Posted on 12/20/2017 7:53:22 PM PST by Olog-hai
They won’t find one.
Advertisers are pouring money into Facebook. It’s unique in what it knows about and what it can offer to advertisers.
I don’t doubt Facebook’s attractiveness to advertisers, but that attractiveness requires retaining active users at current levels, and I contend that they may not be able to do so for much longer.
After all, what is unique about Facebook?
What does Facebook have that other sites couldn’t provide?
So they are doing what no one else is.
They also give advertisers the ability to target any kind of consumers you can imagine. They can drill it down to “only deliver this add to the fit foodie who wears false nail tips.”
You can use so many demographics it’s crazy. You can also target your ad to ethnic groups except whites.
Average bit rates from years ago are more than enough to deliver a quality 720 or 1080 experience; e.g., 12-15 Mbs. Not sure it’s possible to get a subscription with less than 35/35 these days (excluding rural.)
Just make sure you’re getting what you subscribed for, and that’s easy to check via the various speed test sites.
So why is the internet any different? If someone wants to watch a half dozen movies each day, fine. Just don't charge me the same price, since I don't watch any movies at all.
Ever since Obama forced "Net Neutrality" on us, I've been annoyed with all of these hard to kill videos that pop up out of no where and automatically start when I visit some web sites. I have to keep my audio muted so at least I don't have to listen to them. Maybe this will give the browser suppliers a reason to give me an easy way to prevent them from starting.
OneWeb, Boeing, SpaceX, Telesat, LeoSat, Samsung are some of the potential contenders vying to deliver internet connectivity to any location on the Earth, through constellations of satellites. Global coverage to the polar regions and everywhere else on the Earths surface is inherent in the planning.
The time for a personal device to communicate to a ground based server, the initial hop up and back down, will be considerably shortened for the new LEO satellite ISPs.
Unlike Hughes-net which is Geo-sync orbit (minimum 240 msec single hop), the delay LEO is perhaps 15 msec for that first hop, and the proposed burst speeds are 1 Gbit second.
Any manipulation of the current internet will only increase incentives toward end users moving to the wireless modem, direct-to-satellite services. Current proposal is first availability in a 2 to 3 year time-frame.
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu...etc And other multimedia content providers - *should* pay more for access. Their apps are bandwidth hogs and require tier 1, 2, and 3 transit providers to constantly upgrade their hardware to keep up with the demand for their services.
Plus - they would greatly benefit from “Class of Service” markings honored across networks to ensure the best possible queuing for consistent delivery of their content. A service for which they *should* pay more.
And making them pay more will allow less bandwidth-intensive applications - Like FreeRepublic, which transmits mostly text-based HTML and can tolerate “bursty” network access to pay *less* for their bandwidth.
Why would you make both content providers pay the same fees when they don’t need the same services?
The only people that model benefits are the content providers. With that in place, they can spread the cost of their bandwidth across the whole internet and not just their own customers...
If they pay more for access, we pay more to use it. I don’t buy the liberal media scaremongering, though.
For someone who uses one of the bandwidth-intensive services... Yes - they will likely pay more for *their* subscriptions to use that service.
But providers with less-intensive applications and those who don’t have subscriptions will no longer have to pay a portion of it for them.
My personal example. I had a Earthlink account which uses Time Warner cable lines. I was at about 30mb then it went up from there with no increase in price to about 50mb when I cancelled my cable tv as that bill was way to high back in March 2016.
I was told as I had a Earthlink account that they would have to be called to cancel the tv part. I did so and was told that they would give me a discount for 6 months at $29 for internet only and they would have to lower the speed to 25mb. I said fine as I knew Netflix and any website only needs a fraction of that speed.
The speed never went down and is currently at 70mb and will climb. Why? ATT came along with high speed fiber lines. They go right by my building and are next to the cable company lines.
Time Warner(now Spectrum)/Earthlink have to compete so I get better service.
That is the key. Competition!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.