We are #1

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Having government restrict access to the public/commercial airwaves is a restriction of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment and would be sending us down an even slippery slope than we are on.

Is speech more restricted in the British Isle than here?

The short answer is yes. Whether the 'marketplace of ideas' is meaningfully crippled is another question, though.

If the difference is that a billionaire here could fill the airwaves with Holocaust deniail propaganda, if he wanted, while the British would stop it, they may be ahead of the game.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The "wild wild west" sucked. If you want to see that on the 'net, wait until the latter day land barons, the ISPs, can do anything they damn well want like blocking certain websites because, for instance, they express political views the ISP owner doesn't like, or charging extra for access to them because they're extremely popular.

And WTF is an "uncommon carrier"? Do you understand this issue at all? Do you know what a common carrier is? Check out Title 2 and stop listening to Comcast's commercials.

I understand that, for all you baggers, deregulation is the universal panacea but it has never worked anywhere that it's been tried.

John

Your questions: 1) Not common, 2) Yes, do you?, 3) Yes.

Airfares.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Good. Let's move on to net neutrality. You'll need to step me though these bad effects of net neutrality you cite. How would that work? Because net neutrality is what we have now. If we DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING, why would video content 'become a casualty?'

The net neutrality movement is best understood as the 'keep the ISPs from fucking with the net' movement. Why exactly do we want to give Comcast the power to extort more money from Netflix? Won't THAT be what makes video content more expensive or harder to get?

http://consumerist.com/2014/11/13/he...et-neutrality/

No, we really don't have net neutrality. At least not as the FCC would define it, which is why the FCC is preparing to propose their own rules on it. The concern of those in the industry that have gotten an inkling of what the FCC might propose is that the FCC's definition will be a "bits are bits" definition: all traffic on the net must be treated equally.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/1...ty-rules/?_r=0

While that sounds good, it's not reality. Different applications on the net have different demands on the network. Streaming video is more demanding - and requires more capacity management - than sending and email or browsing web sites like this. "bits are bits" rules will make it more difficult - and yes, less profitable - to not only manage a network but also to host certain types of content - like streaming video or audio (particularly high res audio).

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Streaming video is more demanding - and requires more capacity management - than sending and email or browsing web sites like this. "bits are bits" rules will make it more difficult - and yes, less profitable - to not only manage a network but also to host certain types of content - like streaming video or audio (particularly high res audio).

So what? The same is true for telephony. DSL is more resource-hungry than voice. Of course, the telelcoms want to change that too.

From your linked article: "Most phone companies are transitioning their networks to Internet-based systems from copper-wire systems."

So, hey presto! Telephone service is no longer a utility under Title 2 but an "information service". Sneaky....... verrrry sneaky!

Are you in favor of ISPs being able to restrict or block content based on their bandwidth usage? To charge you a separate fee for Netflix? or charge
Netflix more so that they have to raise your prescription price?

Also, are you in favor of these new laws that make it illegal for governments to offer public broadband service as Chattanooga, TN and Cedar Falls, IA have done? I think laws such as this have been passed in around 20 places.

These local broadband ISPs have world class connectivity, around 1,000 Mbps. On the other hand, Comcast offers service at a pathetic 200 Mbps in freakin' San Francisco, the "capital of the internet". Obviously, the reason for these laws is to keep affordable state of the art broadband out of areas where Comcast or Time Warner are offering shit service at high prices. So much for the free market.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So what? The same is true for telephony. DSL is more resource-hungry than voice. Of course, the telelcoms want to change that too.

From your linked article: "Most phone companies are transitioning their networks to Internet-based systems from copper-wire systems."

So, hey presto! Telephone service is no longer a utility under Title 2 but an "information service". Sneaky....... verrrry sneaky!

Are you in favor of ISPs being able to restrict or block content based on their bandwidth usage? To charge you a separate fee for Netflix? or charge
Netflix more so that they have to raise your prescription price?

Also, are you in favor of these new laws that make it illegal for governments to offer public broadband service as Chattanooga, TN and Cedar Falls, IA have done? I think laws such as this have been passed in around 20 places.

These local broadband ISPs have world class connectivity, around 1,000 Mbps. On the other hand, Comcast offers service at a pathetic 200 Mbps in freakin' San Francisco, the "capital of the internet". Obviously, the reason for these laws is to keep affordable state of the art broadband out of areas where Comcast or Time Warner are offering shit service at high prices. So much for the free market.

John

We absolutely should move away from twisted pair lines carrying data - the limitation on bandwidth chokes speeds. But to do so isn't free. Cable companies were stringing fiber optic like crazy in the mid to late 90's, then the because the promise over pushing more services over those lines versus phone lines was the compelling reason for doing so.

Then the dot com bubble burst, then 9/11 happened with the accompanying recession, then competition from both Internet content providers and 3G and 4G cell phone service slowed down the fiber rollouts. Now you've got a number of cities and counties rolling out free or low cost wireless Internet services to residents. Its expensive to run fiber and the competition makes it less cost effective to do. So, you've still got quite a few particularly rural communities were DSL via the phone line is still a good, though not optimal, option.

Cable companies figured out a long time ago that the key to long term profitability hinged far more on delivering content through a variety of means. But cable TV service is quickly becoming an anachronism in the world of on-demand video services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Chromecast, etc. Unfortunately its still the bread and butter of a cable industry that most of us rely on to delivery data services, and cable subscriptions are starting to decline. Cable on-demand services never took off for a variety of reasons. Now you have foundational cable content providers looking at other options besides cable to broadcast (like ESPN experimenting with Sling TV). Less revenue available to cable companies to upgrade their infrastructure.

This brings us back to what the FCC is proposing. The original FCC proposal still leaves the door open for ISP's to charge content providers higher rates for higher bandwidth consumption. I think this is as it should be: there's no question that delivery of certain types of content are more resource intensive than others. It also prompts innovation, as in Netflix partnering with EyeIO. It also allows ISP's to appropriately manage traffic on their network. The initial FCC proposal simply required transparency in provider practices, prohibit blocking legal sites or apps, and prohibit “commercially unreasonable practices.”

It appears now that the FCC is upping the ante, and adding bandwidth management to its list of prohibited practices/regulatory objectives:

• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

Again, all that sounds really nice in a populist kind of way. But if fully implemented, the end result would be a reduction in overall speed and efficiency of the internet for most consumers, and increases costs for hosting / managing bandwidth intensive content.

Let ISP's manage their network in the most efficient way possible and let content providers experiment and innovate to deliver their products in a way that allows for higher throughput with a lower bandwidth footprint. Its already happening, let it continue.

[Pio1980]

So, should broadband Internet be considered an essential utility or a commercial service?


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

We absolutely should move away from twisted pair lines carrying data - the limitation on bandwidth chokes speeds. But to do so isn't free. Cable companies were stringing fiber optic like crazy in the mid to late 90's, then the because the promise over pushing more services over those lines versus phone lines was the compelling reason for doing so.

Then the dot com bubble burst, then 9/11 happened with the accompanying recession, then competition from both Internet content providers and 3G and 4G cell phone service slowed down the fiber rollouts. Now you've got a number of cities and counties rolling out free or low cost wireless Internet services to residents. Its expensive to run fiber and the competition makes it less cost effective to do. So, you've still got quite a few particularly rural communities were DSL via the phone line is still a good, though not optimal, option.

Cable companies figured out a long time ago that the key to long term profitability hinged far more on delivering content through a variety of means. But cable TV service is quickly becoming an anachronism in the world of on-demand video services like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Chromecast, etc. Unfortunately its still the bread and butter of a cable industry that most of us rely on to delivery data services, and cable subscriptions are starting to decline. Cable on-demand services never took off for a variety of reasons. Now you have foundational cable content providers looking at other options besides cable to broadcast (like ESPN experimenting with Sling TV). Less revenue available to cable companies to upgrade their infrastructure.

This brings us back to what the FCC is proposing. The original FCC proposal still leaves the door open for ISP's to charge content providers higher rates for higher bandwidth consumption. I think this is as it should be: there's no question that delivery of certain types of content are more resource intensive than others. It also prompts innovation, as in Netflix partnering with EyeIO. It also allows ISP's to appropriately manage traffic on their network. The initial FCC proposal simply required transparency in provider practices, prohibit blocking legal sites or apps, and prohibit “commercially unreasonable practices.”

It appears now that the FCC is upping the ante, and adding bandwidth management to its list of prohibited practices/regulatory objectives:

• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

Again, all that sounds really nice in a populist kind of way. But if fully implemented, the end result would be a reduction in overall speed and efficiency of the internet for most consumers, and increases costs for hosting / managing bandwidth intensive content.

Let ISP's manage their network in the most efficient way possible and let content providers experiment and innovate to deliver their products in a way that allows for higher throughput with a lower bandwidth footprint. Its already happening, let it continue.

It might increase cost but it only slows things down if the ISPs don't upgrade their service to something approximating the world standard. Our internet speeds are a joke when compared to the rest of the developed, and not so developed, countries. As for more efficient throughput, that's going to happen regardless. It's the nature of technologies to increase efficiencies, not least because it usually ends up reducing cost as it increases performance.

By the way, I agree with much of what you said in the first part of the post and cable is almost certainly on its deathbed. Oh, and standalone HBO Go (April) is, I believe, going to be using Sling.

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

So, should broadband Internet be considered an essential utility or a commercial service?


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I lean towards essential utility but then I'm commie pinko soshulist.

[Pio1980]

Twisted pair was great for the standard remote powered telephone service but not so much for data. Dunno exactly how optical lines would work but assume it'd be something quite different than the switch directed phone system.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

So, should broadband Internet be considered an essential utility or a commercial service?


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Essential Utility (land lines) and needs to be regulated since it is a monopoly or a duopoly at best.