FCC Backs a Tiered Internet

I plead the second. by dada21 · 2006-03-23 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place. If the airwaves are public property, why are they regulated to the point that no one but the elite can access them? How is the Internet considered public airwaves if it is run over mostly private lines?

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).

The reason for this FCC mention is because the distribution cartels who have used copyright, airwaves regulation and subsidies for decades are now scared that their cartel will fall apart. Copyright has been antiquated by the Internet -- creating opportunities for millions of artists to distribute their artwork themselves (not needing the cartels). The subsidies for the phone companies and the old media companies have proved to be worthless as almost anyone can now afford to be not just a receiver on the mediacast network, but a sender as well. The regulations that were used to keep others from entering the market are now working against the big media companies.

This means that they want blood. They want control. They want their cartel to stay together, and the only way they can do it is through the use of force and coercion -- which is basically what the FCC is about. Maybe Google will come up with a free GoogleNet and let anyone (including competitors) connect to it. Maybe some kid in a garage will figure out a way to get a secondary network structure built, I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

The future will not be able frequencies or bandwidth or censorship or control. The future will be about freedom; I am just waiting for the day that software radios with reasonable frequency hopping methods can be used to give everyone high bandwidth at low costs without worrying about what monopoly their village lets run cable or worry about paying for someone out in Montana who can't afford their own wires run. For this, though, the FCC will need to completely vacate the airwaves. The day will come, we just have to find a solution to the FCC who keeps it all down.

I have a solution. I plead the second.

Re:I plead the second. by a_nonamiss · 2006-03-23 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not a fan of government regulation, but if you eliminate the FCC, every Tom, Dick and Harry could build an inexpensive transmitter in their basement. (With an antenna on the roof) With all those transmitters going at whatever frequency they please, nobody anywhere would be able to pick up anything. As small-government as I am, I still think that there needs to be some regulating body over the airwaves, just for the simple matter of making sure that transmitters aren't walking over each other. (BTW, regulating body doesn't necessarily need to be a government agency, but DOES need to have some authority to shut down illegal broadcasting.)

--
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Re:I plead the second. by dada21 · 2006-03-23 03:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is not true, actually. First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions.

Secondly, I promote the idea of freq-hopping software radios that utilize technology designed to avoid interference. In my own neighborhood there are about 20 WiFi access points I can see, and I still get great wireless networking at my home. We're sharing bandwidth here, and while there may be some problems, the situation is getting better in an minimally regulated spectrum. Open up the entire spectrum the FCC monopolizes and you'll see much less interference, not more.

Thirdly, I believe in the power of the market -- the current need to design better freq-hopping transceivers is not very high due to the regulations out there. Over time, though, I believe we'll see more deregulation of various frequencies as the need for more wireless transmissions goes up. I can only hope it happens sooner rather than later.

Look at all the wasted bandwidth right now. We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?

Do we NEED analog and digital TV frequencies anymore? Cable and satellite have replaced MOST people's needs for broadcast media, yet BitTorrent is starting to hurt the old media companies, too. Why not use it all for whatever data the user and the sender both need?
Re:I plead the second. by drp · 2006-03-23 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

The key point that you are missing is this - the internet does not transmit over radio waves. Or, more correctly, the internet does not use the publicly broadcasted spectrum. The FCC's original charter was to ensure that chaos on airwaves did not happen. Somehow, they wormed their way into completely isolated means of communication like fiber optics or coax cable.

I fail to see how the FCC should have any say over anything that I as a private individual or company want to transmit over my privately owned lines, or how much I want to charge people for their use. Of course, this argument does allow for the big telcos to implement the silly double-dipping scheme where they charge both ends of the communication, but the free market exists to prevent that. If SBC/AT&T, Verizon, etc. want to imeplement this, what is stopping Google from forming their own publicly-available routed IP network?
Re:I plead the second. by a_nonamiss · 2006-03-23 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

You bring up some good points, but let's just suppose I want to be an ass. (And believe me, nothing in the Constitution prevents me from doing so.) I could set up a noise generator in my neighborhood just for the heck of it so that nobody in my neighborhood could do anything. Sure, digital frequency hopping is great, but if I lived next door to you and wanted to be a douchebag, I could, without a whole lot of effort, build a device that would knock out all of your wireless networks. A little more tinkering, and I could make it so that all you hear when you turn on the radio in the morning is Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight" on every radio in your house, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I'm not talking about 50,000 watts of power here, just enough to get maybe 100 feet. That should be enough to get even with you for letting your cat poop in my garden. Obviously, right now, all of the above activities would be patently illegal. They would come to my house in a matter of days, if not hours, and I would be tried for breaking the law. Without some sort of regulatory body, this type of thing would be common. Again, I hate to play devil's advocate for any government agency, but I just can't see effective self-regulation in this area.

--
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Re:I plead the second. by osoese · 2006-03-23 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with a wireless alternative to fiber. Why not? Its time for progress anyway. However, remember the FCC has control over the airwaves also, so they will most likely aim to shut down such an alternative solution to their regulatory practices. What are we supposed to do in a Catch-22 situation like this? I just find it interesting that every industry that has little government regulation over it seems to boom. Once the regulation starts the industry seems to falter. The internet technologies, albeit developed by the governent, have evolved so rapidly that it has been hard to regulate, and look at how much that has done for the economy (despite the bubble a few years back).
Re:I plead the second. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The internet technologies, albeit developed by the governent

Government's "contribution" to networking may have been the first (due only to government's unique ability to achieve fund its special interests through coercion), but is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and especially over the long run into the future. What defines the internet today is millions of individual voluntary efforts, not a single large coercive effort.

Same goes for space exploration and space travel. Government may have been the first (again due only to its unique "right" to employ coercion), but in 50-100 years, government's technology will have been far superceded and obsoleted by voluntary, decentralized efforts.
Re:I plead the second. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 05:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

They already *ARE* double-billing for service, because they own the lines! The consumer pays for access to the network, and the content provider pays to be connected as well. While the largest of the large get into peering agreements, those are still a cost for a service (even if it comes out to be no net change).

What they want to do is TRIPLE-bill. I pay to get on the internet from home. $$$ to them. You pay to connect your server to the network. $$$ to them. Now that you're successful, they want to charge you so "your deliveries arrive on time..." $$$ to them AGAIN.
Re:I plead the second. by jafac · 2006-03-23 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

There are also billions of ants.

They're easy enough to exterminate in huge quantities through a can of Raid, or a boot heel. Humans aren't much different.

2nd Amendment? Yeah right. Let me know when the 2nd Amendment guarantees your freedom from annihilation by a B-52 pilot flying 60,000 feet above you, who can't even see your house, but who can blast it to splinters and you to quivering bits of hamburger at the touch of a button.

Your 2nd Amendment rights are about as good as your 4th Amendment rights, or your 1st Amendment rights.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:I plead the second. by mike2R · 2006-03-23 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

but the free market exists to prevent that

I'd say the free market is what happens when you prevent that. Monopoly, oligarcy and cartels are a far more natural state of affairs than free competition.

--
This sig all sigs devours

My $0.02 by robyannetta · 2006-03-23 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

The FCC needs to be disbanded. They don't even know why they exist anymore.

--
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.

Flamebait Article by Snap+E+Tom · 2006-03-23 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Jesus Christ, editors. That headline and summary is pure sensationalist flamebait. Read the original article instead of this blogger's spin.

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

The first half of the article is the AT&T CEO saying that they'll never block access and doing that is business suicide. The second half is this from Martin:

In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin said that "I do think the commission has the authority necessary" to enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of Vonage's VoIP service.

"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin said.

However, Martin also added that he supports network operators' desires to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and at different pricing -- a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential treatment.

While Martin said that consumers who don't pay for higher levels of Internet service shouldn't expect to get higher levels of performance, he did say in a following press conference that "the commission needs to make sure" that there are fair-trade ways to ensure that consumers "get what they are purchasing." When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds.

That's got nothing to do with site extortion. Shame on the submitter.

on the other hand.... by phlegmofdiscontent · 2006-03-23 03:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm against a tiered Internet as much as the next guy, but there are precedents. Snail mail, for example, has a tiered system where you pay your 39 cents to get a letter someplace in sometime less than a week. You pay extra to get it there the next day. Many cities (the Twin Cities included) have lanes set aside for tolls, if you don't want to wait in gridlock. It seems that this is the way services are going, but that doesn't mean we have to like it (or even stand aside for it).

Here We Go... by eno2001 · 2006-03-23 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is the beginning of the HUGE attack on average people using the internet to get unpopular messages out to the rest of the internet in America. Since the internet allows anyone with the itch to "publish" their views freely, the larger corporations have been trying to find a way to shut that down. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone had access to radio and television stations to program their own stuff unfettered (putting aside the technical issues of interference since they don't apply to the internet)? The only way that people will be able to pass any really important infomation that the media giants don't want you to here eventually will be e-mail. And e-mail is about as threatening to them as phones were. Expect to see a lot of the ISPs that provide web hosting and the free web hosting services and blog services more heavily restricting content if it doesn't serve their corporate masters well. Expect to see more and more TCP and UDP ports being closed off so you CAN'T run your own darknet to provide services of your own to your friends and family (something I do right now). Big media is NOT interested in someone having a large enough stage to broadcast a message that big media doesn't want people to hear. In the future, we will all be criminals even if all we want to do is tell the truth. We're halfway there now.

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o

What am I paying for again? by PFI_Optix · 2006-03-23 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a 3 Mb connection. If Google can provide me with 3 Mb bandwidth, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid?

--
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.

Re:What am I paying for again? by Bender0x7D1 · 2006-03-23 05:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

There is a flaw in your position. Consider this statement:

Because I'd have sworn I paid for a telephone connection. If Google can provide me a telephone connection, why exactly should they be paying the ISP I already paid? Because you need a phone line at each end.

The reason it breaks down is there is overhead at -both- ends. You need to be able to contact Google, and Google needs to be able to receive your transmission and respond. There isn't just your equipment and account, there is Google's so they can be ready to receive requests and return the requested information.

I think the tiered or quality-of-service Internet is coming. Why? If you get broadband over your cable or phone line, the cost of the phone line or cable service is subsidizing the broadband. The broadband by itself doesn't require new lines to be placed. They piggyback on the existing infrastructure. Now, when you have VoIP, people still want the cheaper cost of broadband, but without the additional cost of their regular phone. Guess what - you are losing your subsidy on your broadband; the one that came from your regular phone line. You used to pay it, and now you don't want to. The money has to come from somewhere. That means higher prices.

So what does this have to do with Google? VoIP. If Google provides a free VoIP service, it means that a single broadband connection can support hundreds of regular voice channels. If 100 people stop using the regular phone service, the telecomm has to get that money back from somewhere, (and all the subsidies that help cover the broadband), so suddenly broadband needs to go up, by a lot, for the average consumer. Alternatively, they can make Google pay it all and keep their own customers happy.

I'm not saying this is great, and that the business model doesn't need to change, but if everyone switched to VoIP and dropped their normal phone lines, all the telecomms would go bankrupt, and all of their infrastructure would fail, and the Internet would fragment. It will take time for new models and pricing plans to be developed and implemented. In the immediate future, prices may change, there might be different levels and types of service, but the Internet will continue routing.

On a final note, this idea that we all deserve a lot of inexpensive bandwidth is unreasonable. There is a lot of infrastructure that is required and most of it we don't think about. How much does it cost to keep a service team in the middle of Wyoming in case a cross-country fiber line gets cut? Can stuff be rerouted? Yes, but it can also cause cascading failures as the nearby systems get overloaded. How much does it cost to dig a tunnel under an Interstate, or a river, (or an ocean for that matter), so service can be provided? How much does it cost to repair fiber that got cut by a boat's anchor? Sure, 90% is relatively easy and inexpensive, but that other 10% is incredibly expensive, difficult and time consuming - and just as important.

--
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.

Go right ahead by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

want to be able to limit bandwidth to sites like Google, unless those sites pay extortion fees

Sure. Right. Go ahead and try charging Google. And when google cuts your entire network off, including every office and company you own, good luck there. Youll have customers parting loudly in droves to go to their competitor isp that doesnt limit the access.

The ISPs seem to forget that its google and other content providers that make people sign up for their service. ISPs are indebted to google, not the other way around. Google already pays for access.

If they want to play hardball, fine, but google has a cannonball while the ISPs have a peashooter. You want to charge us extra, we'll cut your ass off and destroy your business.

Customers will just go somewhere else, probably someplace cheaper.

I mean, how would you react if suddenly your ISP limited your access to google services?

Re:Extortion? Not quite. by blanalex · 2006-03-23 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe, but why should Google pay twice? I'm sure they already pay their ISP for their bandwith and the end users are also paying for their bandwith. What's the point in making google (or anybody for that matter) pay again?

--
#DEFINE QUESTION (2b)||(!2b) -- William Shakespeare

Re:Extortion? Not quite. by bedroll · 2006-03-23 03:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

"extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power"

You're saying that you don't think the statement, "Pay us or we'll make your content crawl for our users." is forceful, intimidating, and potentially undue or illegal?

Think of it this way: The internet is a website's path to its front door. How would you feel if the government sold the sidewalk leading to your front door and told you that you'd have to have your customers use the back entrance unless you started paying $50 a month?

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers by PhYrE2k2 · 2006-03-23 03:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The key would be not to 'block' AT&T customers, but purposely have a nicely negative page about AT&T. You're not going to get many people to switch providers, versus switching search engines (many don't even have a choice in providers), but it's a great way to inform consumers who normally wouldn't even know there's a problem (such as with blocking Bittorrent and P2P).

-M

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

Points against libertarians you mean by SmallFurryCreature · 2006-03-23 03:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

If anything this proves we need MORE goverment control and not less. More and stricter goverment control that is not swayed by commercial forces.

Give you libs their way and we will be totally at the mercy of the telcos who build their networks with tax money in the first place. A really strong goverment would have slapped the telcos down hard and demanded several billions in return for the initial investment of the goverment having payed to invent the internet.

Left and Right wingers are both nuts but either are to be preffered to the libs. It is no wonder NO country in the world is run by them. Voters ain't that stupid.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Points against libertarians you mean by mickyflynn · 2006-03-23 04:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

We DID have a Libertarian government in the first place. Andrew Jackson killed it.

Re:OK! Let's have open airwaves! by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · 2006-03-23 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Mr Dada- your implication is clear- and I question the intelligence of anyone who posts that kind of threat on a public board. The FCC, like any gov't organizations, can overstep its bounds. And if you don't like it, it can be changed with your vote. I don't want to talk politics, but the tired internet debate is just like the (insert contraversial subject) debate. It is the apathy of the American electorate that allows these crazy schemes to go forward.
Lest you think the above post is speculative: The FCC is an important organizations, as the following article illustrates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/20/tech/mai n1419502.shtml
FAA On Trail Of Pirate Radio Station
MIAMI, March 20, 2006 (AP)
The FAA said it has conducted about 30 similar investigations of pirate broadcasts interfering with airport transmissions in the past decade.
(AP) Airline pilots taking off from Miami International Airport are getting an earful of hip-hop tunes from a pirate radio station that sometimes interfere with their communications with the control tower.

--
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By

Re:Digg screwed this up too. by Antimatter3009 · 2006-03-23 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was trying to explain this to people on digg. Here's my post from there, word for word, including a link to a more straightforward article:

"This is a sensationalist headline/article. Look at this article and read what he actually said:

http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554

For instance, the last sentence says, "When asked how consumers could measure service performance levels, Martin said that public Web sites already exist that let users measure their connection speeds." He's talking about limiting how much bandwidth you have based on how much you pay, which the telcos already do and have always done. You pay more for more bandwidth. If you read the rest of that article you'll see that AT&T has backed off of a tiered internet, calling it "economic suicide" and Martin says that they will enforce net neutrality if necessary. All they said is that they don't believe that new laws are needed to enforce net neutrality as they already have that power. TFA is blown way out of proportion to get more hits. Calm down."

Re:Digg screwed this up too. by Lord_Dweomer · 2006-03-23 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

And if ANYBODY thinks this will mean lower prices for people who actually use their internet connection, you are in for a big surprise. The internet providers have been dying for a way to charge more for people who do anything other than view a couple text websites and read email and this is their opening. They are going to pounce on this with the ferocity of Bush on oil.

Expect a minor discount for people who use their internet minimally and expect everybody else to see their bill spike by 20-30 bucks based on how much they download.

P2P? Yeah, it was fun while it lasted. Kind of funny that what will kill it won't be the RIAA/MPAA but rather high bandwidth costs. This could pretty much doom bittorrent (in the US at least) since who will want to upload as well when they'll have to pay mor eper month for the priviledge?

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers by LWATCDR · 2006-03-23 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everyone seems to worry about Google! No ISP is going to block Google search EVER. They may "degrade" Google video, Google VoIP, or other new services Google offers.
What people need to worry about is the next Google. New innovative sites will be the ones that get hammered with these charges. Think of places like Slashdot and Digg.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:Extortion? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 04:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

Since we're talking about monopoly ISP's using their undue power to forcibly impose a tiered service model that artificially elevates the value of their content relative to the content provided by everyone else who uses their lines; using the government to possibly illegally intimidate folks who already pay for access to pay more; yeah, extortion is exactly the right word to use.

Re:Google really should block AT&T customers by ojustgiveitup · 2006-03-23 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is parent modded funny? Perhaps there should be a "wryly astute" option.

Google has several options by dcavanaugh · 2006-03-23 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. As others have suggested, Google could impose their own extortion fees on the telcos. As Capt. Kirk said in Star Trek IV, "Double dumb-ass on you!". This would be kind of sleazy, but they might create a fee structure that targets only one of the telcos, just as a demonstration of power. Making Google an ISP-paid "service" is not really any different than the cable channels who charge the cable operators (instead of the subscriber). Note to telcos: "Be careful of what you wish for..." Not that I really want them to do this; the threat works best if it never has to be carried out.

2. Google has TONS of cash. They could actually BUY one of the telcos and compete directly.

3. Alternatively, they could buy lots of dark fiber (or start running their own).

Google has $8B in assets with no long-term debt; there is almost nothing they can't do. If anyone can squash the dumb idea of paying telcos fees over-and-above what should be an all-inclusive use of the Internet, it's Google.

Re:"New Yorker" article opposing tiered internet by crabpeople · 2006-03-23 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I very frequently see topics discussed on slashdot appear in the new yorker. THey most definately have someone trawling slashdot for stories. I cant remember if i ever mentioned it before, but pretty much any technical computer related story has alot of points lifted off of this site.

They frequently quote the EFF as well and ive seen a number of articles on the philosphies and concepts of open source. Its pretty much the most well written magazine out there. It must be nice just trawling slashdot for comments and then copyright infringing them into a piece you get paid for. I dont figure i own what i say on here anyways and id rather have the readership of the new yorker have a better understanding than any vanity i could care to derive. Wish i had that kind of job.

their website is also very well done and their are plenty of free articles offered.

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...

I plead the series. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 08:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mr Dada posts his little "I have a dream" post every chance he can. The problem as you all have demonstrated is that it fails several litmus tests. Assholes is only one of the problems his scheme has to overcome. Economics is the other.

"This is not true, actually. First of all, transmitters sending more than a minimal signal are costly -- a 50,000 watt transmitter on one frequency would costs thousands a day in power. To broadcast over a wide range of frequencies would cost millions."

He can't even get this right. While there may be a given cost for a given power, all frequencies aren't equal. Two as already pointed out, one doesn't need lots of power to get a message (or even noise) across.

"Secondly, I promote the idea of freq-hopping software radios that utilize technology designed to avoid interference. In my own neighborhood there are about 20 WiFi access points I can see, and I still get great wireless networking at my home. We're sharing bandwidth here, and while there may be some problems, the situation is getting better in an minimally regulated spectrum. Open up the entire spectrum the FCC monopolizes and you'll see much less interference, not more."

Technofaith is cute especially when the faithful has no understanding of the physics behind it. One and two can be taken care of by mass marketing. Three however is just plain physics, and gets worse as more people are added. Oh and did I mention, all frequencies aren't equal (neither are antennas).

"Thirdly, I believe in the power of the market -- the current need to design better freq-hopping transceivers is not very high due to the regulations out there. Over time, though, I believe we'll see more deregulation of various frequencies as the need for more wireless transmissions goes up. I can only hope it happens sooner rather than later."

Well setting aside his "faith" in the market, his argument about the need not being very high because of regulations is false. The need isn't being driven by regulation but by the same force that has always driven development. Economics.

"Look at all the wasted bandwidth right now. We have digital and analog TV, digital and analog radio, cell phones, FRS, and dozens of other "regulated" bandwidths. This is all data -- and digital data is more efficient -- so why not work to slowly deregulate more and more bandwidth so more and more people can take advantage of it?"

Digital faith rears it's head. digital isn't always the best solution to a problem. Plus as I'm certain some of you have witnessed. Analog degrades gracefully. Digital can use FEC, but FEC isn't a "free of cost" solution and takes away from the message.

"Do we NEED analog and digital TV frequencies anymore? Cable and satellite have replaced MOST people's needs for broadcast media, yet BitTorrent is starting to hurt the old media companies, too. Why not use it all for whatever data the user and the sender both need?"

The faithful are often noted for living in their own little world. One cable or satellitle isn't always a solution for everybody. The reasons range from can't get, all the way to can't afford (the same issues Mr Dada's solution will have to face). Two MOST don't have (or can get) broadband (you know...that thing that powers every slashdot business model).

In short DaDa is long on hyperbole, and short on reality.

31 of 455 comments (clear)