There has been some talk for a few years about net neutrality. Many ISPs are against it as they say it would be unfair, and if they capitalize on special relationships with particular media venues, they would be violating it. However, we all seen where certain uses of the Internet has been throttled or killed completely by the same company that says Net Neutrality would hurt.
Well, I do understand what the ISPs are saying in their “innocent” claims, but let’s face it, they sought to maximize profits while claiming how they are being hurt. It has been shown where the ISPs as a whole has more than enough bandwidth. So, I have a few suggestions.
First, a minimum standard of broadband should be recognized. Companies not providing that minimum standard should not claim to be providing broadband. I personally think a minimum of 1MBPS downstream, and 512kbps upstream is required to broadband. Also, latency should always remain low.
Next, the ISPs are jumping around claiming 5, or even 50MBPS, but in reality, it is usually 1/10th that. This is like buying a 20 pack of cookies, and getting two. You would go back to store and make a complaint. The ISP’s excuse is that they can’t guarantee the broadband. My question is why not? So, in turn, an ISP should use a standard of minimum performance at 90% of the time. Because why should you be paying for 5MBPS when you don’t even get 512kbps (½ MB) most of the time. If you only get 256kbps 90% of the time, than that is what should be advertised. Anything else is misleading.
In addition, if you are going to place caps (yes you Comcast), you should offer the consumer of what to do when they hit that cap. This could either be pay this much per quantity or stop all non network traffic. If a company decides to limit bandwidth, than they must offer a means to tell you how much you used. Cell phone companies do it, your bank account does, your credit card company does it. You should too. Don’t want to? Don’t cap.
If an ISP charges extra for a company to give that company’s traffic a higher priority, that’s fine – as long as they don’t force traffic to drop below that minimum requirement you are paying for. So if for example Comcast offers HBO better quality of streaming, and you are getting better streaming when visiting HBO, all the better. However, this is considered as in network traffic. So, even if you hit your cap, you should still be allowed to view HBO content. Why, because Comcast is charging HBO. You shouldn’t have to pay for HBO if HBO is paying that portion of the bill. Also, all companies that pay an ISP for priority should be noted on their site.
IPv6 solved the problem of not enough IP addresses. Almost every OS in the past decade supports IPv6. So, everyone should get their own IP address. If your OS doesn’t support IPv6, than the ISP should offer an IPv4 address. Keep in mind, I mean static IP address. This would do a number of things.
- Reduce fraud
- Provides easier management of network monitoring (for those caps)
- Provide a solution for the E911 problem.
- Allow people to exclude their IP address such as with Google Analytics on their personal site
- Allow seamless login for people with just one account service.
The ISPs is already complaining about their customers using the service, and already making it intolerable in some cases – the least they can do is give a nearly free IP address in that $50+ a month bill.
If an ISP wants to “manage” what kind of traffic should not reach you, than you shouldn’t have to pay the bill. If they give something for free and you don’t like it, don’t use it. However OS updates, and 911 VOIP calls should never be hampered. An updated OS is a good OS, and one that is less likely to cause ISP problems. 911 is a public safety issue.
And for the companies that received tax payer money such as the phone company and cable company, if you want to keep your monopoly, you need to meet guidelines to make internet affordable to all of your market. Yes, people in poverty should have affordable broadband, if you want to be the only one – than it is YOUR responsibility. Have a problem with that, pay back the taxpayers. In the end, it should be the taxpayer’s internet service, and not yours. Ever heard of imminent domain?
Quit complaining about billion dollar companies getting a free ride when they don’t bow to you. Here’s the thing, this blog is not free. Yes, word press which is the backend is free. But, I pay for the domain name, and I pay a host for the service. Even if I was to host my own web server, I still have to pay a connection for service to the Internet. Even free users of free services aren’t getting a free ride. They pay with advertisements on their site. Deal with it.
No contracts. Simply put! They should be illegal with the cellular industry, and they should be illegal with the ISPs. Give that free modem, and if the customer cancels service, then they must return the modem in good condition. If not, charge them for the modem. Seriously, the $50/month isn’t enough for you? Want more money, charge a rental fee with an option to buy.
Is this something that most ISPs want to hear, no. But we given the ISPs nearly 20 years of doing the right thing, and they can’t seem to do it. This is by all means – the most fair solution while giving the ISPs the choices they claim to want.