Net Neutrality and Sling TV

[Thunder Good-Oil]

EPB runs in to the At&t head end how you think they little epb gets across the nation? The Government made at&t give them access to there internet.

I think that the NN rules were related to the ISP part of AT&T. I don't know if NN applied to the interstate carriers of internet traffic like Level 3 and that division of AT&T. Some form of government oversight is probably still necessary for many of the big pipes running region to region.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

No. But if Volnation.com (for example) isn't favored by Comcast once they get the right to determine which sites get faster internet speeds and which don't, then I probably won't be visiting this site very often if the connection speeds are similar to the dial-up era.

The issue here is that the telecom companies will decide the winners and losers when it comes to which internet sites get fast connection speeds and which get slowed down. And yes, without net neutrality, some sites will end up becoming slower than they are right now.

Like I said earlier, the analogy my professor used is the best way to think about it. This new preferred fast lane isn't just gonna be allowed to go faster, they're gonna have to make the other lanes slower. Because remember the issue here isn't new technology making speeds faster. Its the telecom companies basically deciding to redistribute the internet. Instead of every site being the same speed, the telecom company will decide which sites they'll make faster and which they'll make slower.

Then the NN rules that are being blown out are a bigger problem than the concept. I'm assuming that the transparency restriction on which sites get throttled will restrict abuse by the ISPs. As long as there are other options, then giving preferential treatment to their own services over competitors is reasonable as well.

ISPs aren't going to place an unreasonable charge on small start up content creators. ISPs are not going to lose focus on growing their businesses over censorship abuse. ISPs will forge partnerships with big content and both sides will profit more from a larger subscriber base. Netflix is kind of an anomaly (and IMO an unsustainable business model) by foregoing advertising revenue. ISPs and big content (Google, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, Discovery, the networks, etc) all benefit from higher subscriber numbers and those numbers would shrink if they piss off those customers by restricting the access in some form. It's bad business to place limits on customer access to content and additional government interference isn't currently necessary and probably never will be necessary.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

LMAO. Nope, I didn't present the moronic argument that my professor said the internet was like some fantasy highway where nobody gets to pay more to move at faster speeds. I have actually ran businesses in the "fantasy" free market for the last 30 plus yrs and lead one thru a deregulation phase. Trust me, the consumers got way more options and at 50 and 60% discounts over the regulated rates.

Let me put it to you like this. Local phone service providers invested millions of dollars installing cable to their customers. Vonnage comes along and offers these same customers service using this infrastructure at deeply discounted rates because they INVESTED nothing. Folks like you seem to think the local phone company should provide this infrastructure for free so you can make cheap calls. I otoh understand somebody is going to pay for that infrastructure and I would rather not be forced to subsidize your desire to stream porn with unfettered access.

You see, there are all kinds of websites out there and a small business that publishes a weekly newsletter may not put a burden on an ISP like a mega site that streams video to millions. Each party should pay for the access they demand.

Additionally, if you pay for a gig speed and your ISP arbitrarily reduces your speed, you and the other customers have a claim. ISPs aren't going to cut their own throat.

Bingo. V-Dawg gets it.

 

[dduncan4163]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u41XwnTrCwQ&t=54s[/youtube]

 

[Mick]

NCTC isn't funded primarily through a government grant. They're funded by their members. If government funds are being utilized, it's as an incentive to string wires in areas that aren't served or are under served. It's two completely different scenarios whether the government steps in to establish internet access in lesser populated areas with incentives versus the government placing restrictions on business practices of established ISPs. Municipalities allowed exclusivity to cable TV companies in exchange for establishing service. The arrangements with those initial monopolies weren't perpetual and there were restrictions in the contracts to prevent gouging. NN is the government placing restrictions on free enterprise. Government grants to a cooperative in a rural area are intended to establish a service.

The point is that rural customers are not at significant risk of being gouged minus NN rules simply because they have a single source, terrestrial ISP. NN has no effect on those consumers that get their access through a publicly owned utility. Those being served through an independent, for-profit, small, NCTC member company aren't going to subscribe if the fee is unreasonable. There's a cost for electing to live in the middle of nowhere... you're internet just might suck. If that's a problem, those people have the freedom to live in a better served area.

Americans are already way behind the rest of the world in super high-speed internet technology. The US ranks 18th among countries in the OECD, a group of the world's largest economies, in fiber-optic penetrations rates, as this chart from Statista shows. Its 9.4% penetration rate is nearly half of the OECD average, and almost an eighth of what the top-ranked Japan has.

9.4% and you don't even know what that means. It means that 90% connect to the fiber backbone through copper. Those ISP that promised to upgrade the lines in the 90's still have yet to do so but have been charging you to for it this whole time. You have paid for it 3 times over and still don't have fiber to the home. These ISP's are charging you for a Ferrari and giving you a scooter to access the Fiber backbone. They have been in no hurry to innovate and improve service just take money.

Save me big corporations from the evil government.

 

[midnight orange]

No. But if Volnation.com (for example) isn't favored by Comcast once they get the right to determine which sites get faster internet speeds and which don't, then I probably won't be visiting this site very often if the connection speeds are similar to the dial-up era.

The issue here is that the telecom companies will decide the winners and losers when it comes to which internet sites get fast connection speeds and which get slowed down. And yes, without net neutrality, some sites will end up becoming slower than they are right now.

Like I said earlier, the analogy my professor used is the best way to think about it. This new preferred fast lane isn't just gonna be allowed to go faster, they're gonna have to make the other lanes slower. Because remember the issue here isn't new technology making speeds faster. Its the telecom companies basically deciding to redistribute the internet. Instead of every site being the same speed, the telecom company will decide which sites they'll make faster and which they'll make slower.

You’re coming up with hypotheticals that paint scenarios that are based on assumptions that are contrary to what is actually occurring in the internet market. Your assumptions assume worst case scenarios in a static technology market. You also have to assume that there will not be alternate isp delivery technologies developed in the future. I’m pretty sure access to the internet will be vastly different in 20 years (assuming no govt interference) and delivered ways that are not possible today. The truth is the trend in internet speeds is increasing every year. I see no evidence that a lack of NN is going to all of a sudden curtail this, considering that NN has only been a player for about 2 years of the existence of the internet.

2017 United States Speedtest Market Report

 

[midnight orange]

Americans are already way behind the rest of the world in super high-speed internet technology. The US ranks 18th among countries in the OECD, a group of the world's largest economies, in fiber-optic penetrations rates, as this chart from Statista shows. Its 9.4% penetration rate is nearly half of the OECD average, and almost an eighth of what the top-ranked Japan has.

9.4% and you don't even know what that means. It means that 90% connect to the fiber backbone through copper. Those ISP that promised to upgrade the lines in the 90's still have yet to do so but have been charging you to for it this whole time. You have paid for it 3 times over and still don't have fiber to the home. These ISP's are charging you for a Ferrari and giving you a scooter to access the Fiber backbone. They have been in no hurry to innovate and improve service just take money.

Save me big corporations from the evil government.

The US ranks 15 in fixed internet speeds and is increasing. Slight difference in the infrastructure needs of density rich areas such as Japan, Europe, and Singapore.

 

[Mick]

The US ranks 15 in fixed internet speeds and is increasing. Slight difference in the infrastructure needs of density rich areas such as Japan, Europe, and Singapore.

I didn't know the speed of light is faster in those countries. I had no idea that is the reason they can connect to google faster. The people in Japan are zooming around the WWW accessing the American fiber infrastructure with greater speeds than 90% of Americans. If 90% of Americans lived in BFE you might have a point, but they don't. How can the ISP's innovate when they are not even utilizing the technology that has been around for decades?

 

[midnight orange]

I didn't know the speed of light is faster in those countries. I had no idea that is the reason they can connect to google faster. The people in Japan are zooming around the WWW accessing the American fiber infrastructure with greater speeds than 90% of Americans. If 90% of Americans lived in BFE you might have a point, but they don't. How can the ISP's innovate when they are not even utilizing the technology that has been around for decades?

Your right. There’s no difference between running a wire to a neighborhood in Tokyo and a farmhouse in Kansas with comparable internet speeds. ISPs aren’t innovating either. That’s why I’m typing from a computer hooked to a phone line using a 56.6 k modem.

 

[Septic]

Americans are already way behind the rest of the world in super high-speed internet technology. The US ranks 18th among countries in the OECD, a group of the world's largest economies, in fiber-optic penetrations rates, as this chart from Statista shows. Its 9.4% penetration rate is nearly half of the OECD average, and almost an eighth of what the top-ranked Japan has.

9.4% and you don't even know what that means. It means that 90% connect to the fiber backbone through copper. Those ISP that promised to upgrade the lines in the 90's still have yet to do so but have been charging you to for it this whole time. You have paid for it 3 times over and still don't have fiber to the home. These ISP's are charging you for a Ferrari and giving you a scooter to access the Fiber backbone. They have been in no hurry to innovate and improve service just take money.

Save me big corporations from the evil government.

This cat has no idea what he's talking about.

He didn't even know that the reason that the FCC had jurisdiction was because the isp's were legally defined as a public utility.

Save your breath, every argument he's thrown against the wall has been awful.

 

[Mick]

Your right. There’s no difference between running a wire to a neighborhood in Tokyo and a farmhouse in Kansas with comparable internet speeds. ISPs aren’t innovating either. That’s why I’m typing from a computer hooked to a phone line using a 56.6 k modem.

Poor soul. If you are on 56K modem your ISP would be AOL running over your local phone provider lines. Do you really know what that means? The ISP operated on the back end of the physical medium. Now that is not the case. The ISP's own the lines. That same s**tty copper pair that has been around since Graham Bell. The only reason that farmhouse doesn't have fiber now is because the local monopoly has a monopoly and didn't need to.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Thats what I want big brother taking care of me. They do such a good job with everything else they manage, what was our deficit again? How about if my provider doesn't suit my needs I change providers, hmm, a novel Idea.

Why would you want to do that? Isn't the single (if you even have that) choice of health insurance providers brought to you by the ACA evidence enough for you that the .gov knows what's best for you?

 

[midnight orange]

He didn't even know that the reason that the FCC had jurisdiction was because the isp's were legally defined as a public utility.

Save your breath, every argument he's thrown against the wall has been awful.

Show me where I said that. If my arguments are so awful it should be easy for you to refute the logic of one of them.

 

[midnight orange]

Poor soul. If you are on 56K modem your ISP would be AOL running over your local phone provider lines. Do you really know what that means? The ISP operated on the back end of the physical medium. Now that is not the case. The ISP's own the lines. That same s**tty copper pair that has been around since Graham Bell. The only reason that farmhouse doesn't have fiber now is because the local monopoly has a monopoly and didn't need to.

So speeds in the US are not increasing?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

repubs received a lot more campaign contributions than the dems

Source? Link?

 

[Mick]

You’re coming up with hypotheticals that paint scenarios that are based on assumptions that are contrary to what is actually occurring in the internet market. Your assumptions assume worst case scenarios in a static technology market. You also have to assume that there will not be alternate isp delivery technologies developed in the future. I’m pretty sure access to the internet will be vastly different in 20 years (assuming no govt interference) and delivered ways that are not possible today. The truth is the trend in internet speeds is increasing every year. I see no evidence that a lack of NN is going to all of a sudden curtail this, considering that NN has only been a player for about 2 years of the existence of the internet.

2017 United States Speedtest Market Report

In the 1980s, engineers assumed that optical cables would replace more expensive copper cables for telephone service, saving money in the process. When the use of the Internet exploded in the 1990s, suddenly there was a great demand for cables that could carry heavy loads of digital data. Optical fiber fit the bill perfectly, and many thousands of miles of new cable have been laid all around the world.

Fiber optics rendered all previous telephone network transmission media obsolete. By 2000, copper wire for the most part persisted only in local loops that ran between telephone exchanges and individual subscribers. 90% of americans are on these type of local loops.

Anyone in Chattanooga complaining?

The south-eastern Tennessee town of Chattanooga has some of the fastest internet connection speeds in the world, thanks to a fibre-optic network installed by the government-owned electric company, EPB.

The town, with a 2012 population of just more than 171,000, has used its internet speeds of over 1 gigabit per second to attract new businesses, including five venture capital funds with 2014 investment capital of more than $50m (£30m), according to the Guardian.

Chattanooga's success is a testament to the power of government infrastructure investment, writes Daily Kos blogger Steven D.

It's also, he says, a threat to the private telecommunications monopolies, which are content to offer lower levels of service, "slowly draining the lifeblood out of our nation even as they steal whatever is left in our pocketbook".

Why a Tennessee town has the fastest internet - BBC News

 

[midnight orange]

In the 1980s, engineers assumed that optical cables would replace more expensive copper cables for telephone service, saving money in the process. When the use of the Internet exploded in the 1990s, suddenly there was a great demand for cables that could carry heavy loads of digital data. Optical fiber fit the bill perfectly, and many thousands of miles of new cable have been laid all around the world.

Fiber optics rendered all previous telephone network transmission media obsolete. By 2000, copper wire for the most part persisted only in local loops that ran between telephone exchanges and individual subscribers. 90% of americans are on these type of local loops.

Anyone in Chattanooga complaining?

The south-eastern Tennessee town of Chattanooga has some of the fastest internet connection speeds in the world, thanks to a fibre-optic network installed by the government-owned electric company, EPB.

The town, with a 2012 population of just more than 171,000, has used its internet speeds of over 1 gigabit per second to attract new businesses, including five venture capital funds with 2014 investment capital of more than $50m (£30m), according to the Guardian.

Chattanooga's success is a testament to the power of government infrastructure investment, writes Daily Kos blogger Steven D.

It's also, he says, a threat to the private telecommunications monopolies, which are content to offer lower levels of service, "slowly draining the lifeblood out of our nation even as they steal whatever is left in our pocketbook".

Why a Tennessee town has the fastest internet - BBC News

What point am I supposed to take from this? Internet speeds in the US are not increasing except Chattanooga?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

In the 1980s, engineers assumed that optical cables would replace more expensive copper cables for telephone service, saving money in the process. When the use of the Internet exploded in the 1990s, suddenly there was a great demand for cables that could carry heavy loads of digital data. Optical fiber fit the bill perfectly, and many thousands of miles of new cable have been laid all around the world.

Fiber optics rendered all previous telephone network transmission media obsolete. By 2000, copper wire for the most part persisted only in local loops that ran between telephone exchanges and individual subscribers. 90% of americans are on these type of local loops.

Anyone in Chattanooga complaining?

The south-eastern Tennessee town of Chattanooga has some of the fastest internet connection speeds in the world, thanks to a fibre-optic network installed by the government-owned electric company, EPB.

The town, with a 2012 population of just more than 171,000, has used its internet speeds of over 1 gigabit per second to attract new businesses, including five venture capital funds with 2014 investment capital of more than $50m (£30m), according to the Guardian.

Chattanooga's success is a testament to the power of government infrastructure investment, writes Daily Kos blogger Steven D.

It's also, he says, a threat to the private telecommunications monopolies, which are content to offer lower levels of service, "slowly draining the lifeblood out of our nation even as they steal whatever is left in our pocketbook".

Why a Tennessee town has the fastest internet - BBC News

A September 2014 article highlighting a competitor entering the mix in Chattanooga... and this is relevant to Net Neutrality how?

 

[Mick]

What point am I supposed to take from this? Internet speeds in the US are not increasing except Chattanooga?

Most ISP's are using inferior technology and speed can only reach the maximum of that technology. Your local copper loop is complete crap that is incapable of utilizing the full capacity of fiber communications. You cant champion capitalism as being on cutting edge of innovation and competition.

In case I haven't said it today ID10T

 

[midnight orange]

Most ISP's are using inferior technology and speed can only reach the maximum of that technology. Your local copper loop is complete crap that is incapable of utilizing the full capacity of fiber communications. You cant champion capitalism as being on cutting edge of innovation and competition.

In case I haven't said it today ID10T

Can't answer the question so name calls. Stay classy Mick.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

LMAO. Nope, I didn't present the moronic argument that my professor said the internet was like some fantasy highway where nobody gets to pay more to move at faster speeds. I have actually ran businesses in the "fantasy" free market for the last 30 plus yrs and lead one thru a deregulation phase. Trust me, the consumers got way more options and at 50 and 60% discounts over the regulated rates.

Let me put it to you like this. Local phone service providers invested millions of dollars installing cable to their customers. Vonnage comes along and offers these same customers service using this infrastructure at deeply discounted rates because they INVESTED nothing. Folks like you seem to think the local phone company should provide this infrastructure for free so you can make cheap calls. I otoh understand somebody is going to pay for that infrastructure and I would rather not be forced to subsidize your desire to stream porn with unfettered access.

You see, there are all kinds of websites out there and a small business that publishes a weekly newsletter may not put a burden on an ISP like a mega site that streams video to millions. Each party should pay for the access they demand.

Additionally, if you pay for a gig speed and your ISP arbitrarily reduces your speed, you and the other customers have a claim. ISPs aren't going to cut their own throat.

Once again you simply don't understand the issue here. You are just an ideologue who is arguing based on your ideology rather than actually knowing what this is all about.

What net neutrality is trying to protect against isn't ISPs arbitrarily cutting your internet speed. It's them redistributing the overall speed on your internet connection to favor some sites over others.

Lets say your favorite site is volnation. And then you notice your connection speed to the site is significantly slower than it used to be. You complain to your ISP that your gig internet speed isn't working. They send a tech out there, he opens your browser and goes to google.com. He tells you hey look here your speeds are gig speeds. But then you say what about volnation it's still slow. The tech will say they are under no obligation to make every site the same speed. According to their determination they decided not enough people visit volnation.com to warrant the full gig speed so instead they have reallocated some of that speed to sites which get more traffic like Google.

That is what net neutrality is about. Right now ISPs can't do what I suggested in this hypothetical scenario. Every site on the internet theoretically gets the same connection speeds.

Maybe you are fine with your ISP determing which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which ones should be slower. I prefer to let consumers make that choice. Net neutrality isn't the government making that choice. Its the government barring private companies from making that choice for us.

But hey maybe you are anti-consumer and want large corporations telling you what to do.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I agree. I don't watch cable news. Someone who doesn't agree with Bernie Sanders must be a fox news watching Republican. And I'm the ignorant one. Stay classy.

You see this is your problem. You're ignorant about this issue and treating it like it's a sport. Since Bernie Sanders or some democrats are championing net neutrality then you must be on the other side.

Ignorant people like you who let ideology get in front of doing what's in your best interest is why the average American continues to be exploited by a few rich elites.

 

[midnight orange]

You see this is your problem. You're ignorant about this issue and treating it like it's a sport. Since Bernie Sanders or some democrats are championing net neutrality then you must be on the other side.

Ignorant people like you who let ideology get in front of doing what's in your best interest is why the average American continues to be exploited by a few rich elites.

You and septic need to work on your reading comprehension. You know what they say about assumptions.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Most ISP's are using inferior technology and speed can only reach the maximum of that technology. Your local copper loop is complete crap that is incapable of utilizing the full capacity of fiber communications. You cant champion capitalism as being on cutting edge of innovation and competition.

In case I haven't said it today ID10T

I live outside the city and capitalism brought fiber right down my street aeveral years ago. It replaced the DSL that was there for years. I also have the options of the coax cable or multiple wireless providers. Innovation isn't dependent upon government rule.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Once again you simply don't understand the issue here. You are just an ideologue who is arguing based on your ideology rather than actually knowing what this is all about.

What net neutrality is trying to protect against isn't ISPs arbitrarily cutting your internet speed. It's them redistributing the overall speed on your internet connection to favor some sites over others.

Lets say your favorite site is volnation. And then you notice your connection speed to the site is significantly slower than it used to be. You complain to your ISP that your gig internet speed isn't working. They send a tech out there, he opens your browser and goes to google.com. He tells you hey look here your speeds are gig speeds. But then you say what about volnation it's still slow. The tech will say they are under no obligation to make every site the same speed. According to their determination they decided not enough people visit volnation.com to warrant the full gig speed so instead they have reallocated some of that speed to sites which get more traffic like Google.

That is what net neutrality is about. Right now ISPs can't do what I suggested in this hypothetical scenario. Every site on the internet theoretically gets the same connection speeds.

Maybe you are fine with your ISP determing which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which ones should be slower. I prefer to let consumers make that choice. Net neutrality isn't the government making that choice. Its the government barring private companies from making that choice for us.

But hey maybe you are anti-consumer and want large corporations telling you what to do.

What is the ISP's motivation to exclude VN? To piss off some customers?