The Music Industry Shouldn't Be Able to Cut Off Your Internet Access
eff.org
eff.org
[0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/fcc-chairman-mocks-i...
Perhaps another way of putting how I see it - excluding really heavy traffic like video or (cough) torrenting linux isos (cough), you're rarely saturating your broadband bandwidth with casual internet use. Whereas with dial-up/non-broadband, it didn't matter what you did, you were saturating your bandwidth and always waiting.
(YMMV - this is just how I see the term 'broadband' as a qualitative label)
After a certain point the thing rate limiting you for most network usages (including web browsing) stops being your own connection to the ISP and starts being other things, like the speed of the website you are visiting under whatever load it is currently under, the website's own bandwidth out to the greater world (split up among however many people use it), etc.
I currently have 300/20 service, and though I see a nice set of numbers when I visit speed testing sites, in typical real world web browsing situations it feels no faster than the old 30/5 service I had before this.
Why aren't you all protesting about being tied into such oligopolies? America is supposed to be about free markets and open choice.
But that's basically what they are, they're natural monopolies but are in some ways more heavily regulated as if they were competitive businesses where anti-competition law would be easier to execute. Notice wherever Google Fiber tries to move in how much better service and performance gets while at the same time the local one or two choices step over themselves in outrage.
If the music industry were saying "punish them! turn off their water!" people would probably better understand just exactly how vindictive they're trying to be.
To be fair, you've just replaced a oligopoly with a monopoly.
Openreach is a government-controlled monopoly, but US telecom is heavily regulated too. Both charge what the government lets them.
As you point out, rural support is a lot less if no one can recoupe infrastructure expenses. The UK has 5x the population density of the US.
So...you might be right, but it's not a clear-cut answer from basic principles.
The advantage of the Openreach model is that the last-mile infrastructure is treated like a public good. Anyone can lease bits of that infrastructure and everyone pays the same regulated rates. The system ensures that the monopoly is as small as possible, segregating out the stuff that's a natural monopoly from the stuff that naturally supports competition.
Thanks to Openreach, I have a meaningful choice over my internet service. I can choose dirt cheap service from a multinational, or I can pay a premium for specialist service. If my ISP starts doing traffic shaping or has lousy customer support, I can choose from any number of other ISPs.
Agreed, but suggesting "America is supposed to be about free markets" therefore it should have a monopoly isn't a compelling argument.
It should be a monopoly despite the normal free market model, not because of it.
It seems what is basically needed is some investment in infrastructure and some legislation to help remove the barriers to entry. But the US moves slowly to do such things unless there is money to be had. I remember some folks in the late 90's or early 2000's that were just getting home phone service, after all - out west in the mountains. Additionally, the lobbyist for these companies have more money than God. (debatable, but you get the picture). Normal folks making 25,000 a year can't compete with that - their yearly salaries are a drop in the Lobby's bucket.
"America is supopsed to be about free markets and open choice" And technically, it still is, they say, so long as you can afford to do provide all of the infrastructure and get through all the red tape.
This a textbook antitrust violation, at least by US law (specifically, agreeing to partition markets in this way and not compete with each other). In the absence of some exception in federal law (state law would not suffice), I'd love to see someone go after them with an antitrust case.
Pretty condescending and representative of the HN bubble when you consider this fact: 13% of adult Americans never use the Internet.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/07/some-america...
The GP was (rightly) calling out the over-the-top assertion that anyone who isn't on the internet is of no value. If that's not condescending and hyperbolic, I don't know what is.
To a certain extent, yes. Lack of internet access is a serious form of social exclusion, similar to having limited literacy or lacking a bank account. You'll have problems accessing government services and essential information, you'll be unable to find or apply for many jobs, you'll pay a premium for many goods and services.
My town has no brick-and-mortar travel agents or bookstores. Most of the bank branches have closed. Our local housing association only advertises vacancies online. People who don't use the internet are now effectively an underclass; our government is quite rightly working towards 100% internet access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_(Infringing_File_Sha...
If I remember correctly it was sort of pushed upon us by US pressure so the legislators didn't really like it, it added extra work so the ISPs didn't like it, as a result of that the law has a $25 fee for administering a "strike" to someone, which the copyright holders don't like because they can't so blindly send out mass strikes. The strikes also expire after 9 months. And obviously the people don't like it either.
The maximum fine is capped at $15,000NZD (~$11,000USD) and the average fine in practice has apparently been around $500NZD (~$350USD). As of 22 November 2013 17 people had got their three strikes and received their fines[1]. I wonder what the total is now.
Re actually cutting off your Internet access though, I'm not sure. Thing is, that was temporarily in there and was later removed, as Section 92A in the Copyright Act. You can see it marked as [Repealed][2]. But then section 122B seems to say your Internet can still get cut off. Maybe someone can shed some light on that one.
[1] https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/lawtalk-archives/issue...
[2] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...
"On 23 July 2012, despite the policy intent of making the issuance of copyright infringement notices under the legislation inexpensive, Telecom New Zealand revealed that under the new regime, it had cost them $534,416 to issue only 1,238 notices - or approximately $438 per notice, although this cost figure is not evidenced by any audited breakdown. The copyright holders are required to pay a fee of $25 to have the notices issued"[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_(Infringing_File_Sha...
Compliance costs can add up.
Neither of us use torrents, we prefer streaming services that have everything we need. Regardless, our internet was turned off without notice two months ago. The most frustrating part was that they didn't tell us, it just went off.. so it took us nearly a day to figure out what was even going on. This included a dozen calls to the ISP trying to figure out what was going on, and the surprising part is that they didn't know! There's more to the story including absolutely most incompetent tech support I've ever seen, but a little over a day later we had it turned back on. We asked what we could do to avoid this in the future, and were told not to torrent.
Fast forward to a few weeks back, our internet turns off again. I call and find out that our internet has been cut off for 72 hours due to torrenting, which turned out to be a TV show. A TV show neither of us watches, so the circumstances are suspect.
When I questioned the operator about this, she flat out called me a liar, with no evidence to support her argument. When I suggested that we might cancel our service because of the poor treatment, she said go ahead. Of course, she knew that there are no other ISPs where we live (out in the woods).
So here we are again, our internet may get turned off permanently and without warning for no wrongdoing on our part. Rather strange times we're living in where scumbag companies can get away with this, ruining peoples lives so they can increase their own profits by 3.2%
Burn in hell, PenTeleData, I'm sure you're monitoring this as well.
Basically any time they want they can take extra money from you and you have no recourse.
www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/03/artificla-intelligence-robot-reporter-pulitzer-prize?client=safari
(Imagine Amazon Suggestions applied to news. One obscure google search and suddenly that's all the news you hear about for the next week)
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/117419/judge-r...