- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obama's plan to save the internet draws bold reactions
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:59 am to carwashguy
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:59 am to carwashguy
quote:Of course. This is extremely similar, and leads to the same scenario, that we are trying to avoid with fast lanes.
And if they were to be leased out, would you be against Cox putting priority on their traffic vs others using their network?
quote:Not if regulation is done correctly.
That will happen just like it does in the wireless world.
1
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:07 am to MC123
quote:
On the other hand, regulating broadband as a public utility will likely lead to less investment and innovation by the telco industry and probably be bad for the consumer.
This is the biggest straw man argument in the book. Less investment and innovation?! ISPs have gotten by with the bare minimum investment over the past 20 years, even though they took over $200 Billion in tax payer money for infrastructure upgrades that they never completed. As for innovation. What the frick are they innovating? Google had to jump into the game to get them to do ANYTHING, and even still, the ISPs doing the bare minimum to compete against them.
quote:
AT&T tried to steal some of Google's thunder earlier this year when it announced its "intent" to build out gigabit internet just hours after Google revealed its high-speed broadband service would come to Austin. Now AT&T is trying to one-up Google by getting out of the gate first at the expense of less-than-gigabit speeds. (Google Fiber won't reach its first homes until the middle of 2014.)
Innovation is not needed right now as we have the tech to put 1+ Gbps service into 90% of homes in America. The technology is already there.
If you look at the history of telecommunications in the US in great detail with regards to the cable and telephone companies, you will see they do this over and over again.
Whenever they need a government concession or tax break, they claim if they don't get it they will not provide universal service. When they want to keep their monopolies and destroy competitors, they claim that competition would weaken them and make universal service impossible. When they Argue against laws enabling technologies that threaten their revenue stream, they actually state that anything that reduces the amount of money they take in hurts their company, making it impossible for them to deliver universal service.
Telecom companies in the US are pretty much a case study in corporations corrupting the government, lying to the public, and getting away with it.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 10:14 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:19 am to C
quote:It can, but at what cost? I believe Verizon offers 4G for home internet at $60 for a 10GB allowance. You can get, what, a 300GB soft cap for less via cable? Is it really 30+ times more costly going over the air? It seems it will be quite a few years (decades?) before wireless can really compete where cable/dsl are available. And it will likely never compete where fiber is available.
Big difference is that the internet can travel over the air.
quote:Unless municipal fiber starts to win a lot more battles against ISPs, mesh networks may be our only hope for an open internet if pay-for-priority becomes a thing. Unfortunately, it would likely take decades before a nation- or worldwide mesh network would be able to work at an acceptable level.
WIFI mesh networks expansion.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:26 am to Korkstand
quote:
Unfortunately, it would likely take decades before a nation- or worldwide mesh network would be able to work at an acceptable level.
There is a wifi spec in the pipeline (802.22) that covers ~60 mile radius.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:35 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
ISPs have gotten by with the bare minimum investment over the past 20 years, even though they took over $200 Billion in tax payer money for infrastructure upgrades that they never completed.
When you lump ISPs into this you do know they are talking about the bell companies, phone companies and not cable companies.
There is no excuse for the bells to not have bad arse networks with all the tax money and government money they receive.
You are right, the technology is there for 1Gb internet and you should be seeing it very soon.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 10:37 am to Korkstand
quote:
Unfortunately, it would likely take decades before a nation- or worldwide mesh network would be able to work at an acceptable level.
This is not far off. There is going to be so much advancement in the next 5 years, most will not be able to keep up with it.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:01 am to colorchangintiger
quote:
There is a wifi spec in the pipeline (802.22) that covers ~60 mile radius.
That relies on a core network of expensive base stations, right? Who do you think is going to be operating those? And this:
quote:
IEEE 802.22 defines a X.509v3 certificate profile which uses extensions for authenticating and authorization of devices based on information such as device manufacturer, MAC address, and FCC ID (the Manufacturer/ServiceProvider certificate, the CPE certificate, and the BS certificate, respectively).[8]
This could allow for a type of customer lock-in where the network providers refuse network access to devices that have not been vetted by manufacturers of the network providers' choice (i.e. the device must possess a private key of a X.509 certificate with a chain of trust to a manufacturer certificate authority (CA) that the network provider will accept), not unlike the SIM lock in modern cellular networks and DOCSIS "certification testers" in cable networks.
It's great tech and a great idea, but unless the base stations are community-owned (and there will be much opposition to this from ISPs and wireless carriers), then I'm not sure it's going to do much for mesh networks unless the base stations can be downsized tremendously and made affordable. I'm still thinking decades.
edit: Also, after a bit of reading, the tech seems to be intended for rural areas, and the bandwidth is awfully slow. The design speeds will be excruciatingly slow by the time equipment is actually deployed, and it looks to be a slight upgrade for people whose only current option is satellite.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 11:09 am
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:02 am to carwashguy
quote:Are you basing this prediction on the current rate of advancement, or on the rate of advancement without net neutrality?
This is not far off. There is going to be so much advancement in the next 5 years, most will not be able to keep up with it.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 11:46 am to Korkstand
quote:
Not if regulation is done correctly.
Describe what you see as regulation done correctly. Also, is there a way we disallow fast lanes and throttling but not regulate broadband as a public utility? Is there a compromise solution here?
Posted on 11/13/14 at 12:01 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Are you basing this prediction on the current rate of advancement, or on the rate of advancement without net neutrality?
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Technology in general is about to take off.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 12:16 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Unfortunately, it would likely take decades before a nation- or worldwide mesh network would be able to work at an acceptable level.
Naa you could base them out of city areas. I don't think re-occurring costs would be much different than dsl today. 100 mbps easily achievable. Cost you a few grand today per unit but those prices are sure to come down like everything else
Posted on 11/13/14 at 1:45 pm to MC123
quote:In this case, it means ensuring that the owner of the lines doesn't discriminate. This is essentially the root of the whole debate.
Describe what you see as regulation done correctly.
quote:Yeah, we could, but as I mentioned, this would do nothing to address competition. And it's the lack of competition that is kicking all this off. Seems it would be only a matter of time before a different type of anti-consumer move is attempted given a non-competitive environment.
Also, is there a way we disallow fast lanes and throttling but not regulate broadband as a public utility? Is there a compromise solution here?
Personally, I would love if regulation weren't necessary, and that more local governments would start rolling out fiber. Unfortunately, there are laws in many states preventing this (paid for by big ISPs), and in states where it is legal ISPs oppose municipal fiber every step of the way, crying foul over every little thing. There are lots of great reasons for cities to operate their own networks. Smart networked electric grids reduce outages, smart traffic control, etc. Being able to sell excess capacity to citizens and increase revenue is an added bonus. It's win-win-win all around, except for the ISPs who would prefer to spend their money lobbying and buying politicians rather than upgrade and compete. Is it unfair for a for-profit company to have to compete with partially taxpayer-funded services? Perhaps, but all across the country we have private companies doing contract work for government. It's likely that ISPs don't want to be bound by the stipulations of a government contract, though. They would prefer to fight to make their own rules. And why not? That strategy seems to be working.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:15 pm to carwashguy
quote:Technology has been "taking off" for decades, but that doesn't tell us that high quality mesh networks are right around the corner.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Technology in general is about to take off.
I think mesh networks are the future, but it's the distant future (technologically speaking). Mark my words, it will be at least 2 decades before a mesh networked internet will be able to replace our current internet entirely, for a lot of reasons:
It has to be grassroots. It won't work unless enough people around you are in on it too.
It's going to take a long time to replace ISPs. Sure, we will see small meshnets pop up, and we may even see them start linking directly together. But in most cases, at some point a packet will have to hop on/off the internet to visit a site. How long do you think it will take for millions of websites to start serving up on a meshnet to bypass the existing internet?
There are a lot of technical issues to be overcome. Speed and latency will be huge issues until the majority of us are using it, as will basic connectivity. Encryption/security will have to be very strong and pervasive, and privacy will still be an issue. How long until banks trust the tech? How long until you trust the tech with your banking info?
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:17 pm to C
quote:See my previous post about meshnets.
Naa you could base them out of city areas. I don't think re-occurring costs would be much different than dsl today. 100 mbps easily achievable. Cost you a few grand today per unit but those prices are sure to come down like everything else
Posted on 11/13/14 at 3:01 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Personally, I would love if regulation weren't necessary, and that more local governments would start rolling out fiber. Unfortunately, there are laws in many states preventing this (paid for by big ISPs), and in states where it is legal ISPs oppose municipal fiber every step of the way, crying foul over every little thing. There are lots of great reasons for cities to operate their own networks. Smart networked electric grids reduce outages, smart traffic control, etc. Being able to sell excess capacity to citizens and increase revenue is an added bonus. It's win-win-win all around, except for the ISPs who would prefer to spend their money lobbying and buying politicians rather than upgrade and compete. Is it unfair for a for-profit company to have to compete with partially taxpayer-funded services? Perhaps, but all across the country we have private companies doing contract work for government. It's likely that ISPs don't wa
HERE is the solution.
The federal government should outlaw the franchising, ROW exclusivity activities and regulation of ISPs by state and local governments TODAY.
Inviting the FCC to regulate the ISPs as utilities is a very BAD idea.
These ISPs will soon side with government and will be seeking to have their profits and monopolies entrenched as did the telephone companies in the twentieth century. Rates for long distance were based on the amounts the FCC approved and they based them on the returns of investments they thought the companies should have. We were all screwed for decades and innovation was never brought to market that would threaten the status quo guaranteed profits of the Bells. (the first cellular call was made in 1946.)
Obama is wrong on this and those that want real access to broadband choices should not support this and should instead scream for the end of local and state involvement.
I suspect soon we will see more and more content providers getting into the ISP business. It would not surprise me at all that a Netflix or Google or Apple will be giving away ISP services for access to your home with their paid content. We simply have to get the government out of their way.
This post was edited on 11/13/14 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 11/13/14 at 3:33 pm to I B Freeman
Great information here, glad you guys know what's going on. Explain this much better than any article I could find. 
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News