Return to “Everything & Anything”

Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#91
I don't necessarily think monopolies are really a rural v. urban phenomenon. In my experience living in rural areas I found that there were more options than the urban areas in the same state. Now I live in a different state and the urban areas have a lot of selection. I've lived in red and blue areas with monopolies and without monopolies. ISP policy is really one of those things that can be hard to peg down as a strict red v. blue issue.

I understand the reasoning why a locality would choose to enforce a monopoly for internet and cable service, I just disagree with the policy because I think the harm it creates is far greater than anything good that could come of it. Satellite or some other wireless internet system would be great for rural areas, it's just too expensive right now.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#92
masseffect7 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:30 pm
Satellite or some other wireless internet system would be great for rural areas, it's just too expensive right now.
satellites are literally the worst possible platform for bidirectional many user connections which occasionally require low round trip times.
hard mass and power limited systems 1/10 lightsecond away from everything else with extremely narrow angles between clients and a gigantic amount of clients.
basically a textbook example of "worst case".

put up a couple of terrestrial directed microwave links and a normal LTE/GSM base station at the end of it.
a million times cheaper, faster and easier to maintain and upgrade.
and probably quite a bit cheaper per kilometer than glass fiber cables in environments without interference (read: rural areas)
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#93
masseffect7 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:30 pm
I don't necessarily think monopolies are really a rural v. urban phenomenon. In my experience living in rural areas I found that there were more options than the urban areas in the same state. Now I live in a different state and the urban areas have a lot of selection. I've lived in red and blue areas with monopolies and without monopolies. ISP policy is really one of those things that can be hard to peg down as a strict red v. blue issue.

I understand the reasoning why a locality would choose to enforce a monopoly for internet and cable service, I just disagree with the policy because I think the harm it creates is far greater than anything good that could come of it. Satellite or some other wireless internet system would be great for rural areas, it's just too expensive right now.
Broadband services and pricing involve factors beyond physical location. That said, the primary issue for what is available is profitability. Major service providers have no interest operating in sparsely populated regions because of the combination of limited revenues and high fixed costs. Localities in the middle of nowhere do not 'enforce' a monopoly system for telecom services, they rely on government subsidies to have those services in the first place.

AT&T (prior to its original break up) and its successor RBOCs worked because their networks combined urban (profitable) and rural (unprofitable) areas within their operating regions. The evolution of broadband and wireless has fractured that business model. AT&T, Verizon, and the cable giants have absolutely no interest in expanding their services in unprofitable areas (in fact, AT&T and Verizon are trying to sell existing operations that fall outside of their core). Frontier, Windstream, and CenturyLink are the largest independent carriers and all three are under significant financial stress because they are losing legacy customers in urban areas to cord cutting and broadband bundles while having to maintain their existing infrastructure. CenturyLink merged with Level 3 to focus on its huge fiber network and enterprise services. Windstream and Frontier are trying to get bigger to put off the day of (financial) reckoning. Perhaps innovation will change the telecom landscape. As things stand, regulation (and subsidies in unprofitable service areas) are necessities.
I know not what life is, nor death.
Year in year out-all but a dream.
Both Heaven and Hell are left behind;
I stand in the moonlit dawn,
Free from clouds of attachment.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#99
The senate has voted to reinstate Net Neutrality (all democrats and 3 republican votes!)! :D Now we just need it to get through the House of Representatives (where they need all democrats and 22 republicans)... and then Trump. Trump has been against it from the beginning. This is going to be a long battle. :| Worse still, there aren't currently enough votes to override Trump if he vetoes it.

Personally I find it hard to hold out hope at this point, even with this little victory. As far as I see it, Trump wanted to kill it, and he killed it.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#101
Talvieno wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 10:58 am
Now we just need it to get through the House of Representatives (where they need all democrats and 22 republicans)... and then Trump.
This will not happen, nor IMO should it. Ending the FCC's two-year arrogation of power to itself -- by magically defining broadband as a "utility" -- does not leave ISPs unregulated; it restores the original regime in which the Federal Trade Commission can and does respond to actual cases of anticompetitive behavior.

Access to the Internet did not somehow increase prodigiously when the FCC claimed it could regulate ISPs. And it won't decline prodigiously now that control over anticompetitive behavior has returned to the FTC after its two-year hiatus.

Which leaves us free to discuss the consequences of Europe's imposition of GDPR rules. :D
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#102
I agree with Flat. I do think Net Neutrality is poor policy, but it was also poor policy that was a product of a power grab by the FCC. I think those in favor of Net Neutrality should be concerned about more extensive internet regulation. Agencies typically keep expanding regulation in an area once they are established in that area. The Trump administration has been the exception to the rule in how much it has cut regulation. However, a Democratic administration will happen in the near future, and the only question will be how quickly does the regulation expand. The best way to keep a truly free internet is through keeping the FCC out of it as much as possible. Net neutrality allows the FCC to slip its tentacles into the internet, and its unlikely to stop there.
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#104
0111narwhalz wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 9:05 am
I'm a little confused as to how a rule that prevents ISPs from discriminating between packets somehow implies that the regulatory body is "slipping its tentacles into the internet."
It doesn't necessarily imply that. Some people trust the government more than corporations, and some trust corporations more than the government. It's a difference in opinion. We're not really having an academic debate in this thread. We'e more just speaking our opinions. And that's okay.

This is a topic where what we think is true is fueled largely (or perhaps entirely) by our own "core" beliefs and opinions - beliefs that are at the very core of who we are. Changing a "core belief" can be very, very difficult, if not outright impossible. We may not recognize it as such - we may say "Oh, if I was just presented with a good argument, I'd change what I thought." But that's not necessarily true, either. (I'm including myself in this, to be clear!) We may want it to be true - after all, none of us like to think that we wouldn't listen to facts. We like to think of ourselves as logical, open-minded people. It doesn't mean we always are, though, especially when presented with something that very solidly clashes with our core values and beliefs - the very core of who we are.

It's explained quite nicely in this comic by The Oatmeal. I'd say it's worth a read, if you have the time and haven't read it before. It's very good and thought-provoking, in my opinion. (It looks long, but it'll only take five minutes.)

Flatfingers wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 1:10 am
This will not happen
I agree with you on this point, Flatfingers. I disagree with you on the rest, but you know that, so there's no point in rehashing it or shouting at you. :P I respect your opinions. I simply don't trust ISPs to treat all packets equally - I trust them to do the opposite wherever it benefits them. I also trust the FCC to keep from changing our Internet, seeing as they haven't since 2005, when they first put forth the Internet Policy Statement.

That's really all there is to it. My core opinions. :P I may be wrong on them, I don't know, but it's what I believe.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Net Neutrality

#105
Talvieno wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:01 am
Flatfingers wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 1:10 am
This will not happen
I agree with you on this point, Flatfingers.

And to be clear, this comment of mine didn't carry any weight of "yay!" or "boo!" It's just a simple observation that the GOP-controlled House is very unlikely to vote as the Senate did.

Talvieno wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 10:01 am
I disagree with you on the rest, but you know that, so there's no point in rehashing it or shouting at you. :P I respect your opinions. I simply don't trust ISPs to treat all packets equally - I trust them to do the opposite wherever it benefits them. I also trust the FCC to keep from changing our Internet, seeing as they haven't since 2005, when they first put forth the Internet Policy Statement.

Likewise. No shouting, just a friendly exchange of perspectives.

For me, this -- in addition to the specific views that the Obama-era FCC was wrong to dictate business policies to companies who aren't doing anything illegal, and that price controls are historically counterproductive -- falls squarely under the fundamental point that a corporation can't bust down your door if you don't do what they say, but the government can. Companies aren't magically perfect, and you're right not to trust them... but they are at least bound by the need to persuade you to voluntarily give them your money. Governments, including federal regulators, are under no such restraint. They have much more power than any business, and thus should be trusted to have your best interests at heart even less than you trust businesses.

...man, I just need to stay away from this thread. :lol:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests