US Internet Service In 2014: Net Neutrality Challenges and High-Speed Build-Outs 73
Ars Technica takes a look at two sides of the world of internet service, as it's available to customers in the U.S., and especially at changes that are in the works for the next year. Thanks to Google, AT&T and other providers (including municipal networks), the number of Americans with access to very high speed household connections is rising dramatically — good news, for those in range of fiber-to-the-home rollouts, and this means at least some pressure on competitors. But as Ars writer Jon Brodkin points out, there are also developments that may dismay many customers, specifically the possibility that the Federal Communication Commission's 2010 Open Internet Order ("a network neutrality law that forbids ISPs from blocking services or charging content providers for access to their networks") may be overturned or weakened. That could come about either through lawsuit (Verizon's suit is mentioned), or through a more market-oriented approach from the FCC. Writes Brodkin: "If the law were overturned, ISPs could more easily steer customers to their own services and away from those of their rivals. They could charge companies like Netflix for the right to have their videos prioritized over other types of Internet traffic, perhaps indirectly raising the price consumers pay for streaming video and making it more difficult for startups to compete against established players who can afford the 'Internet fast lane' fees."
Pass the cost to the end user (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast is already twisting the screws. (Score:5, Interesting)
They finally flipped the switch and capped their "unlimited" internet to 300GB. They will automatically upgrade my service (with increased monthly fees) for every 50 GB over the original 300 GB. I can manually downgrade my service back to the original 300 GB whenever I feel 300 GB is enough. Xfinity video service doesn't count towards the cap but YouTube and Netflix does.
Other shenanigans from Comcast includes: Charging extra ($35) for the battery inside the cable modem to keep the telephony working during blackouts and starting in January they will charge $2 each per month for the simple digital converters they gave for free more than 3 years ago when they eliminated their analog signal. Funny how it was free when converters were on sale everywhere. Now that the supply dried up, they'll start charging for what they gave away.
Welcome to Comcast!
Re: Let me summarize (Score:1, Interesting)
Like most US infrastructure, the United States internet build out has lost it's premiere status on the world stage. Overtaken by the higher per capita government investment from much smaller economies, or simply [i]smarter[/i] per capita investment in some cases: the US consumer has a depressing selection of options available to them. In many areas, higher download speeds are actually available through next generation wireless technologies such as 4G LTE than can be found from their local ISP. Some may consider this counter-intuitive status quo to be a damning condemnation of the ideology behind the way this infrastructure development was financed, although interesting enough: when pressed, the author was unable to secure a clear consensus on [i]which[/i] ideology was at fault!
Like most issues of contention in the United States, polled respondents who didn't admit to being completely ignorant of the topic at hand were split in to two groups(who seemed equally determined to point fingers at the Democrats & Republicans). The majority of the respondents were unaware that the internet was the product of financial investment and not a creation of "spontaneous generation" or divine intervention. Some were surprised that internet infrastructure "hadn't always been there". [b]Most were very keen to hear it had been "intelligently designed", although grew instantly distrustful when they discovered that STEM professionals such as engineers were at the helm.[/b] One woman asked suspiciously if the engineers at her local ISP were trying to "Trick her out of her medicare?".
A local college student & her friends were interviewed under the awning of a Starbucks near the author's home. They were much less willing to admit to being ignorant of the topic at hand and kept attempting to shift the topic to "supporting network neutrality". One girl who declined to be named commented that "the waning prominence of US infrastructure could likely be attributed to failures in campaign finance reform, the revolving door of public sector service, and successful regulatory-capture creating a culture of "crony-capitalism" where profits were privatized and risks were absorbed by the public." This comment appeared to make her friends very uncomfortable and an awkward silence followed that was only interrupted when an argument broke out between two of her male colleagues on who bore more responsibility: the FCC appointee under the presidency of Bill Clinton, or George W Bush.
Re:Pass the cost to the end user (Score:5, Interesting)
> It should be perfectly legal, and publicly known, that credit card transaction fees are charged
> to the person making the purchase
It should but its actually a complicated problem; mostly due to the way card processing works now.
My knowledge of this comes directly from my Wife, who worked in the POS industry (that is sale and setup of cash registers and assorted paraphernalia) for several years.
Basically, what you see, and I see them around too...mostly at gas stations, is the "two price" scenario, one for cash, one for credit. It may be described as a "cash discount", but I have never seen it called a "credit fee", and part of the problem is...the fees are NOT fixed, they vary from card to card.
So, if Alice and Bob both walk into Carolmart on the same day, of the same year, at the same time and buy the same item, they will both pay the same price. However, if Alice uses her Capital One Card, and Bob uses his Discover.... Carolmart will, in fact, actually be charged two different fees!
That is right, if you have a card with "Cash back" or some "rewards program" they actually charge the retailer who takes the card more to cover the rewards! So if they really were to implement such fees, the fee would depend on what card you use (as well as other factors like how much business the store does).
There is some ability to deny specific cards: this is the very reason "American Express" is commonly not accepted because they have some of the higher fees (ditto for discover). However this breaks down a bit when you factor in how many different cards all work under the VISA or MASTERCARD brands.
Not saying any of this isn't fixable, just that its grown up somewhat complicated and there is a lot of interest in not fixing it or making it more transparent.