- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: FCC to free Internet From Obama's “Net Neutrality” Rules
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:52 pm to Ag Zwin
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:52 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:Well let's see. Cable companies, that now own internet services, have been getting killed due to cord-cutters that prefer streaming. Being that they have been losing profits and can justifiably jack up internet prices, their only alternatives is to charge per website. They also went to great measures to stop Google from expanding its services across the country, along with lobbying politicians to vote down municipalities providing services as well.
The big-government-regulator mindset in a nutshell.
It MIGHT happen, so let's create a bureaucracy.
How about we wait until it DOES happen, craft the policy based on the facts, and then hold violators accountable?
0
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:53 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
So, yes . . . the potential is not infinite, but we are nowhere near the limits now AND we are still expanding the horizon.
Well yes. But getting back to my original point, there is no reason not to believe wireless technologies won't keep expanding as well, even with spectrum limits.
Will wireless ever equal fiber? Of course not. Just like a Honda will never equal a Ferrari. But they both get better every few years and both still get you to work.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:53 pm to Centinel
quote:
Hughes covers the entire lower 48
You ever read internet reviews of Hughes?
Hughesnet isn't even viable for VPN. In my area I have one choice for VPN. ATT. I am admittedly not a standard use case.
That being said, I dont personally feel its an honest comparison to compare fiber/cable to satellite internet. Wireless can be pretty fast but it can get crazy expensive depending on data usage.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:54 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
by jawnybnsc
This tired argument again? Because government researchers invented the internet, the possibility that it could have come into being in any other way is precluded. That's brilliant. Really
Counter-factuals can be important thought excercises and fun, but they aren’t a substitute for actual history.
Guy made an ignorant point, if you don’t want to be called out on it, don’t make ignorant statements.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:56 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
From personal experience, the UK its all up to that ISP if they want to offer a service in the area. Since the infrastructure for the most part is shared, most ISPs jumping almost all areas. My ISP had their own infrastructure and I had fiber right to my door. The price point was amazing. 100 down fiber to the door for around $30 a month. No one has data caps.
But these really gets at IB Freeman's central argument: the problem isn't net neutrality or the repeal of it. The problem is the back door bullshite politics at the state and local level that keep new ISPs from coming in to an area.
It almost makes me think the ISPs are raising all this hell about net neutrality to keep people from realizing the money they're throwing at the local and state governments to keep competition out.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:58 pm to Centinel
quote:
Except that I can still get 1s and 0s transmitted to me via satellite or mobile. So no, internet access is not a utility.
You are pretty much the only fellow IT person ive ever talked to who is against NN. Strange
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:58 pm to Centinel
quote:
It almost makes me think the ISPs are raising all this hell about net neutrality to keep people from realizing the money they're throwing at the local and state governments to keep competition out.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:59 pm to Centinel
quote:
But these really gets at IB Freeman's central argument: the problem isn't net neutrality or the repeal of it. The problem is the back door bullshite politics at the state and local level that keep new ISPs from coming in to an area. It almost makes me think the ISPs are raising all this hell about net neutrality to keep people from realizing the money they're throwing at the local and state governments to keep competition out.
We have talked about this before. They are separate issues but bc we have simpletons making policy letting lobbyist buy them off. The two are tied together.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:00 pm to Centinel
quote:
Will wireless ever equal fiber? Of course not. Just like a Honda will never equal a Ferrari. But they both get better every few years and both still get you to work.
Look, I appreciate you taking the time to engage in a civil debate on the subject. But, you're basically agreeing with us here.
I just think it's more like wireless is a bicycle and fiber is a nice sedan. Can you get to work on a bicycle? Sure, if it's a reasonable distance away and you're okay with the risk of getting hit by traffic using roads designed for cars. Also, for some reason, your bike costs as much as the sedan.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:00 pm to Centinel
quote:I don't give a damn about the FCC's definition. Not to mention a speed is meaningless without the assumption that it is at all (or nearly all) times. You can make any speed claim that depends on how long or short you make the measurement window, and it need not even be a full second. We can measure for 1 nanosecond, and if one single bit is transmitted in that time, can we not claim gigabit speed for one nanosecond?
Where in the FCC definition of broadband ISP does it mention full speed at all times the entire time?
Let's drop the word games. If I cannot stream TV for one hour per day without incurring additional charges, then my ISP is ABSOLUTELY NOT a competitor to cable internet. Such an ISP does not IN ANY WAY change the monopoly status of a local cable company.
quote:See above.
You don't have access to just one ISP. Hughes covers the entire lower 48. I guarantee you have Verizon and TMobile coverage, if not more.
quote:It had everything to do with it if you cared to be honest here.
Your question had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
quote:Why the hell not? It's just 1s and 0s, as you know. The medium is irrelevant.
You can transmit IP packets via smoke signal? Impressive.
quote:Then they compete if the purpose is to get to work, a common and standard use-case for a vehicle. In the case of an ISP, a common and standard use-case is to stream video for an hour or more per day. Here, satellite and cell ISPs do not compete with cable or fiber.
And a Honda doesn't compete with a Ferrari, but they'll both get you to work.
quote:quote:This is your subjective requirement. And it's irrelevant.
If I can't stream one hour of TV per day without incurring additional fees, then my ISP is not a competitor to cable internet.
OK bro, let's just throw dialup and smoke signals in the mix too, alright? Just keep playing dumb.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:01 pm to AUbused
quote:
hat being said, I dont personally feel its an honest comparison to compare fiber/cable to satellite internet. Wireless can be pretty fast but it can get crazy expensive depending on data usage.
If we're talking purely from a quality perspective, I agree with you 100%. But that's not what is being argued in here by most people. They're maintaining that the big ISPs have a monopoly on providing internet access in this country. They don't.
One of the main arguments for making internet a utility is that it has become vital for our way of life. I can understand that when it comes to education, news, communication, etc. But even an old school T1 line will allow you that.
Just because your particular ISP doesn't allow you to simultaneously stream multiple 4K movies doesn't mean your ISP should be regulated like a utility. That's not vital communication, that's entertainment.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:01 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Have you ever visited this thing called "You Tube"? what about this phenom called "Facebook"? or "TD"? You do know NetFlix and Amazon are doing a lot of their own content now don't you? These are all competitors to the media companies and are why they cannot get the prices for the media they produce like they used too.
They are the content, not the gate keepers to the content.
NN is about getting to the content to make sure all traffic is created equal.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:03 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You are pretty much the only fellow IT person ive ever talked to who is against NN. Strange
I dislike the big ISPs. I dislike government regulation even more. I've seen the results.
And I think NN is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:04 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Which is all well and good, but Title II regulation of the internet is not the only way to achieve that end, and ultimately exposes that which you so ardently defend to a whole lot of mischief.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why the hell not? It's just 1s and 0s, as you know. The medium is irrelevant.
Aaaand I'm done. I thought you had a base understanding of this stuff. I was wrong. My bad.
The rest of your post is a bunch of "I don't care what the industry or regulatory definitions are!"
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:05 pm to Centinel
quote:
But these really gets at IB Freeman's central argument: the problem isn't net neutrality or the repeal of it. The problem is the back door bullshite politics at the state and local level that keep new ISPs from coming in to an area.
It almost makes me think the ISPs are raising all this hell about net neutrality to keep people from realizing the money they're throwing at the local and state governments to keep competition out.
That’s not to IB’s point at all actually. IB subscribes to this myth of unregulated capitalism applied haphazardly and all encompassing.
England is a highly regulated internet space. With a lot of investment money put into it. They just do it in a much more consumer friendly manner. Ofcom, their version of the FCC sort of, is involved and hands on. Including enforcing net neutrality standards.
To get England it would actually require government to do things like enforce shared space regulations. To allow competitors access and use of the same pipelines of fiber networks. To force established ISP’s to share their cable and fiber infrastructure to any competitors that will pay. As mentioned above, use government regulators proactively to work on the consumers behalf, not to the service of oligopoly ISP’s like Ajit Pai is doing.
And it’s not either or with ISP’s. Net Neutrality gives them rent-seeking opportunities on the front end, state laws help keep competition and investments away that could cut into their rent seeking.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:06 pm to Centinel
quote:
Your local power company is a utility because they are the only provider of consistent grid power you can purchase in your area.
I can set up a point to point network with my neighbor but that doesn't make me an ISP.
And setting up a generator or using solar panels doesn't make you a power company.
I see, so you can set arbitrary criteria for what is and is not an electric utility, but I can't set criteria for what is and is not a competitor to cable/fiber internet, eh?
What is the key word that you've used here that you believe makes your argument valid and mine not? Is it "consistent" grid power? Because data caps make satellite and cell ISPs NOT consistent. Is it "purchase"? I can purchase service from a solar installer.
You probably don't even have a good reason, you've just got your mind made up.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:08 pm to Centinel
quote:
They're maintaining that the big ISPs have a monopoly on providing internet access in this country. They don't.
I'm arguing that the big ISPs have (in many places, not all) a functional monopoly on unrestricted internet use. Whatever that use may be.
quote:
One of the main arguments for making internet a utility is that it has become vital for our way of life. I can understand that when it comes to education, news, communication, etc. But even an old school T1 line will allow you that.
I think you're limiting your horizon here a bit. What about someone that wants to start a YouTube channel for profit. Or run a home business that requires large file transfers will clients. Is a wireless provider really an option in these cases?
quote:
Just because your particular ISP doesn't allow you to simultaneously stream multiple 4K movies doesn't mean your ISP should be regulated like a utility. That's not vital communication, that's entertainment.
Again, 4k movies are not the only source of heavy data usage. There are plenty of business or personal use cases that require this bandwidth without caps or with much larger caps than wireless providers supply (home business, backup of personal data including photos and video, etc.).
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:08 pm to Dirtman16
quote:
I just think it's more like wireless is a bicycle and fiber is a nice sedan. Can you get to work on a bicycle? Sure, if it's a reasonable distance away and you're okay with the risk of getting hit by traffic using roads designed for cars. Also, for some reason, your bike costs as much as the sedan.
I can agree with the cost thing, but have to disagree with the bike part. Maybe a nice harley vs a ferrari I could go along with.
Just curious, what is your background? It's rare that I can toss around terms like TDMA or QPSK and people even remotely know what I'm talking about
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:10 pm to Centinel
quote:
Just curious, what is your background? It's rare that I can toss around terms like TDMA or QPSK and people even remotely know what I'm talking about
Ha! I'm just a simple geotechnical engineer with a overzealous curiosity in technology. Wireless tech in general has always been really interesting to me. As I said before, I won't claim to be an expert, so I have to be careful how far I take the argument.
Page 11 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News