- 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
1
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:12 pm to Dirtman16
quote:
Ha! I'm just a simple geotechnical engineer with a overzealous curiosity in technology.
quote:
Madison, AL
Checks out
I'm originally from Huntsville.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:20 pm to Centinel
quote:
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.
Something had to be done so fast lanes and degrading traffic didn't happen.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:21 pm to Centinel
quote:quote:Aaaand I'm done. I thought you had a base understanding of this stuff. I was wrong. My bad.
Why the hell not? It's just 1s and 0s, as you know. The medium is irrelevant.
You may have more experience in "the industry", but it seems you are the one lacking a base understanding of this stuff.
The bitrate would be abysmal, the ping times atrocious, and there may be some security concerns, but there is absolutely no reason you can't send an IP packet via smoke signal. Nevermind that I said "data" and you changed it to "IP packets".
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:23 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
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.
The gov't when I was there was making a big push for ISPs to upgrade and were paying big time. BT who already owned most of the infrastructure was all over it like flies on shite.
The fiber to cabinet solution works very well. Basically turning the last mile into a few 100 feet at most. Where you can still push insane speeds using coax.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:24 pm to Centinel
quote:But when the government tries to classify ISPs as a utility, you throw a fit?
I didn't set an arbitrary criteria. The government did.
Do you not see that the criteria for whether you agree with the government classifications are YOURS?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:25 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Something had to be done so fast lanes and degrading traffic didn't happen.
The problem with this is the tech to do this has been around a long time. Why are the ISPs all of a sudden going to start doing it?
I just am not a fan of creating regulation before there's a problem to be regulated.
That and Title II is a shite show to begin with.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:
But when the government tries to classify ISPs as a utility, you throw a fit?
There are multiple providers providing access to the internet.
There are not multiple providers providing access to grid power.
Not having multiple providers is the reason for the classification as a utility. ISPs do not meet this classification.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:28 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The fiber to cabinet solution works very well. Basically turning the last mile into a few 100 feet at most. Where you can still push insane speeds using coax.
This is pretty much the only realistic option for existing infrastructure that isn't wired for fiber.
Now in new construction, there's really no reason not to run pure fiber (at least that I know of).
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:28 pm to Centinel
quote:
Centinel
You seem smart
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:30 pm to Centinel
quote:
The problem with this is the tech to do this has been around a long time. Why are the ISPs all of a sudden going to start doing it?
I just am not a fan of creating regulation before there's a problem to be regulated.
That and Title II is a shite show to begin with
LINK
LINK
Because it has actually already happened? I honestly can’t believe you have went to such lengths in this discussion not knowing basic context like this beforehand.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:30 pm to Centinel
quote:
The problem with this is the tech to do this has been around a long time. Why are the ISPs all of a sudden going to start doing it? I just am not a fan of creating regulation before there's a problem to be regulated.
It was pretty obvious what the ISPs wanted to do.
It also leads to issues of controlling the flow of information. Making certain mediums not usable even though you have a 50 meg service.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:33 pm to Centinel
quote:
This is pretty much the only realistic option for existing infrastructure that isn't wired for fiber. Now in new construction, there's really no reason not to run pure fiber (at least that I know of).
My neighborhood in England had both. Just deepened on your ISP.
My house on base on Altus is far as frick from the node, but base housing has the best infrastructure in town bc the military in the area is their most reliable customer with the town being so poor. Cable One can't offer some of the same speeds off base.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:34 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Because it has actually already happened? I honestly can’t believe you have went to such lengths in this discussion not knowing basic context like this beforehand.
I'm well aware of those cases. And I'm also well aware that they were addressed without net neutrality.
When ALL the ISPs are doing this, then it becomes time for regulation. And can be addressed through existing anti-trust collusion laws.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:35 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
It was pretty obvious what the ISPs wanted to do.
Then why were they on board with other legislation to prevent such actions, as long as the internet didn't get re-classified as a public utility? AT&T and Comcast agreed to largely similar constraints on their business as part of their merger. Their issue isn't with keeping the internet open, its with being classified a utility.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:35 pm to Centinel
quote:
I'm well aware of those cases. And I'm also well aware that they were addressed without net neutrality.
Yep. One of the bigger ones as well was found to not even be the ISPs fault, it was Netflix's fault. Whoops
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:36 pm to Centinel
quote:
I'm well aware of those cases. And I'm also well aware that they were addressed without net neutrality.
When ALL the ISPs are doing this, then it becomes time for regulation. And can be addressed through existing anti-trust collusion laws.
Making the rules of the road clear are part of keeping markets highly functioning.
You don’t wait for everyone to dump their toxic waste in the river before you make it illegal to do so.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:38 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Making the rules of the road clear are part of keeping markets highly functioning.
No, you let the market make the rules of the road in that market. If the rules end up in collusion, you address the collusion with the correct anti-trust collusion laws.
quote:
You don’t wait for everyone to dump their toxic waste in the river before you make it illegal to do so.
Providing internet service is not anywhere the same as preventing pollution of public land and water.
One keeps you from watching porn at high speed. The other can kill you.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:38 pm to Centinel
quote:Still with this argument, huh? No matter how pathetic the offering, every ISP counts in your eyes. Although, also according to you, I could set up my own pathetic little power plant on my block and not count as an electric utility. And you don't see the contradiction.
There are multiple providers providing access to the internet.
quote:There are in Texas. The only thing preventing multiple electricity providers from servicing my neighborhood is regulation. According to you, this is fine for electricity, not fine for internet access. And you don't see the contradiction.
There are not multiple providers providing access to grid power.
quote:No, the classification as a utility is the reason for not having multiple providers. You've got it backwards.
Not having multiple providers is the reason for the classification as a utility.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:38 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Making the rules of the road clear are part of keeping markets highly functioning.
You can easily do this and not re-classify the internet as a utility. It was already attempted. However, this was not the goal of the legislation.
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News