband sucks. And, I hear it echoed here from other Australians. There must be some truth in that.

A solution could be to structure the price for bandwidth: 128Kbps would be cheaper than 10Mbps. Would that not address the problem with the top 3%? Not likely... because they will buy the 10Mbps plans and most people would buy 128Kbps. In the end, they would probably lose even more money. But, I believe there must be a happy middle ground. Perhaps $10 or $20 more from the top 3% would cover the bandwidth cost? It certainly isn't out of this world ... and carriers seem to suggest it is.