Read more.Quote:
Controversial move to capitalise on video streaming trend.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Controversial move to capitalise on video streaming trend.
Looks like 2011 will be the year the tech companies dictate what the customers should pay and not the other way round.
Of course the Sheep will gleefully accept this and pay for things which were previously free even though we are in a recession.
I struggle to see how allowing companies to provide better services at a higher price to customers who are willing to pay more is a threat to neutrality?
This whole "two-tier" thing is ridiculous, because we already have a mutli-tier web depending on which exchange you're attached to and how far you are form it, plus whether a cable company happened to install any fibre in your street at any point over the past few decades. I personally welcome anything that provides a wider choice of broadband options, even if you're still tied in to BTs copper monopoly...
It depends on the price you are going to pay TBH. People in larger towns and cities tend to already have decent internet connections and in this case it may cost them more if ISPs intend to levy an additional surcharge on the existing pricing structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I would like to believe that this is done for our benefit but all I can see is an excuse for the ISPs to charge us more during a recession just like the energy companies. It does not mean that the services will get any better for most people.
i read it as companies are going to be charged more if they want to provide their audience/customers with higher quality streaming, i.e HD films. Im probably reading it wrong but if it is that then its clear why net neutrality is comming into effect as its getting "preference" over other companies and customers that wont pay that extra useless cost... stupid BT
That's exactly how I read it too, except I don't see how you regard being able to target particular content and allow higher bandwidth for that content as a "useless extra cost". If it means that at busy times you can stream your 720p content at a higher bandwidth, reducing the risk of stutters and interruptions in play, then that will be worth the extra cost for many people. As far as I can tell this is a wholesale opt-in service, so if companies don't want to pay the extra cost then they just won't buy this service. They'll then have to compete by making their existing broadband offerings as cheap as possible, against targetted offerings from other companies who have bought the extra services and can offer increased bandwidth, but presumably at a higher cost. That's simple market economics, not "neutrality" or some other ephemeral concept - you provide a range of products at a range of prices and people buy the product that they want. You can't expect to get the same service for £5 a month that you'd get for £35 a month. And as I mentioned earlier, given how poor broadband services still are in parts of this country, we already have a multi-tier net even for people who are paying the same amount for theoretically identical broadband services. So those arguments strike me as being completely moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks12
Additionally, it sounds like the broadband providers will be able to offset some of the extra cost - if they so choose - by "selling" the service to content providers. I guess that's the bit that worries the net neutrality lot - if an ISP does a deal with ITV so ITVPlayer traffic uses the new system while iPlayer traffic doesn't, that would mean people using that ISP would get an unrealistic impression of the quality of those services because their ISP is not "neutral" - they are allied to ITV.
The bottom line on that, though, is that you can't expect to have a neutral net if you're going to let a lot of private companies - who are quite rightly seeking to maximize their profit - run all your infrastucture... :rolleyes:
Aren't we all, as taxpayers, subsidising BT's new fibre rollout - that was the last I heardQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Like I said before I doubt this will improve anything apart from the bottom line of the ISPs.
This is the same old line that has been uttered by UK service providers for decades.
I can see the usage limits for many packages being reduced and the ISPs charging the same amount for an inferior service. Then, you will have to pay more if you want to use any audio or video services at all.
TBH,one of the main reasons for high speed broadband is for audio and video streaming. If you don't do much of that something like a 1MB or 2MB connection would be fast enough.
@ Scary, maybe i should have posted a bit more but i saw it as another way of 'throttling' like they do now adays (BT worst, virgin media is annoying but atleast they state proper limits etc) but instead of just that they are now going to charge companies to stop them being throttled or something along these lines e.g.
Company A is told, if you want your customer to watch your broadcasts at a non throttled speed then you will give us £10
If you want them to just be throttled and get 25% of their normal speed then spend nothing.
Or perhaps it will be reversed as in affecting the customer, e.g. I wouldnt want to be throttled for downloading games off steam so id have to pay bt an extra x amount per month to stop being throttled for specifically steam.
I hope im wrong but tbh as we are funding a big portion of their infrastructure then this shouldnt happen!