- 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: Goodbye Net Neutrality; Hello Competition
Posted on 1/8/18 at 10:08 am to SoulGlo
Posted on 1/8/18 at 10:08 am to SoulGlo
quote:As long as wireless bandwidth remains more scarce than fiber bandwidth. So, forever.
How long do you think that will remain the case?
quote:Yep, and at the time dialup was the standard for home internet access. I didn't say wireless wouldn't get faster and cheaper, I only suggested that it would never surpass land lines.
We used to walk around with cell phones in a suitcase and paid by the minute. Even more for "roaming."
quote:We have been, and will continue to do so. But it is a problem that should be resolved BEFORE doing away with consumer protections against the problems it creates.
Bark up that tree.
quote:Are you too entrenched in your "free market" ideals to recognize when they don't work, or are you just too jaded by the past to look to the future?
Are most of you just too entrenched in what was sold to you as a "protection" to look at the old telecom regulations, or are you just too young to remember that clusterfrick?
Posted on 1/8/18 at 12:03 pm to Korkstand
quote:
quote:
Bark up that tree.
We have been, and will continue to do so. But it is a problem that should be resolved BEFORE doing away with consumer protections against the problems it creates.
What ever did we do before our Savior saved us from Congress?
quote:
quote:
Are most of you just too entrenched in what was sold to you as a "protection" to look at the old telecom regulations, or are you just too young to remember that clusterfrick?
Are you too entrenched in your "free market" ideals to recognize when they don't work, or are you just too jaded by the past to look to the future?
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Your question would make more sense if there was a free market right now.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 12:54 pm to SoulGlo
quote:We watched as the business case for ISPs doing non-neutral things gained more and more profit potential. We watched as ISPs began to exploit their position as gatekeepers more and more. We watched as these anti-consumer and anti-competitive actions not only failed to spur competition, but competition actually continued to decrease.
What ever did we do before our Savior saved us from Congress?
So we demanded that something be done to whomever would listen, essentially.
And we can bark up the local government tree to eliminate any regulatory barriers to entry to the ISP market, but I've said time and again that it won't make much difference. Markets involved with expensive infrastructure tend toward local monopolies regardless of government involvement. It just makes economic sense.
quote:You can say that again.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
quote:The question makes sense if you'd bother to recognize why true ISP competition will never materialize regardless of the regulatory environment.
Your question would make more sense if there was a free market right now.
The better question is why would anyone prefer to allow the private ISP industry to regulate the entire internet, rather than regulating the ISP industry so that it can't regulate the internet.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 1:01 pm to MOJO mod
quote:
Wired internet will be the rotary phone in just a few years, allowing more companies to offer services.
Nothing comes close to wired internet at this time especially fiber. It's more stable and faster. It will be a decade or so before something even close to it is developed on a large scale.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 1:18 pm to I B Freeman
Show me the competition in Baton Rouge.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 2:29 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Obama could not get congress to pass an updated law giving regulatory authority over the internet to the FCC.
So, the FCC voted itself to have those powers by passing a harmless sounding (and maybe even a useful) regulation by the sweet-sounding name of "Net Neutrality."
It was an end run around congress' authority. Obama was good at that.
Congress's failure to enact legislation does not preclude analagous rulemaking... and congress expressly delegated to the Commission the authority to define, update, and revise those components related to “public switched network” and “interconnected service” 47 U.S.C. § 332(d). If ISPs hadn't repeatedly violated the core principles of net neutrality (the three bright line rules) the Title II reclassification would have never been on the table to begin with.
An open internet is a good thing.. and one of the best to ever happen to the world. You still haven't explained how those three bright-line principles of net neutrality benefit the globalist agenda.
This post was edited on 1/8/18 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 1/8/18 at 2:34 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
The Foundation for Economic Education is a great organization that I have followed since 1982 when at the suggestion of one of my professors I subscribed to their publication "The Freeman".
I encourage you all to poke around their website and perhaps take some of their short courses.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 2:38 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
Bark up that tree.
Don't give the federal government the power to become the same fricked up system.
What additional power does the government obtain (that could result in the same fricked up system) from a rule that requires only the three following items?
No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.
No Throttling: ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users.
No Paid Prioritization: ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 3:00 pm to Korkstand
quote:
First off, if the costs to deploy and maintain wireless were truly "peanuts" compared to copper and fiber, then our wireless service would already be cheaper than hard line internet to the home. It's not. In fact, it's an order of magnitude more expensive per byte delivered.
I work in construction and engineering with a major telco and I can assure you wireless is the future and it is much cheaper to maintain and deploy than terrestrial services.
1 union field tech for the wireline side of the company costs nearly $90 an hour and although the deployment of fiber is still ongoing the proven performance of 5G downloads over 1gbs has changed the game.
Fiber will always be part of the network but the edge of the network for most residential consumers will become a wireless environment.
This post was edited on 1/8/18 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 1/8/18 at 3:09 pm to bmy
quote:
What additional power does the government obtain (that could result in the same fricked up system) from a rule that requires only the three following items?
No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.
No Throttling: ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users.
No Paid Prioritization: ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users.
Giving the FCC control in the first place, which was the sole reason behind the push for NN. As we see from any federal agency, their original rule doesn't fricking matter. It metastasized from there.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 3:16 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
quote:
First off, if the costs to deploy and maintain wireless were truly "peanuts" compared to copper and fiber, then our wireless service would already be cheaper than hard line internet to the home. It's not. In fact, it's an order of magnitude more expensive per byte delivered.
I work in construction and engineering with a major telco and I can assure you wireless is the future and it is much cheaper to maintain and deploy than terrestrial services.
1 union field tech for the wireline side of the company costs nearly $90 an hour and although the deployment of fiber is still ongoing the proven performance of 5G downloads over 1gbs has changed the game.
Fiber will always be part of the network but the edge of the network for most residential consumers will become a wireless environment.
frick you, you just want to gouge customers and control them, which a government agency would never ever do... ever.
Posted on 1/8/18 at 5:31 pm to SoulGlo
Pure wireless cannot handle the demand. Also, 5g shows that capability, but so does fiber coaxial hybrids that bog down whenever more users are using the network. Over the top services like Netflix will cripple 5g wireless if wired home services went away due to bandwidth limitations with the direction that video service is heading.
This is an argument like a tablet vs laptop vs desktop. Desktop will always reign supreme just as fiber to the home will along with people being "okay" with an inferior service for mobility.
This is an argument like a tablet vs laptop vs desktop. Desktop will always reign supreme just as fiber to the home will along with people being "okay" with an inferior service for mobility.
This post was edited on 1/8/18 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 1/8/18 at 5:41 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
Giving the FCC control in the first place, which was the sole reason behind the push for NN. As we see from any federal agency, their original rule doesn't fricking matter. It metastasized from there.
So let's take those three items and add:
No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.
No Throttling: ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users.
No Paid Prioritization: ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users.
Regulatory stability: The FCC shall place no additional conditions upon ISP activities except as instructed by Congress
Think the ISPs would go for that? I don't. Because their endgame is to engage in anti-competitive practices to insulate themselves from competition and to prop up their own content delivery and media assets.
This post was edited on 1/8/18 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 1/8/18 at 5:50 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:Of course it's cheaper to cover a given area with wireless, but you are still not dividing the cost by bandwidth delivered.
I work in construction and engineering with a major telco and I can assure you wireless is the future and it is much cheaper to maintain and deploy than terrestrial services.
LTE is fast enough for residential internet, but almost no one uses it. Why? Because it's expensive as frick per byte.
quote:Jumping the gun a bit here, aren't we? We are a year out from the first trickle of 5G deployments, and if the history of the rollout of LTE (and 3G, and etc.) tells us anything, it'll be 5 years before it's kind of widespread, and 10+ years before it's available in most places (if ever). And it's those last places to get 5G that need it the most, where there is and always has been a lack of ISP competition.
1 union field tech for the wireline side of the company costs nearly $90 an hour and although the deployment of fiber is still ongoing the proven performance of 5G downloads over 1gbs has changed the game.
And by that point, our internet use will have grown to the point that 5G is not sufficient, and we will be looking forward to 6G, claiming that it will "change the game". Meanwhile, fiber tech will continue advancing, and it will remain miles ahead of every wireless tech, and last-mile fiber laid today will long outlive 5G, 6G, and whatever comes after it.
quote:There are places that fiber makes sense, and there are places that wireless makes sense. But, again, it will likely be a decade+ before "most" residential consumers even have the option of 5G.
Fiber will always be part of the network but the edge of the network for most residential consumers will become a wireless environment.
I want wireless to be a real factor, I really really do. But it's just not as simple as "it's cheaper to blanket a neighborhood with wireless than it is to run fiber, therefore competition will emerge". It has ALWAYS been cheaper to blanket a given area with wireless than it has been to run a hard line. The problem for wireless is that, although it has steadily improved, wired connections have likewise steadily improved, and our internet demands have also steadily increased. Fixed-wireless WISPs have been around for a long time now. The hardware is cheap, they can use unlicensed spectrum, the speeds are adequate for home internet, they don't have to fight the local incumbents or government over pole use... so why doesn't every town have 5 or 6 WISP choices? Because it's just not that simple. You still need to pay for wholesale bandwidth, you still need to lease tower space (or buy your own land and tower), you still need to install the CPE, you still need to provide support, etc., etc. It turns out that, while significant, the initial investment of running the last mile lines is a small portion of the long-run costs. And I'm not sure about the spectrum auction process, but I assume it works out like any other auction where more bidders/competition = higher prices. How many players do you think could possibly emerge in the 5G era, and do you think the ongoing costs of spectrum licensing really works out that much cheaper than the one-time cost of running last-mile fiber? What's to stop the big boys from buying up the spectrum to prevent competition?
Again, I hope you're right that 5G will usher in an era of extreme competition where ubiquitous, fast, and cheap internet access is the norm, but I just don't see it happening.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:55 am to Scrowe
quote:
Pure wireless cannot handle the demand. Also, 5g shows that capability, but so does fiber coaxial hybrids that bog down whenever more users are using the network. Over the top services like Netflix will cripple 5g wireless if wired home services went away due to bandwidth limitations with the direction that video service is heading.
Edge of the network will largely be a wireless connection, you’ll see.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:09 am to Korkstand
quote:
Jumping the gun a bit here, aren't we? We are a year out from the first trickle of 5G deployments, and if the history of the rollout of LTE (and 3G, and etc.) tells us anything, it'll be 5 years before it's kind of widespread, and 10+ years before it's available in most places (if ever). And it's those last places to get 5G that need it the most, where there is and always has been a lack of ISP competition.
Nah, it’s coming sooner than you think, the dominance of 5G will take 5-10 years but make no mistake it is the future.
5G wireless article from CES and LA Times
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News