I’m paying Comcast for Xmbps (for OP: _____ million bits per second) service. Yes, I expect that if I start playing a Netflix movie and it runs at Xmbps that I’ll get that service for however long I play it. Alas, Comcast promises “up to” rates, with no intention of ensuring that rate when things get busy. Knowing they’re already under-delivering on my end, they’re now out to under-deliver on Netflix’s end - and insisting both of us pay more for allegedly better service where we’re already paying for that very service and not getting it.
The problem with the water analogy (admittedly) is we’re not paying for product, we’re paying for delivery rate - and, as stands now, few ISPs are delivering what they promise but demanding higher prices for those who actually use/need it. Few people have the slightest clue about how much data they’re actually using, nor how fast they need it, nor do they have much control over either.
The point is that when anyone - me, you, or Netflix - contract for Xmbps we should get Xmbps as needed, and not get squeezed for more $$$ when the content indicates the ISP might be able to negotiate a greater cut of the action. Right now, the world’s biggest ISP (Level3*) and Netflix literally have two network hubs sitting next to each other, with all the capability to fully supply Netflix’s needs at no additional cost, but the other refuses to install the ONE short cable needed to make it happen (there’s like 8 pairs of ports with 5 connected, the missing cables throttling performance); AFAIK Netflix has offered to pay for the cheap cable and its installation, but Level3 refuses to unless paid many millions of dollars.
Sometimes there IS a place for government interference: telling product/service suppliers to stop uniformly acting like jerks (analogy: the banking industry used to apply daily withdraws to accounts, charge fines for problematic results, THEN apply deposits; several times I had to call my bank to complain that I made a deposit to ensure subsequent withdraw wouldn’t bounce, but they reversed the order and charged me fees because it “bounced”...they don’t do that now that the gov’t told ‘em all to cut that [expletive deleted] out). ISPs are doing the same, and need be told to just provide the service they promise and stop systemically screwing all customers.
At least we’re bickering over the right analogy, as opposed to most posts on this thread who are trying to randomly bash the Obama.
(* - Might be Verizon, I’m too sick to recall right now.)
Well said.
But the water system analogy would not just apply at the source -but the distribution to the homes.
Imagine a 6” water main along a rural road that supplies lots of homes AND some businesses. When the businesses decide to draw water, they can suck the system down so much that flow to homes is REALLY REALLY reduced! The home owners complain - but the provider says that the only way to meet everyone’s need for high speed flow all the time is to upgrade the pipe to 24” - and oh by the way - everyone will get hit with big price increases to upgrade the delivery system.
The point of service delivery - ISPs might be able to deliver 10 MB ‘bursts’ to everyone....but if everyone on the same ‘pipe’ trys to watch HD videos, the combined data stream overloads the ability of the system to deliver. What then? Is the ISP deficient for the jerky poor quality video? For the guy who is trying to run his business on the data line, and business transactions are disrupted by the high traffic volume - what is he entitled to?
Shifting analogies...imaging trying to deliver FEDEX packages - on antiquated roads, when you need 4 to 8 line super highways. Who pays to upgrade the roads? The big users, or everyone?