FCC Passes Net Neutrality

[GowerND11]

One of my biggest problems, which others have mentioned, is that these corporations claim they are losing WAY too much money by not charging the likes of Netflix, yet they refuse to update the "pipes." Google fiber has been around for how long, and yet how is the implementation going? How is is that countries like Latvia (I believe) have faster internet service than us? I have a hard time siding with them...

I don't claim to know much of this, but I feel that net neutrality is good for us.

 

[MJ12666]

Unfortunately I need to work during the day and cannot participate in the lively debate on this issue. With all do respect to the previous post, the three major service providers spent the following on their infrastructure based on their most recent 10-K's:

T $21.2 Billion (2014)
VZ - $17.2 Billion (2014)
CMCSA - $8.5B (2013)

These are a big infrastructure investments for which these companies are now forfeiting control over based on the FCC's new regulation.

Additionally, it is a misnomer that these companies are monopolies. In all reasonably populated areas you can obtain internet access via a cable operator, telephone company, or via a satellite service provider.

Historically utilities lead to less investment, less innovation, and ultimately higher prices for the service provided.

 

[Irish YJ]

Unfortunately I need to work during the day and cannot participate in the lively debate on this issue. With all do respect to the previous post, the three major service providers spent the following on their infrastructure based on their most recent 10-K's:

T $21.2 Billion (2014)
VZ - $17.2 Billion (2014)
CMCSA - $8.5B (2013)

These are a big infrastructure investments for which these companies are now forfeiting control over based on the FCC's new regulation.

Additionally, it is a misnomer that these companies are monopolies. In all reasonably populated areas you can obtain internet access via a cable operator, telephone company, or via a satellite service provider.

Historically utilities lead to less investment, less innovation, and ultimately higher prices for the service provided.

Is the above investment residential only, or is commercial (core backbone for things like business Ts, Ethernet, and other types of business class transport) included? Also, does that figure take into account the subsidies and tax breaks? Does it take into account the little charges we all see added on to our bills for infrastructure.

It may be a bit of a misnomer, but saying that satellite is viable options these days is misleading. In the context of topics like Netflix streams, pretty irrelevant.

IMO, the real rub comes when a transport provider or ISP wants to get into the content business. In the case of Uverse for instance, they advertise XX download speeds, but won't guarantee. Furthermore, they don't advertise that the bandwidth advertised is utilized to deliver their content (cable TV), and diminishes the customers ability to stream other content.

PS, worked for T for 16 years, and work in technology now delivering large multisite, multi-technology solutions. In the business space, you don't see the carriers that provide the pipe, trying to charge other content/solution providers extra (video conf, VoIP, cloud services).

Major metros yes, but I didn't have a real choice until 2 years ago, and I live on the perimeter of Atlanta.

 

[woolybug25]

Unfortunately I need to work during the day and cannot participate in the lively debate on this issue. With all do respect to the previous post, the three major service providers spent the following on their infrastructure based on their most recent 10-K's:

T $21.2 Billion (2014)
VZ - $17.2 Billion (2014)
CMCSA - $8.5B (2013)

These are a big infrastructure investments for which these companies are now forfeiting control over based on the FCC's new regulation.

Additionally, it is a misnomer that these companies are monopolies. In all reasonably populated areas you can obtain internet access via a cable operator, telephone company, or via a satellite service provider.

Historically utilities lead to less investment, less innovation, and ultimately higher prices for the service provided.

Go look at the tax incentives given to these companies. Their cap ex is actually a net benefit because they get to add the assets to their balance sheets (and corresponding depreciation) without having it effect their bottom line.

Furthermore, billions aren't as big when you consider our countries cable infrastructure is measured in trillions.

 

[Grahambo]

Go look at the tax incentives given to these companies. Their cap ex is actually a net benefit because they get to add the assets to their balance sheets (and corresponding depreciation) without having it effect their bottom line.

Furthermore, billions aren't as big when you consider our countries cable infrastructure is measured in trillions.

I have that same problem.

 

[Irish#1]

Just get your Netflix on a DVD via USPS. Problem solved!

 

[ACamp1900]

Unfortunately I need to work during the day and cannot participate in the lively debate on this issue.

People still do that??...

 

[Guest]

I am doing consulting work for a telecom, and we just had this debate today at work. I used to work for Verizon so have quite a bit of telecom experience.

There are some realities to networks that people need to understand. It is a very capital intensive business, and the US is a very large country. The facts stands that over the last 100 years, telecoms cannot create true competition because the cost of building identical broadband networks across large geographical land spaces exceeds the revenue consumers are willing to pay for that competition.

You cannot argue telecom is like software. Apple and Microsoft compete with each other by building once (often in cheap labor countries) and distributing many times. In telecom, you build a physical network infrastructure that cannot be duplicated many times like software can. Therefore, every node of expansion costs as much as the first.

And not only that, but you then have to maintain the network over time, all of which have finite lives. So after spending billions in CAPEX, you spend billions in OPEX maintaining what you have built. Not expanding or improving, but just maintaining.

That is why most people don't have true competition for network or broadband services in there area. Consumers don't buy enough of it to make competition in this CAPEX and OPEX business viable in most areas.

Case in point: Verizon just sold it's wireline assets in CA, TX, and FL. Those are 3 huge states, but they competed against AT&T in those states and lost. AT&T was the incumbent and had more customers. Frontier, whom purchased those assets from Verizon, now runs Verizon's old networks, including FiOS there. The last time Frontier purchases those assets from the big telcos, they lost money. Why? If you are not the dominant player in a market, the cost of running those networks exceeds your revenues.

For example, Verizon spent $20 billion last year to maintain/upgrade their existing networks, which is more profit than they made all of last year. Most telecoms and cable providers spent handsomely on their networks each year, much more than their take home profits. Yet, people still claim they are greedy and are somehow intentionally gouging customers while not expanding their networks to more people.

In fact, almost all of VZ and AT&T's profits come from WIRELESS, and not wireline which provides you your broadband internet and TV. The wireline business is not that profitable anymore for companies seeking to provide broadband solutions

The REALITY for the last 100 years in telecom is that true competition in each area cannot exist due to the costs of the business model. Net neutrality legislation cannot solve this problem. You cannot solve this business problem with the stroke of a pen and just wishing it were so.

As far as Netflix goes, the major issue with Netflix speeds over Verizon was due to a bad CDN (content delivery network) that interfaces Netflix data centers with VZ networks. Netflix blamed Verizon, but in fact, Netflix simply chose a bad partner.

Most people think Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. interface directly on the internet backbone, which is not true. Most of the issues with content delivery had to do with Netflix wanting someone else to pay for their data. Netflix should pay because they are using more of the bandwidth similar to a consumer should pay more for gas who drives more and uses more of a LIMITED RESOURCE requiring extensive amounts of investment to increase each unit of that resource. Net neutrality does nothing to solve this problem. Netflix and VZ had already worked out a deal and the government never needed to get involved in the first place.

The last thing I wanted to mention is that the ISPs work hand in hand in the background to provide you your network broadband video and Internet. In reality, when Verizon needs to rent bandwidth for a wireless customer, they pay the incumbent carrier in that town for the circuit turn up. Same for AT&T, Centurylink, Comcast, etc.. The fact is that every telco is a customer of every other one. They work together to provide the national Internet. Each telco has an incentive to work together in areas to provide service because they make a profit from each other for doing so. This is the capitalist version of solving a problem without requiring legislation. Net neutrality will do nothing to solve this business issue. The businesses have already done this themselves and did not need the government.

We did not need net neutrality legislation because the problems that can be solved by business already have. And the problem that the government wants to solve has no practical solution, or it would have been implemented already by companies who want more of your business.

 

[Huntr]

I pay X amount of money /month for Y data rate.

Net neutrality makes sure I get what I pay for.

End of story.

 

[dshans]

Comcast can bend me over for 50,000.... Now how's that for free markets bitches....

I suspect that there's an old joke at play here – "... now we're just negotiating the price."

Is there a comma missing or are you just clearly stating your position?

 

[MNIrishman]

Best cell phone service in the world is in Communist China #全世界无产者，联合起来！#jussayin #notactuallyacommybutenjoyaddingfueltothefire

 

[dales5050]

Additionally, it is a misnomer that these companies are monopolies. In all reasonably populated areas you can obtain internet access via a cable operator, telephone company, or via a satellite service provider.

There is a bit of a reach here.

First, one of the better changes that was made was what can be called broadband. Currently, companies like AT&T and Verizon want to call 4Mbps down broadband. That's comical.

Second, suggesting that people have options between cable, phone and satellite as a way to counter the ideas of a monopoly is a reach. That's like saying people have options in heating their home between electric and wood. They both provide heat but they are not the same.

The FCC reached a little bit here and frankly this could have been avoided if local municipalities would have not locked in the market for competitors. Competition is all that's needed for innovation. Charlotte, where I now live, is proof of this.

Within the last year Google Fiber has announced it's coming to Charlotte. That's 1000down/1000up service. In that same time, AT&T announces it's going to offer 300down soon. However, the biggest change is without much public announcements TWC went and pushed an update that provides subscribers that were previously at 50down now 100down. The moves by AT&T and TWC are because of Google. There is no other way around it.

But the unspoken issue here is the fact that internet providers are one in the same with cable providers. That's the issue.

The reason why cable companies do not want to provide higher speeds is because the faster the internet gets the more obsolete their cable operations become. We live in a platform agnostic world right now and the only barrier to true innovation is speed of connection.

When I lived in San Diego I had an ISP that provided synchronous 100down and 100up speeds. Notice the up speed. THAT IS THE KEY.

Right now media companies are in control of broadcasting. Users, by and large, pull down content and you don't need much speed to pull down. A home running 30down can power multiple users making connections to streaming sites like Netflix and the internet at the same time w/o issue.

However, those homes can not push up media. Uploading or broadcasting at 5Mbps is slow. When you get a service like Google Fiber, that goes to 1GB. Think about that a second.

What does this mean? In the short term it means illegal torrents. Those are based on ratio of upload v. download. So if you have 50down and 5up, it's going to take you in theory 10times longer to share that file than it took you to download it. The goal with torrents is to have an equal ratio of down v. up. So it slows users ability to download. When you move to synchronous speeds, it takes in theory the same time to download as it does to upload. So there is no delay. That's what scares the big companies now.

What scares them about the future is if we lived in a world were every home could broadcast their own personal content at 1GB up, you could again IN THEORY, create a peer to peer network of personal users sharing media. Let that sink in after you read your cable bill.

 

[Guest]

I pay X amount of money /month for Y data rate.

Net neutrality makes sure I get what I pay for.

End of story.

Sure it does. But your network necessarily becomes slower in order to do that.

The average joe doesn't understand how networking works. The Internet's 20 year run of innovation was built on advancements in sharing the backbone data in real time using advanced routing algorithms. Without it, you cannot stream movies to your phone or home computer.

The old, slower networks used dedicated circuits that guaranteed bandwidth 24/7. But they cost so much, only a few people could afford them. Most people had dialup Internet, and if you could afford ISDN, then you had to be rich.

The reality is that most people only use a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay for at a given point in time, which allows sharing of the network. This is also how companies get their network connections.

If you force ISPs to guarantee you fixed bandwidth even when you are away from home and not using it, you just guaranteed yourself a slower pipe. This means less access to streaming video, skype, Facetime, youtube, Pandora, etc..

This is simply a fact of networking and how the Internet was built. Net neutrality is the antithesis of how the Internet actually works. And therefore why people who actually understand networks are almost universally aligned against it

Sorry to say this, but your ignorance of network technologies has led you to a conclusion that will slow your service and increase your rates, all in the name of fighting companies who you thought screwed you, but actually increased your quality of life substantially with their innovations.

Your sentiment, while understandable, is misplaced.

If anyone wants to know what net neutrality will look like in the USA, go look at the heavily regulated European ISPs. Their Internet, by the way, sucks compare to the US.

 

[Guest]

There is a bit of a reach here.

First, one of the better changes that was made was what can be called broadband. Currently, companies like AT&T and Verizon want to call 4Mbps down broadband. That's comical.

Second, suggesting that people have options between cable, phone and satellite as a way to counter the ideas of a monopoly is a reach. That's like saying people have options in heating their home between electric and wood. They both provide heat but they are not the same.

The FCC reached a little bit here and frankly this could have been avoided if local municipalities would have not locked in the market for competitors. Competition is all that's needed for innovation. Charlotte, where I now live, is proof of this.

Within the last year Google Fiber has announced it's coming to Charlotte. That's 1000down/1000up service. In that same time, AT&T announces it's going to offer 300down soon. However, the biggest change is without much public announcements TWC went and pushed an update that provides subscribers that were previously at 50down now 100down. The moves by AT&T and TWC are because of Google. There is no other way around it.

But the unspoken issue here is the fact that internet providers are one in the same with cable providers. That's the issue.

The reason why cable companies do not want to provide higher speeds is because the faster the internet gets the more obsolete their cable operations become. We live in a platform agnostic world right now and the only barrier to true innovation is speed of connection.

When I lived in San Diego I had an ISP that provided synchronous 100down and 100up speeds. Notice the up speed. THAT IS THE KEY.

Right now media companies are in control of broadcasting. Users, by and large, pull down content and you don't need much speed to pull down. A home running 30down can power multiple users making connections to streaming sites like Netflix and the internet at the same time w/o issue.

However, those homes can not push up media. Uploading or broadcasting at 5Mbps is slow. When you get a service like Google Fiber, that goes to 1GB. Think about that a second.

What does this mean? In the short term it means illegal torrents. Those are based on ratio of upload v. download. So if you have 50down and 5up, it's going to take you in theory 10times longer to share that file than it took you to download it. The goal with torrents is to have an equal ratio of down v. up. So it slows users ability to download. When you move to synchronous speeds, it takes in theory the same time to download as it does to upload. So there is no delay. That's what scares the big companies now.

What scares them about the future is if we lived in a world were every home could broadcast their own personal content at 1GB up, you could again IN THEORY, create a peer to peer network of personal users sharing media. Let that sink in after you read your cable bill.

Your entire argument is invalidated by the fact that if you want true competition in every market, you have to build multiple networks each costing billions of dollars. Voila, your Internet bill tripled, all in the name of competition.

And in that situation, most of the bandwidth would sit there unused. And you cannot tax your way into laying fiber; it cost too damn much. Layer copper for a single phone line is one thing. Laying fiber to stream 4k is entirely another. The cost structures are not even remotely the same.

The only reason why we have cheap internet today is the fact that all of the fiber is shared. The engineers figured out a way to automatically route traffic in an efficient manner over existing infrastructure. If net neutrality had existed 20 years ago, NONE of you would be able to stream Netflix. Streaming video wouldn't even be available now because of all the dedicated network circuits that would take decades to install, costing consumers billions of dollars, before you could ever setup a streaming video service.

And oh by the way, Google's network strategy is identical to Verizon's in one key area. Google does not lay fiber to every house, only to those who sign up to pay for it. Google has already stated they know they cannot connect every home in a region and thus were only going to wire where there was demand. Net neutrality will likely kill Google's fiber business plan.

 

[connor_in]

 

[wizards8507]

Where's Bogs... Paging Bogs!

Suddenly, net neutrality doesn't look so great for 5G | PCWorld

Then again, this is probably just right-wing spin from that bastion of conservatism, PCWorld.

 

[dales5050]

Your entire argument is invalidated by the fact that if you want true competition in every market, you have to build multiple networks each costing billions of dollars. Voila, your Internet bill tripled, all in the name of competition.

False. Incorrect. Wrong.

Look up a company called WebPass. Here is the link https://webpass.net/. They were my provider in San Diego. They cover San Francisco Bay Area, Miami, San Diego and Chicago and they have not invested Billions.

And in that situation, most of the bandwidth would sit there unused. And you cannot tax your way into laying fiber; it cost too damn much. Layer copper for a single phone line is one thing. Laying fiber to stream 4k is entirely another. The cost structures are not even remotely the same.

It's a matter of seeing the whole picture...which you don't.

The internet is in it's infancy right now. We have no idea just what that resource can and will power in 20 to 30 to 50 years from now.

Your comment is similar to someone saying why do we need a power plant in 1920. All that requires power is a couple of lamps. While I am unable to find historical data on power consumption by year in the US, this graph does illustarate my point:

<a href="http://imgur.com/LOdmuCw"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/LOdmuCw.gif" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

See how the developing nations use less power than others? That's because we have more stuff to power. The same can be said for bandwidth.

I really don't think you're even trying to grasp just what innovation is on the edge of becoming true and in turn how will it be run.

The only reason why we have cheap internet today is the fact that all of the fiber is shared. The engineers figured out a way to automatically route traffic in an efficient manner over existing infrastructure. If net neutrality had existed 20 years ago, NONE of you would be able to stream Netflix. Streaming video wouldn't even be available now because of all the dedicated network circuits that would take decades to install, costing consumers billions of dollars, before you could ever setup a streaming video service.

We have cheap internet?

<a href="http://imgur.com/fjGWGIf"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/fjGWGIf.gif" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

You're last part about suggesting if we had Net Neutrality 20 years ago Netflix would not exist is pretty damn comical. Netflix, while an executive came out saying the FCC reached a bit on this (which I also echoed in my first post on the topic) they still stand behind the view that something needed to be done. They simply wanted an unregulated solution.

Sadly, the ignorance of many and the corruption of government forced the over the top reach by the FCC.

And oh by the way, Google's network strategy is identical to Verizon's in one key area. Google does not lay fiber to every house, only to those who sign up to pay for it. Google has already stated they know they cannot connect every home in a region and thus were only going to wire where there was demand. Net neutrality will likely kill Google's fiber business plan.

While it's true that Google will only go into areas where they tip the scale, to suggest NN is going to kill their fiber plan is a pretty bold statement.

Look, I don't know who you are, what you do and who you work for and you can say the same for me but I do follow the voices in this debate. The technical voices in favor of NN is undeniable and that's who I trust. I am not talking about Obama and his minons and I am not even talking about the large corporations like Google and Netflix. I am talking about the Open Source community, which are the true stewards of the internet and technology.

Lastly, and again, this is all just in it's infancy. To put it bluntly, any view on the issue of NN that does not weigh heavily on the FUTURE is one of ignorance and lacking perspective in my honest opinion.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Where's Bogs... Paging Bogs!

Suddenly, net neutrality doesn't look so great for 5G | PCWorld

Then again, this is probably just right-wing spin from that bastion of conservatism, PCWorld.

Today, all traffic is defined as either broadband or not, he said. “Our treatment of traffic is not smart enough to support all the business models,” Lee said.

(from your own article.)

Sorry if you didn't get it from my previous post, [this shiit is all smoke and mirrors].

There have been all kinds of great points made about xyz technology, specific capabilities and more. All which is true in each specified context.

But no matter how you beat a dead horse, Nikola Tesla demonstrated a working model of transmitting electrical energy and information, through the earth to be received anywhere in the globe. That is when big money funding dried up for the inventor.

Two Americans shared a Nobel Prize a few years ago for one small feat. They found a way to produce blue wavelength LED light, completing the spectrum, making for future, low cost, lighting. The ratio of light emitted for energy used with LED is off the charts of all previous lighting. Many experts have calculated this revolution in low cost lighting will have a greater affect on the world-wide length and comfort of human life that penicillin or the vaccine for polio. We shall see.

The point is, answers to real solvable technical, and social issues often come from a different direction that standard thinking and technology. For example, there is math out their that could really supercharge the effectiveness of the Internet, independent of conversations about traditional Internet configuration or infrastructure. For example, algorithmic reduction (including network transitivity through analysis of a clustering coefficient.)

Certain aspects intended for new generation IP would have made this a killer combo for directing traffic to specifically where it needs to be, (no one yet has adequately addressed the amount of unused or redundant transmissions based upon current protocols, or current math.) Why wasn't it enacted? Not even the old truism of not being able to pay for it is or was the problem; the bottom line reason (cutting through all the b.s), is that companies who purchased Class A (principally) and Class B licenses, (under the current generation protocol configuration), didn't feel they got their money's worth!

So to answer your passive aggressive barb, Wiz, I am certainly not a "conservative", as I am not a "liberal." I am a possiblest. To finish I will ask this question.

When in history has a solution been provided by an "agenda", or a "faction", as opposed to someone with an independent thought outside the static argument that led to the problem?

 

[Huntr]

Sure it does. But your network necessarily becomes slower in order to do that.

The average joe doesn't understand how networking works. The Internet's 20 year run of innovation was built on advancements in sharing the backbone data in real time using advanced routing algorithms. Without it, you cannot stream movies to your phone or home computer.

The old, slower networks used dedicated circuits that guaranteed bandwidth 24/7. But they cost so much, only a few people could afford them. Most people had dialup Internet, and if you could afford ISDN, then you had to be rich.

The reality is that most people only use a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay for at a given point in time, which allows sharing of the network. This is also how companies get their network connections.

If you force ISPs to guarantee you fixed bandwidth even when you are away from home and not using it, you just guaranteed yourself a slower pipe. This means less access to streaming video, skype, Facetime, youtube, Pandora, etc..

This is simply a fact of networking and how the Internet was built. Net neutrality is the antithesis of how the Internet actually works. And therefore why people who actually understand networks are almost universally aligned against it

Sorry to say this, but your ignorance of network technologies has led you to a conclusion that will slow your service and increase your rates, all in the name of fighting companies who you thought screwed you, but actually increased your quality of life substantially with their innovations.

Your sentiment, while understandable, is misplaced.

If anyone wants to know what net neutrality will look like in the USA, go look at the heavily regulated European ISPs. Their Internet, by the way, sucks compare to the US.

Cry me a fuckin river.

I paid for it, they better deliver.

 

[dales5050]

If anyone wants to know what net neutrality will look like in the USA, go look at the heavily regulated European ISPs. Their Internet, by the way, sucks compare to the US.

Heh. Would love for you to back this up. I can back up the opposite with an actual study.

Next Generation Connectivity

From page 81 of the study

<a href="http://imgur.com/FZt6M2g"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/FZt6M2g.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

I guess you have a different understanding of geography than most and can't seem to find the 13 European nations in the top 15. All of which are ahead of the US.

Starting to think you're either a minion or a fool. Not sure which yet.

 

[ND NYC]

Huntr (and others):

this link will show you if you are truly getting what you pay for. shows your actual upload and download rates.

I took the test from home (snow!):

I got:
23 MBPS download speed
17 MBPS upload speed

curious how others look, take the test and report your findings. is it what you provider promises you?


Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test

 

[Guest]

False. Incorrect. Wrong.

Look up a company called WebPass. Here is the link https://webpass.net/. They were my provider in San Diego. They cover San Francisco Bay Area, Miami, San Diego and Chicago and they have not invested Billions.




It's a matter of seeing the whole picture...which you don't.

The internet is in it's infancy right now. We have no idea just what that resource can and will power in 20 to 30 to 50 years from now.

Your comment is similar to someone saying why do we need a power plant in 1920. All that requires power is a couple of lamps. While I am unable to find historical data on power consumption by year in the US, this graph does illustarate my point:



See how the developing nations use less power than others? That's because we have more stuff to power. The same can be said for bandwidth.

I really don't think you're even trying to grasp just what innovation is on the edge of becoming true and in turn how will it be run.



We have cheap internet?



You're last part about suggesting if we had Net Neutrality 20 years ago Netflix would not exist is pretty damn comical. Netflix, while an executive came out saying the FCC reached a bit on this (which I also echoed in my first post on the topic) they still stand behind the view that something needed to be done. They simply wanted an unregulated solution.

Sadly, the ignorance of many and the corruption of government forced the over the top reach by the FCC.




While it's true that Google will only go into areas where they tip the scale, to suggest NN is going to kill their fiber plan is a pretty bold statement.

Look, I don't know who you are, what you do and who you work for and you can say the same for me but I do follow the voices in this debate. The technical voices in favor of NN is undeniable and that's who I trust. I am not talking about Obama and his minons and I am not even talking about the large corporations like Google and Netflix. I am talking about the Open Source community, which are the true stewards of the internet and technology.

Lastly, and again, this is all just in it's infancy. To put it bluntly, any view on the issue of NN that does not weigh heavily on the FUTURE is one of ignorance and lacking perspective in my honest opinion.

Your example of Webpass doesn't work when scaled across the country. What do you call that, straw man example?

As a matter of fact, any small network can be sustained. Google, for example, uses this strategy in their fiber rollouts as does Verizon with FiOS.

Then you claim I don't see the whole picture. It's obvious the opposite is true. You tried to cherry pick an example that only proved my argument and did not support yours.

Also, it is laughable that you consider my opinion ignorant when I have time in the industry and you don't. It is also laughable that I have college time in networking and a leading industry certification, you don't, and you claim I make an ignorant remark.

You are making a philosophical point with no basis in reality other than what you wish to be true. It is you that is ignorant on the details of the networking industry.

The reason Verizon sold TX, CA, and FL networks was because they knew NN was coming. They dumped a network which was not going to be profitable when forced to build out. The fact is, customers who didn't already purchase FiOS were going to get a subsidized rate that would encourage them to buy it but force VZ to lose money. That is why VZ and AT&T sold huge swaths of their network to Frontier. That is why Frontier, who does not have the capital base nor experience, is not going to be able to improve those networks to offer better speeds. They will lose money trying and as a result, the network will deteriorate over time.

 

[Guest]

Heh. Would love for you to back this up. I can back up the opposite with an actual study.

Next Generation Connectivity

From page 81 of the study

<a href="http://imgur.com/FZt6M2g"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/FZt6M2g.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>

I guess you have a different understanding of geography than most and can't seem to find the 13 European nations in the top 15. All of which are ahead of the US.

Starting to think you're either a minion or a fool. Not sure which yet.

The first 13 countries on that list have lower penetration rates than the US. MEANING, they can sustain a higher speed for MUCH LESS of the population.

Thanks for PROVING MY POINT, EINSTEIN. That is what I have been saying all along. Yes you can build fast small networks, but scaling that is very difficult. To my knowledge, it has never been done. In fact, both Verizon and Google said they couldn't and won't

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The first 13 countries on that list have lower penetration rates than the US. MEANING, they can sustain a higher speed for MUCH LESS of the population.

Thanks for PROVING MY POINT, EINSTEIN. That is what I have been saying all along. Yes you can build fast small networks, but scaling that is very difficult. To my knowledge, it has never been done.

The numbers on that chart represent rank. The only countries ranked ahead of us with lower penetration are Italy and Portugal.

 

[Guest]

(from your own article.)

Sorry if you didn't get it from my previous post, [this shiit is all smoke and mirrors].

There have been all kinds of great points made about xyz technology, specific capabilities and more. All which is true in each specified context.

But no matter how you beat a dead horse, Nikola Tesla demonstrated a working model of transmitting electrical energy and information, through the earth to be received anywhere in the globe. That is when big money funding dried up for the inventor.

Two Americans shared a Nobel Prize a few years ago for one small feat. They found a way to produce blue wavelength LED light, completing the spectrum, making for future, low cost, lighting. The ratio of light emitted for energy used with LED is off the charts of all previous lighting. Many experts have calculated this revolution in low cost lighting will have a greater affect on the world-wide length and comfort of human life that penicillin or the vaccine for polio. We shall see.

The point is, answers to real solvable technical, and social issues often come from a different direction that standard thinking and technology. For example, there is math out their that could really supercharge the effectiveness of the Internet, independent of conversations about traditional Internet configuration or infrastructure. For example, algorithmic reduction (including network transitivity through analysis of a clustering coefficient.)

Certain aspects intended for new generation IP would have made this a killer combo for directing traffic to specifically where it needs to be, (no one yet has adequately addressed the amount of unused or redundant transmissions based upon current protocols, or current math.) Why wasn't it enacted? Not even the old truism of not being able to pay for it is or was the problem; the bottom line reason (cutting through all the b.s), is that companies who purchased Class A (principally) and Class B licenses, (under the current generation protocol configuration), didn't feel they got their money's worth!

So to answer your passive aggressive barb, Wiz, I am certainly not a "conservative", as I am not a "liberal." I am a possiblest. To finish I will ask this question.

When in history has a solution been provided by an "agenda", or a "faction", as opposed to someone with an independent thought outside the static argument that led to the problem?

Rumors have swirled since Tesla's death that his inventions would have modernized mankind much faster if allowed to see the light of day. It is also rumored that JP Morgan purchased his research papers upon death and has never shared it with the public.

I have no idea whether that is true, just relaying a story I have read/heard several times in historical biographies about him.

 

[Guest]

The numbers on that chart represent rank. The only countries ranked ahead of us with lower penetration are Italy and Portugal.

Thanks for catching that. I should amend my argument to say that their quality is better the last 10 years, but they don't have the geography that the US has to cope with either. It used to be that the quality of European networks sucked, but I guess that has changes since I was last there.

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?

After reading this story, Europe forced sharing of networks among competitors which brought the prices down. That may work in US cities, but I doubt it would work between them and in the rural areas. Interesting.

 

[Huntr]

Huntr (and others):

this link will show you if you are truly getting what you pay for. shows your actual upload and download rates.

I took the test from home (snow!):

I got:
23 MBPS download speed
17 MBPS upload speed

curious how others look, take the test and report your findings. is it what you provider promises you?


Speedtest.net by Ookla - The Global Broadband Speed Test

 

[Irish#1]

Sure it does. But your network necessarily becomes slower in order to do that.

The average joe doesn't understand how networking works. The Internet's 20 year run of innovation was built on advancements in sharing the backbone data in real time using advanced routing algorithms. Without it, you cannot stream movies to your phone or home computer.

The old, slower networks used dedicated circuits that guaranteed bandwidth 24/7. But they cost so much, only a few people could afford them. Most people had dialup Internet, and if you could afford ISDN, then you had to be rich.

The reality is that most people only use a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay for at a given point in time, which allows sharing of the network. This is also how companies get their network connections.

If you force ISPs to guarantee you fixed bandwidth even when you are away from home and not using it, you just guaranteed yourself a slower pipe. This means less access to streaming video, skype, Facetime, youtube, Pandora, etc..

This is simply a fact of networking and how the Internet was built. Net neutrality is the antithesis of how the Internet actually works. And therefore why people who actually understand networks are almost universally aligned against it

Sorry to say this, but your ignorance of network technologies has led you to a conclusion that will slow your service and increase your rates, all in the name of fighting companies who you thought screwed you, but actually increased your quality of life substantially with their innovations.

Your sentiment, while understandable, is misplaced.

If anyone wants to know what net neutrality will look like in the USA, go look at the heavily regulated European ISPs. Their Internet, by the way, sucks compare to the US.

Spot on.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Thanks for catching that. I should amend my argument to say that their quality is better the last 10 years, but they don't have the geography that the US has to cope with either. It used to be that the quality of European networks sucked, but I guess that has changes since I was last there.

BBC News - Why is broadband more expensive in the US?

After reading this story, Europe forced sharing of networks among competitors which brought the prices down. That may work in US cities, but I doubt it would work between them and in the rural areas. Interesting.

A couple pages back, I argued that-- given the massive expense of building and maintaining infrastructure-- the only options are: (1) to nationalize the network and force carriers to compete on service alone (as most of Europe has done); or (2) to regulate them like public utilities so they don't dick over their customers.

The FCC opted for (2). Most of the dissent in this thread has come from those advocating a mythical libertarian 3rd option, in which the massive barriers to entry in this market magically cease to exist following deregulation, competition thrives, and everyone uses their now bountiful bandwidth to illegally pirate Atlas Shrugged.