Net Neutrality

[Wschnitz]

infrastructure is expensive and those costs need to be able to be recovered somehow...... if there is no incentives to be better than someone else trying to take your customers then progress stagnates and the status quo is miked to beat hell .......

You mean the taxes we have paid multiple times to get rollouts of cable and fiber already? Local tax subsidies to increase minimum speeds for all users in counties and states?

Z31 is right, you are off your rocker with this.

[mrsleeve]

^
You really think that providers are going to do that to their rate paying customer base, and risk them to go to another provider. This is not NK, has this happened in the cable networks I am fairly sure the local cable companies in red state OK. still air CNN and MSNBC, and Fox is still on the air in the big liberal urban cities. At most your going to see advertising that says no throttling for your Netflix and you no content filtering at no extra charge.....

Sounds like you think those of in metro areas should subsidize your desire to live in the sticks. In many metro areas, you essentially have one choice. I live in a metro area of well past 1 million people.

No I dont expect that in the least I dont live but a few miles from town where there is boradband service. I was addressing the point that the telcoms have run service to remote areas and the "promised" to run better data to those areas. When in fact it was everyone paying a charge on their bill to cover the infrastructure costs to run basic phone out into the boonies thanks to the same law passed in the 30s that created the FCC.

I can have Cox for broadband, or pay for DSL that is an order of magnitude slower.......to the point I can't work from home through the VPN.

sounds like your stuck too, and might benefit from a someone trying to start up a new service.

Expensive to build out? Have you heard of Williams and how they were laying fiber with their pipelines for decades?

LOL thats funny. Of course I have....... Williams is out of the telcom game and nearly went broke in the process. they ran trunk line fiber optic in old out of service pipelines not to your door step..... It was cheaper to run it in the existing infrastructure than install on it on its own and lease the bandwidth to the established telcoms, in short the went bankrupt doing so. They sold that side of the business they had remaining and to Century Tel IIRC 15 years ago or better just before filing for bankruptcy..... And the 1st spin off MCI was bought up by VZN about a decade ago.

Your desire to stay fuck the gov't and taxation is theft is beyond the sane point now. Do you have an issue with gas/elec being regulated as monopolies so they aren't allowed to run away with costs?

infrastructure is expensive and those costs need to be able to be recovered somehow...... if there is no incentives to be better than someone else trying to take your customers then progress stagnates and the status quo is miked to beat hell .......

In places where the power and gas markets are not price controlled you have plenty of competitors buying up blocks of power or gas and paying lease fees to the current suppliers distribution networks and then charging less than the legacy out fits.

*insert I'm on the road and I'll respond later as a cop out because I can't defend my position*

Nahh I got a little time off right now to catch up on some medical shit I have going on.

[Massive Lee]

The only purpose of the repeal of Net Neutrality is to allow ISPs to make more money by allowing them to charge a fee for certain websites to go on the fast lane. Or to filter ideologies that don't fit big corporations or powerful religious groups with (lotsa) money. Small and perhaps more interesting websites and forums will be more difficult to access. Is that what competition is about? Ironically, the repeal is strongly supported by the same president who claims that he is for the little people and the working class... yeah. Sure. Look who's pocketing... ;-)

[Wschnitz]

Don't worry guys, the ISP's said to trust them, they wont take away our memes.

Its beyond ridiculous for anyone to trust Corporations when they say 'net neutrality stifles competition'. In fact, many small start up ISPs wrote to the FCC to complain when they were removing the rules because the rules were the only reason they were around.

If you go read the list Ashit Pai made about NN being bad, you can debunk basically every statement he makes, 50% of them are straight up lies, and most of the rest are statements that make no sense, or that are blatant 'fuck you american person you are dumb' statements.

Its pretty hilarious when some of the people takes the side of the agency saying 'fuck the people'.

[z31maniac]

You have valid points I dont disagree to a certain extent and a title I classification would be a step in a better direction IMO. All that said, haow about some alternate perspective to some of your "assumptions" and also why the govt steeping in and killing any incentive to actually try to compete.

Net Neutrality actually took away any incentive for service providers to run broadband connections to remote/rural locations. Because in most cases it costs more to run and maintain than revpenue it generates (thats why EVERYONE pays a fee that helped pay to run phone service to remote area a service which costs far less money to provide).......broadband would be even more costly by a very large margin.

So who would benefit from this at the carriers expense? Places like Amazon, Net Flix etc....while the ISPs who spend all the money to provide the infrastructure lose money. Allowing the carriers to better manage bandwidth allows them to provide better service to those current existing customers.

Telecom infrastructure is FUCKING expensive, especially fiber. The fewer subscribers per mile the less revenue to recover on that cost of hardware and installation . Thats exactly why you see better higher bandwidth service in densely populated areas. Existing copper has finite bandwidth capacity (like you find in remote areas that have not had large amounts of development that would have required large upgrades. Replacing copper with fiber carries not only the high cost to string on the poles or trench/plow/bore it in ..but also the equipment that is associated with it at every stage of the game form install to general up keep and maintenance.


True its all being replaced as required when the equipment and lines approach end of life...but thats also why the remote areas are the last to see this sort of stuff. No carrier has the capital to throw at major upgrades that take YEARS and couple hundred billion to get accomplished when you consider how many millions of miles of cable thats out there...both above and below ground.


I live in one of those areas, where our DSL in front of my house is 85 a month for 1.5mbs Down 0.5 up. Thats IF and i stress highly IF you can get off the waiting list and get a service slot. We have to use satellite ISP at 130 a month for 50gb. I am all for some competition maybe the smaller local outfit will start to better serve my house

Sounds like you think those of in metro areas should subsidize your desire to live in the sticks. In many metro areas, you essentially have one choice. I live in a metro area of well past 1 million people.

I can have Cox for broadband, or pay for DSL that is an order of magnitude slower.......to the point I can't work from home through the VPN.

Expensive to build out? Have you heard of Williams and how they were laying fiber with their pipelines for decades? Your desire to stay fuck the gov't and taxation is theft is beyond the sane point now. Do you have an issue with gas/elec being regulated as monopolies so they aren't allowed to run away with costs?


If the loss of Net Neutrality isn't going to change anything, why are the telecoms spending tens of millions to change it?

Is your cognitive dissonance really this bad now?

*insert I'm on the road and I'll respond later as a cop out because I can't defend my position*

[lambo]

You have valid points I dont disagree to a certain extent and a title I classification would be a step in a better direction IMO. All that said, haow about some alternate perspective to some of your "assumptions" and also why the govt steeping in and killing any incentive to actually try to compete.

You know what's funny?

When the government (and the VOTERS) steps in, creates their own internet and it's the third fastest in the nation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/19/longmont-internet-service/19294335/

http://www.9news.com/life/longmont-is-the-first-in-colorado-to-get-city-wide-gigabit-internet/454410101

The ISP's have not, and will never be interested in improving their networks unless someone with unlimited funds, or the goverment steps in. Google tried. Fucking Google. One of the richest companies on the god damn planet. You know what happened? They were stomped out by the existing ISP bureaucratic bullshit.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article110655177.html

https://gizmodo.com/what-happened-to-google-fiber-1792440779

And when Google Fiber was "successful" the incumbent ISP's magically up'd their speeds and lowered their prices. Almost as if they could have been doing that anyways... Competition is nice. If it's attainable. It's not in this sector.

Hell... Even the government has a hard time invading the incumbent ISP's territory.

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2017/11/04/fort-collins-broadband-election-spendin/830467001/

The ISP's need government regulation for the common good. If you can't see that then you are hopelessly blind.

[mrsleeve]

You're operating under the assumption that there is competition in the marketplace. There is not. I'd be fine with going back to Title 1 classification if the ISP's weren't already monopolies with a history of abusing that status and acting in anti-competitive manners. Just look at how hard it's been for Google to get started up, and the municipalities who have attempted to start their own ISP's. The telecoms have been suing and blocking at every turn. A long history of anti-competition. It's what forced Wheeler to implement Title 2 regulation.

The telecoms have already failed to fulfill their promises of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and have been robbing the tax-payers blind collecting fees for infrastructure build-out that they never bothered doing. We are all supposed to have fiber to the home. The infrastructure was promised by 2005.

As much as government intervention usually is a bad thing... there are certain industries where it is absolutely vital in order to protect the public. Internet connectivity/delivery is one of them.

You have valid points I dont disagree to a certain extent and a title I classification would be a step in a better direction IMO. All that said, haow about some alternate perspective to some of your "assumptions" and also why the govt steeping in and killing any incentive to actually try to compete.

Net Neutrality actually took away any incentive for service providers to run broadband connections to remote/rural locations. Because in most cases it costs more to run and maintain than revpenue it generates (thats why EVERYONE pays a fee that helped pay to run phone service to remote area a service which costs far less money to provide).......broadband would be even more costly by a very large margin.

So who would benefit from this at the carriers expense? Places like Amazon, Net Flix etc....while the ISPs who spend all the money to provide the infrastructure lose money. Allowing the carriers to better manage bandwidth allows them to provide better service to those current existing customers.

Telecom infrastructure is FUCKING expensive, especially fiber. The fewer subscribers per mile the less revenue to recover on that cost of hardware and installation . Thats exactly why you see better higher bandwidth service in densely populated areas. Existing copper has finite bandwidth capacity (like you find in remote areas that have not had large amounts of development that would have required large upgrades. Replacing copper with fiber carries not only the high cost to string on the poles or trench/plow/bore it in ..but also the equipment that is associated with it at every stage of the game form install to general up keep and maintenance.


True its all being replaced as required when the equipment and lines approach end of life...but thats also why the remote areas are the last to see this sort of stuff. No carrier has the capital to throw at major upgrades that take YEARS and couple hundred billion to get accomplished when you consider how many millions of miles of cable thats out there...both above and below ground.


I live in one of those areas, where our DSL in front of my house is 85 a month for 1.5mbs Down 0.5 up. Thats IF and i stress highly IF you can get off the waiting list and get a service slot. We have to use satellite ISP at 130 a month for 50gb. I am all for some competition maybe the smaller local outfit will start to better serve my house

[roguetoaster]

I wonder how cheap it would be just for porn and r3v..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So expensive that we might have to go back to relying on actual printed media, imagination or even worse, leering at actual human beings.

Talking about r3v of course, no idea what the first thing is.

[MrBurgundy]

I wonder how cheap it would be just for porn and r3v..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schnitzer318is]

Net neutrality' is like 'the patriot act'. The title designed to deceive.

If you were to go to the olympics as an athlete and government tells everyone to run the same speed...

-Then there is no reason to train in the off season.
-there is no reason to sponsor.
-there is no reason to go.

When there is no competition........ there is no winner. No winner means we all lose.

Yes I know its an old article but still relevant....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshste.../#5ec7080170d5

You're operating under the assumption that there is competition in the marketplace. There is not. I'd be fine with going back to Title 1 classification if the ISP's weren't already monopolies with a history of abusing that status and acting in anti-competitive manners. Just look at how hard it's been for Google to get started up, and the municipalities who have attempted to start their own ISP's. The telecoms have been suing and blocking at every turn. A long history of anti-competition. It's what forced Wheeler to implement Title 2 regulation.

The telecoms have already failed to fulfill their promises of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and have been robbing the tax-payers blind collecting fees for infrastructure build-out that they never bothered doing. We are all supposed to have fiber to the home. The infrastructure was promised by 2005.

As much as government intervention usually is a bad thing... there are certain industries where it is absolutely vital in order to protect the public. Internet connectivity/delivery is one of them.

[decay]

Net neutrality' is like 'the patriot act'. The title designed to deceive.

If you were to go to the olympics as an athlete and government tells everyone to run the same speed...

-Then there is no reason to train in the off season.
-there is no reason to sponsor.
-there is no reason to go.

When there is no competition........ there is no winner. No winner means we all lose.

Yes I know its an old article but still relevant....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshste.../#5ec7080170d5

so the author spends 3 pages arguing against government control and then ends on this note:

Pai claims this regulation will give "the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works."

net neutrality has nothing to do with market competition. i don't think you understand the issue at hand here.

[MrBurgundy]

it's a corporate giveaway.

[mrsleeve]

Net neutrality' is like 'the patriot act'. The title designed to deceive.

If you were to go to the olympics as an athlete and government tells everyone to run the same speed...

-Then there is no reason to train in the off season.
-there is no reason to sponsor.
-there is no reason to go.

When there is no competition........ there is no winner. No winner means we all lose.

Yes I know its an old article but still relevant....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshste.../#5ec7080170d5

[Schnitzer318is]

^While I wish that were true... there might still be some of middle America that believes in him. Shoot they almost have to in order to justify the original vote. His supporters are pretty die-hard and tend to believe anything he or Fox puts out there.

One thing should be painfully obvious by now though, and net-neutrality dying is just another example, Trump is not in office for the middle class, the poor, or even the upper-middle class. He is there for himself, the upper-upper class, and the corporations. He's helping them get richer and they love it. Just watch the market... it's crazy.

[Massive Lee]

At the end of the days its still TRUMP 2020

Definitely not at the speed he's currently going down... And not at the rate he accomplishes "things" which is so far close to nothing...
Worst approval rating ever... Mid 30 %? Bad. very bad. Believe me. Trump's a loser. The biggest loser. (His own words)

Even Alabama doesn't believe in him. Nor the Republican party. He's done. He won't go past 2018... He's basically only supported by Evangelicals, KKK and neo-Nazis. And George of course... ;-)