3) Will someone just go ahead and sign Colin Kapernick?
Hot news on the radio news this morning: Kaepernick has an offer -- from that powerhouse of sports called "arena football". I can attest to the fact that he's probably as good as half the arena football qbs.
Also rumored that another on-the-outs football player has the same kind of offer, but his name meant nothing to me so I've already forgotten it.
Will Colin think the bully pulpit of arena football will be sufficient?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to watch the way I want, because they say so?
Yes, they don't authorize streaming feeds, for example, so you don't get to watch a streaming feed just because you say so.
OK, fine, if you've read this far you owe me money. Because I say so.
Sorry, your analogy fails. I am reading this in the same medium that you posted it, so you have granted rights to read without cost. That is why the NFL cannot say that you must pay to watch the OTA broadcast as a private user. They've already authorized that.
Now, if someone were to think of gathering all the/. posts into a book, your analogy might hold. There is, in fact, precedent for this consideration, from the time when people were using USENET posts as source for published books or commercially produced content. I don't know if that was ever tested in court, but I know it was a consideration. Considerate publishers asked before using USENET FAQs.
Consumers should be able to demand whatever they want and the market should adjust the price to an optimal cost, assuming no monopolies *cough*NFL*cough*.
The source being a monopoly or not makes no difference. If a provider does not want to sell you his product in the form you demand it in, he cannot be forced to do so. The fact that there are two providers who decide not to sell you their product in the form you demand doesn't change anything. It's their product, they get do decide how it is sold.
There was some comment upthread comparing being able to stream a game based on a cable subscription and streaming based on ability to receive the broadcast OTA. The reason for the difference is pretty simple. It is trivial to prove that you have a cable service that would carry it (I have a username and password for Comcast, e.g.) It is VERY hard to test whether someone asking for a streaming feed is able to receive the service OTA. The IP address is meaningless as a location, and ability to receive an OTA program depends on having the equipment -- something that a streaming source cannot possibly identify.
If consumers simply joined together and stopped watching for awhile until their profit margins tanked, you'd see a lot more reasonable options open up.
That's probably true, as far as what formats the existing product were available in. It is unlikely that a product that is no longer profitable would draw another provider into the market. I.e., if the NFL was no longer a cash cow, don't bet on an "AFL" or "USFL" professional football league popping up to add to the product mix. "Unprofitable service" may result in lower cost delivery options, but will not create the option of another provider of the same kind of thing.
An example that might be close is the NHL. They had a strike that really tanked their profits from television, and, if other people are like me, they lost a lot of viewers permanently. I lost interest in NHL when there was none, so I'm guessing a lot of others did, too. That's ok, there's soccer to fill the void. But you will note that there is no alternate hockey league to fill the gap from the NHL losses.
George Iloka gets a one game suspension for flattening Antonio Brown in the end zone. It was a hard hit but he was trying to prevent a touchdown.
If Brown was holding the ball in the endzone, it was already a touchdown. I'm watching the replays right now, and it was already a touchdown. Flattening him at that point was simply unsportsmanlike conduct. It's like flattening someone who is already out of bounds, or tackling the kicker after the ball is in the air.
Somebody needs to figure out what is fair and what is not.
Yes. Which is a big reason for the switch from GSM,
GSM is digital, encrypted. You mean AMPS.
Being received in the clear was not a big reason for digital, it was that you can pack more users into the same space with digital than analog. The first digital systems in the US were not GSM, they were CDMA. GSM was the world standard, and eventually migrated here.
The idiotic change to the Communications Act that made it illegal to sell or manufacture certain radios with certain cellphone frequency bands was driven by the use of AMPS and "in the clear" cell transmissions, and the idiotic idea that there was some expectation of privacy when someone transmitted their voice in the clear over the public airwaves.
Oh no, you're not squirming away from this one. I'm not specifying anything unusual,
I'm not squirming away from anything. I have no reason to bet you anything, since I have no control over who competes in your area. All I did was counter-bet using my own limits on the defined service, just as YOU set your limits on what you would consider an ISP. If you get to set the limits on your bet, I get to set them on mine.
No, they declined to expand.
You're still ranting about Comcast instead of discussing the point at hand, which is what MY responsibility as an ISP is towards connectivity outside my own network. What Comcast did is not relevant to that point.
It's a fucking downtown area with average house prices south of $1 million. If there's no "customer base" there then there's no customer base anywhere in the US.
"Customer base" means "people who would buy your service", not just "people who could afford your service". People who have money don't buy stuff just because they can afford it. Nobody says "hey, look, another ISP. I'm happy with what I've got but I think I'll change just for fun." It's only when you get enough people who are not happy with their existing service and want to change that there is a customer base for a competitor. I can't control whether there are enough of those people, or force a new ISP to come compete with the one you don't like.
Oh no, I didn't. I
Not in those words, but to that effect. I think it was "make reasonable use of", which includes end-to-end considerations.
ISPs have responsibility to perform all reasonable actions to make sure that customers can comfortable use their applications.
You did not say "reasonable actions", but again, "comfortable use" [sic] has end-to-end considerations.
Netflix is not a fucking site somewhere in middle of China.
It doesn't matter where Netflix is, I have no responsibility to make sure that Netflix has sufficient bandwidth to provide their service -- which is part of the ""comfortable use" result -- UNLESS Netflix is on MY NETWORK where I am responsible for network bandwidth. If Netflix colos in my datacenter, or through other means buys network service from me, then they are a customer I have a responsibility to. And yes, you can bet that if Netflix colos in my datacenter they are paying for the network access they need to sell their content. I ain't giving network access away for free.
There aren't any good ISPs in the top 10, so fuck you.
Your use of profanity helps your argument, not. All it proves is that you don't want a serious discussion. Bye.
This is the problem with floating definitions of broadband.
No, that's the problem of a floating definition of "ISP". When you contort the definition of ISP to be "faster than 50 Mbps" or "faster than 25 Mbps", then you can come up with whatever statistics you want. But "only one company that sells a service at a speed I want at a price I want to pay" doesn't turn them into a monopoly. I could claim that Chevrolet is a monopoly because "only Chevrolet makes a car with the features I want at the price I want to pay", but I would be amazingly wrong, and it would be amazingly wrong to create special regulations based on my personal choice.
Okay, so the end of reaching my job does not justify the means of driving 25 miles
That's correct. If "driving 25 miles" was illegal, then the fact that you could get to a job 25 miles away by driving 25 miles would not make the drive legal. "Justify" does not mean "explain why I do something", it means "make it a valid thing to do", in the context of that statement.
So what's my reason for getting on the road again?
Because you chose to use a legal means of getting to work that you chose to be 25 miles from home.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means.
If the "means" need justification because of the "ends", then no. That's why that sentence is significant. The ends can NEVER justify the means. Ever. The means have to stand alone. If the means are justified already, then the ends are irrelevant.
As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point.
I am focusing on the point you made: that it isn't an opinion that NN is necessary.
Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke.
No, I am not joking. I recognize the names of many of them, so I know they exist. And, as I recall, the wireless cell services were not included.
but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks.
Name one ISP that has a government-granted monopoly in the US.
You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted.
I should not, but you keep forgetting that we are talking about the government here. The GOVERNMENT should not be looking for loopholes or deciding what to do based on the ends while ignoring the means.
As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion.
Yes, I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It may be a well-supported opinion, and it may be a good thing to try to implement, but it is still nothing more than an opinion.
Government regulation was needed.
It was necessary to prevent internal sabotage and espionage when Japan brought war to us. You see, here we are again at the ends not justifying the means, and "for the right reasons" not being a valid excuse. "Government regulation was needed" does not excuse bypassing the process or using the wrong solutions.
Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet.
A few egregious examples that were being dealt with.
As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale,
The solution to ISPs not providing the service they contracted to provide is either FTC investigations (which they have proven they can handle), or go to a different ISP. If there is a customer base, this pretend monopoly will vaporize. In many places it has. Please tell me again how 13 ISPs in one city create a monopoly -- and that's ignoring the multiple cellular ISPs.
You conveniently forgot that Netflix offers or at least offered to set up equipment on the ISP's network that would host Netflix's content.
I don't think that has been forgotten.
But iirc, the ISP's wanted Netflix to also pay money to host this equipment,
Of course ISPs would expect Netflix to pay for colocation services. You think Netflix deserves to get free electricity, backup power, and network connections just because? Netflix is being paid for their services, why shouldn't the ISP get paid for providing direct service to Netflix?
which I think Netflix was offering free-of-charge to the ISP's.
"Free of charge" is not "free of cost". You want the ISP to pick up Netflix's costs of doing business, and the ISPs aren't that stupid.
Would you expect your local ISP to give you free colo services in exchange for you providing the hardware they would plug into their net? I don't. Then consider the amount of traffic that Netflix would be putting onto the ISPs net and then wonder why the ISP wouldn't hook them up for free.
No. It's you who are squealing like a pig being slaughtered.
And I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion instead of just toss insults.
they were DECLINING TO BUILD UP THEIR INTERCONNECTIONS.
Yes, they declined to pay to expand an interconnect that was being saturated with traffic primarily from one source. I note that you've now transitioned from talking about my responsibilities as an ISP into a rant about Comcast.
Nobody was asking them to provide free transit to Netflix,
Actually, Netflix asked them for free colo. And when did this discussion about what you think my responsibility to my customers is change into some "free transit" request? You're on a different topic now, altogether.
I offered this bet several times - if by the end of the next year I have at least 3 wireline ISPs that will provide me more with more than 50Mbps connection then I'll pay you $10000.
So you are deliberately slanting your bet by limiting the options to wireline and certain speeds. I'll bet you this: if by the end of next year there is a 10Gb fiber service to my house that costs just $10, I'll pay you $10,000. Otherwise, you pay me. How about those terms?
I can't control who competes in your area. If there isn't enough customer base to support another ISP, that's not my fault.
I actually used to run an ISP and I fucking know how deeply US ISPs are screwing people.
Somehow I don't doubt that you are intimately familiar with how ISPs screw people. I am also familiar with how some of them don't.
But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed that an ISP has a responsibility to make sure the service works to everyplace on internet. You've yet to counter just one of the reasons I've told you why that isn't true. All you can do is go off on a tangent about Comcast.
I work in telecom, and I think you might be a little needlessly pedantic here.
When you talk both legal and technical matters, it is important to use the right terms. "Telco" is not synonymous with ISP. ISP is a much bigger universe. Yes, telcos and cable companies are also ISPs, but that function is still different. A major difference is that while the telcos have a true monopoly on wired telephone service, and cable companies used to have a true dejure monopoly on cable services (but no longer), neither one has ever had a true monopoly on ISP services.
That makes differentiating the terms important when you are talking about ISP regulation. ISP regulation isn't just trying to get back at those awful cable companies that we all hate so much, it includes ALL the ISPs, even the small ones trying to compete against the big ones.
If you want to throttle ISP competition, the best way is to regulate ISPs so that it is even harder for the small competitors to succeed.
Either that or you just woke from a coma
I think those that just woke from the coma are the ones who think that their ISP has a monopoly.
The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people.
This justification leads to the tyranny of the majority. If the "needs/will of the people" say that we do something that the Constitution says is not an authorized privilege of government, then the "needs/will of the people" will just have to go lacking, and the government official has no authority to do it. If the Congress crafts laws that say one thing, it is not up to the "people in power" to decide they'll do something different because obviously, they're doing it "for the right reason".
Compare this to corporate activities when it comes to taxes. They will go to great lengths to minimize the amount of taxes they pay, short of breaking the law, because they know that they have "the right reasons" for ignoring the intent of tax law and relying on what tax law actually says. These corporations are evil because they do that. How is it not evil if the executive branch of government looks for ways to ignore the intent of Congress and instead find the "loopholes" that let it do what it wants?
Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision.
It is often hard to accept that something you dearly want to happen cannot happen the way it has, but that's what being in a society with a limited government can result in. The government has limits. And no, we can recognize opinions when they appear, and we know that it is your opinion that the FCC decision to manage NN was "the right decision". It is also somewhat clear that you admit that it was done the wrong way. ("Ends justify the means" isn't used unless the means were questionable.)
In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book.
That may be. But the fact is, they did not vote the way you wanted them to. That fact does not mean that other parts of the government get to do what they think is better "for the right reason".
They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality.
We do not know that. That's your assumption based on your opinion that NN is so obviously Necessary and Good that there can be no valid opposing opinion.
Actually, it IS your duty to make sure that customers can reach the fucking 1-st most popular destination on the Internet with a reasonable speed.
You've changed a lot of words between your first claim and this one, but it is still wrong. My responsibility ends at the edge of my network. I cannot control what other network providers do, and I cannot control what bandwidth other content providers pay for.
If it weren't for a total lack of competition
There are four ISPs I can call at any time for service here, and those are just the ones I'm familiar with. There's 13 listed in the phone book. I see lots of competition. A friend of mine told me that he would routinely change ISPs, just to keep getting the "new customer" discounts. Six months with A, six months with B, back to A, then B... were there no competition, how could he have done this?
You meant to write "my slaves", didn't you?
No, I wrote exactly what I mean. As an ISP I have no slaves. Every customer is free to go elsewhere for service, at which time they'll find that their new ISP also has no responsibility for anything off-network for them.
Because your customers PAY YOU to get the content.
No, they don't. They pay for a connection to the internet at the specific bandwidth to them. They do not pay me for a 100 Mbps connection to Netflix, simply because I have no control over the bandwidth they get to Netflix one they leave my network. I also have no authority to sell the Netflix content, so I cannot legally charge my customers for it.
It's not like Netflix just shoves data into your network.
No, they don't shove their data anywhere. The put it on THEIR ISPs network, which then has to pass a border gateway to mine, and then via mine to my customers. It's those other networks being involved that makes your original claim wrong.
First, it's actually YOUR DUTY as an ISP to make sure that your clients are getting good service.
It is my duty as an ISP to make sure they are getting the service they paid for.
It is not my duty to make sure that every customer gets 100 mbps service to every site everywhere on the internet 24/7, because that's not what they're paying for.
Second, Netflix will gladly install caching edge servers in your datacenter and manage them for you:...- all free of charge.
Of course I'm not paying them to do this. Why should I pay THEM to use my electricity and network backbone so they can charge my customers for their content?
This saves something like 95% of the total backbone traffic.
So this one company is 95% of the incoming backbone traffic I get? Wow. Sounds like it should be them paying for any network upgrades to deal with the traffic that causes the congestion and that they are making a profit from. They should absolutely be paying to be colocated in my datacenter since they're going to be putting such a load on my network. It will save them a lot of money in paying for their own network access, since they won't need the fat pipes they are buying from their ISP, so "free" isn't going to happen.
Yet Comcast was refusing it.
Yeah, and if you'd let them into your facility for free because gee, they aren't going to charge you for the privilege of them being in your datacenter, then you're going to go out of business very fast. How many other colo servers will you host for free? I'd like to get in on that deal. I'd love to put a server in a managed, backup-powered high-connectivity data center for free. And since the connection will have to be at the highest data rate (so no Comcast customer would get less than they paid for), it would be wonderful. And for free!
and then negotiate rights with each of the property owners along the way, so that you can locate your stuff on their property.
You don't locate "your stuff" on their property until they become a customer. Until then you stay on the already negotiated easements and public rights-of-way.
To do that, you would just need to gain rights to use the public spectrum. Your checkbook needs to open wide to do this.
Point-to-point microwave is relatively cheap. We've got a local wireless internet company, and their rates do not reflect a billion-dollar FCC licensing investment.
If they had to individually negotiate the rights to use - and pay a mutually agreed rent to - all of the property on which they've built,
They already pay a mutually agreed rent for access to the public rights of way. It's called a "franchise fee", and for Comcast in this area it is 3% of their revenue.
The *only* rational policy is to treat any infrastructure that uses government facilitated rights of way, or public air spectrum, as a public utility.
That is an assertion, not an obvious fact.
And it should not be possible for any company to simultaneously own any part of the infrastructure (directly or indirectly), and any content that it carries.
So telephone companies should not be allowed to operate a 411 (information) service?
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions?
Of course. This doesn't really have anything to do with who did it. The only "person" issue here is that if one person who is President can do it, then the next one who is President can undo it the same way. I think there's a saying for that: "sauce for the goose". That seems to upset some people (who have mod points today), but it's a fact.
That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it?
No, sorry, but the ends do not justify the means. especially when we are talking about the government. Assuming that "something must be done" justifies bypassing the correct process is a dangerous thing. "'Something must be done' about all the Japanese living in the US now that we are at war with Japan. I know, I think the best way to handle it is to put them in internment camps..." "'Something must be done' about the potential entry of the US into our war in Asia, and I think the best way to handle it is to bomb the hell out of the US Pacific fleet while they are at anchor in Honolulu." "Something must be done" about hackers and intellectual property violators... "Something must be done" has led to some very very bad laws and actions.
Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Do you really want a government that operates under the premise that "it doesn't matter how we go about it, it only matters that we did it for 'the right reasons', in our opinion"? Do you not understand what kind of abuses that can lead to?
"Well, we think Xenx is doing something illegal, and that's bad. We searched his house without a warrant, but we did it for what we thought were the right reasons." "For the right reasons" is right next to "something must be done" at the bottom of the list of excuses for government doing things the wrong way.
People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
Problems with that excuse. First, government isn't mother and father, providing for us things we don't know we need. Second, there is a right way to do this, and "fiat" wasn't it. And third, laws are not principles, they are laws that try to enact principles but never seem quite able to avoid unintended effects.
"Principles by fiat" is a particularly bad way to govern from the Executive branch, especially when the Legislative branch has already provided their guidance in the form of laws.
Now, stop acting like the FCC undoing their regulations on net neutrality means that there are no and can never be any net neutrality regulation. Forcing congress's hand and moving the regulation to the right place isn't destroying the net as we know it. Companies that didn't do everything everyone is dreaming up before the FCC started controlling the internet won't suddenly start doing it when they stop.
How exactly was he supposed to do that with a congress that stated in no uncertain terms - and backed it up with their actions - that they would not work with him on anything?
The answer to government not doing what you want because the congress won't create the laws you want is NOT to govern by fiat. Once you accept that Obama can do anything he wants because the congress won't do what he wants, you have to accept that Trump can do whatever HE wants when the congress refuses to do what he wants.
You can't honestly say "it's ok when a President I like does it, it's bad when one I don't like does it". If the powers of the President include making new laws by proclamation, then those are the powers he has.
Under the worst-case scenario should the Net Neutrality rules go away, I'd still be paying for internet access, but I'd be limited to whatever Spectrum feels like is included in their "basic package".
Worst case scenario: Spectrum demands your first born child for ANY access to the Internet, and if you even try to visit a site on the unapproved list they come burn your house down and kill your wife. Beware those embedded links on random web pages, they could cost you more than you know.
If you are going to imagine "worst case scenarios", you should try a little harder. You're not even scratching the imaginary world that could be created here. Go wild! Hyperbole doesn't work if it isn't patently ridiculous. (Well, ok, your scenario is pretty ridiculous, so I guess it counts.)
Why do we ignore that there is more to the government than the FCC? Why should the FCC ignore congress and not let other departments do their job?
This caused a shitstorm of complaining letters and cancellations. Quite astonishing to me,
If you read/. on a regular basis, you might believe that computer people can do nothing but resort to name calling when an election doesn't result in their favorite as the winner. It should not be surprising that a large part of the population doesn't really want to see personal insult in everything they read and pay for.
Cancellation was not the right action, since that just results in lost money. You've already paid for the magazine, you might as well get the issues you've paid for. And maybe, just maybe, the next issue will carry an apology. But no, sadly, it did not. For something that resulted in as serious a response as you claim, the editorial staff was amazingly silent about it. "Ignore it and it will go away" boomeranged.
There are some pretty weird Americans out there, and some of them run Linux.
Yes, it is emotionally satisfying to insult those who object to irrelevant political commentary in a technical journal as "weird", and that just reinforces the stereotype.
Slashdot Mirror
3) Will someone just go ahead and sign Colin Kapernick?
Hot news on the radio news this morning: Kaepernick has an offer -- from that powerhouse of sports called "arena football". I can attest to the fact that he's probably as good as half the arena football qbs.
Also rumored that another on-the-outs football player has the same kind of offer, but his name meant nothing to me so I've already forgotten it.
Will Colin think the bully pulpit of arena football will be sufficient?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to watch the way I want, because they say so?
Yes, they don't authorize streaming feeds, for example, so you don't get to watch a streaming feed just because you say so.
OK, fine, if you've read this far you owe me money. Because I say so.
Sorry, your analogy fails. I am reading this in the same medium that you posted it, so you have granted rights to read without cost. That is why the NFL cannot say that you must pay to watch the OTA broadcast as a private user. They've already authorized that.
Now, if someone were to think of gathering all the /. posts into a book, your analogy might hold. There is, in fact, precedent for this consideration, from the time when people were using USENET posts as source for published books or commercially produced content. I don't know if that was ever tested in court, but I know it was a consideration. Considerate publishers asked before using USENET FAQs.
Consumers should be able to demand whatever they want and the market should adjust the price to an optimal cost, assuming no monopolies *cough*NFL*cough*.
The source being a monopoly or not makes no difference. If a provider does not want to sell you his product in the form you demand it in, he cannot be forced to do so. The fact that there are two providers who decide not to sell you their product in the form you demand doesn't change anything. It's their product, they get do decide how it is sold.
There was some comment upthread comparing being able to stream a game based on a cable subscription and streaming based on ability to receive the broadcast OTA. The reason for the difference is pretty simple. It is trivial to prove that you have a cable service that would carry it (I have a username and password for Comcast, e.g.) It is VERY hard to test whether someone asking for a streaming feed is able to receive the service OTA. The IP address is meaningless as a location, and ability to receive an OTA program depends on having the equipment -- something that a streaming source cannot possibly identify.
If consumers simply joined together and stopped watching for awhile until their profit margins tanked, you'd see a lot more reasonable options open up.
That's probably true, as far as what formats the existing product were available in. It is unlikely that a product that is no longer profitable would draw another provider into the market. I.e., if the NFL was no longer a cash cow, don't bet on an "AFL" or "USFL" professional football league popping up to add to the product mix. "Unprofitable service" may result in lower cost delivery options, but will not create the option of another provider of the same kind of thing.
An example that might be close is the NHL. They had a strike that really tanked their profits from television, and, if other people are like me, they lost a lot of viewers permanently. I lost interest in NHL when there was none, so I'm guessing a lot of others did, too. That's ok, there's soccer to fill the void. But you will note that there is no alternate hockey league to fill the gap from the NHL losses.
George Iloka gets a one game suspension for flattening Antonio Brown in the end zone. It was a hard hit but he was trying to prevent a touchdown.
If Brown was holding the ball in the endzone, it was already a touchdown. I'm watching the replays right now, and it was already a touchdown. Flattening him at that point was simply unsportsmanlike conduct. It's like flattening someone who is already out of bounds, or tackling the kicker after the ball is in the air.
Somebody needs to figure out what is fair and what is not.
They did, and Iloka paid the price for his act.
Yes. Which is a big reason for the switch from GSM,
GSM is digital, encrypted. You mean AMPS.
Being received in the clear was not a big reason for digital, it was that you can pack more users into the same space with digital than analog. The first digital systems in the US were not GSM, they were CDMA. GSM was the world standard, and eventually migrated here.
The idiotic change to the Communications Act that made it illegal to sell or manufacture certain radios with certain cellphone frequency bands was driven by the use of AMPS and "in the clear" cell transmissions, and the idiotic idea that there was some expectation of privacy when someone transmitted their voice in the clear over the public airwaves.
Oh no, you're not squirming away from this one. I'm not specifying anything unusual,
I'm not squirming away from anything. I have no reason to bet you anything, since I have no control over who competes in your area. All I did was counter-bet using my own limits on the defined service, just as YOU set your limits on what you would consider an ISP. If you get to set the limits on your bet, I get to set them on mine.
No, they declined to expand.
You're still ranting about Comcast instead of discussing the point at hand, which is what MY responsibility as an ISP is towards connectivity outside my own network. What Comcast did is not relevant to that point.
It's a fucking downtown area with average house prices south of $1 million. If there's no "customer base" there then there's no customer base anywhere in the US.
"Customer base" means "people who would buy your service", not just "people who could afford your service". People who have money don't buy stuff just because they can afford it. Nobody says "hey, look, another ISP. I'm happy with what I've got but I think I'll change just for fun." It's only when you get enough people who are not happy with their existing service and want to change that there is a customer base for a competitor. I can't control whether there are enough of those people, or force a new ISP to come compete with the one you don't like.
Oh no, I didn't. I
Not in those words, but to that effect. I think it was "make reasonable use of", which includes end-to-end considerations.
ISPs have responsibility to perform all reasonable actions to make sure that customers can comfortable use their applications.
You did not say "reasonable actions", but again, "comfortable use" [sic] has end-to-end considerations.
Netflix is not a fucking site somewhere in middle of China.
It doesn't matter where Netflix is, I have no responsibility to make sure that Netflix has sufficient bandwidth to provide their service -- which is part of the ""comfortable use" result -- UNLESS Netflix is on MY NETWORK where I am responsible for network bandwidth. If Netflix colos in my datacenter, or through other means buys network service from me, then they are a customer I have a responsibility to. And yes, you can bet that if Netflix colos in my datacenter they are paying for the network access they need to sell their content. I ain't giving network access away for free.
There aren't any good ISPs in the top 10, so fuck you.
Your use of profanity helps your argument, not. All it proves is that you don't want a serious discussion. Bye.
This is the problem with floating definitions of broadband.
No, that's the problem of a floating definition of "ISP". When you contort the definition of ISP to be "faster than 50 Mbps" or "faster than 25 Mbps", then you can come up with whatever statistics you want. But "only one company that sells a service at a speed I want at a price I want to pay" doesn't turn them into a monopoly. I could claim that Chevrolet is a monopoly because "only Chevrolet makes a car with the features I want at the price I want to pay", but I would be amazingly wrong, and it would be amazingly wrong to create special regulations based on my personal choice.
Okay, so the end of reaching my job does not justify the means of driving 25 miles
That's correct. If "driving 25 miles" was illegal, then the fact that you could get to a job 25 miles away by driving 25 miles would not make the drive legal. "Justify" does not mean "explain why I do something", it means "make it a valid thing to do", in the context of that statement.
So what's my reason for getting on the road again?
Because you chose to use a legal means of getting to work that you chose to be 25 miles from home.
If you have two bad choices,
Then you cannot claim that one of them is a monopoly.
I've already stated that ends can justify means, but don't always justify means.
If the "means" need justification because of the "ends", then no. That's why that sentence is significant. The ends can NEVER justify the means. Ever. The means have to stand alone. If the means are justified already, then the ends are irrelevant.
As for net neutrality being an opinion, you're focusing on the wrong point.
I am focusing on the point you made: that it isn't an opinion that NN is necessary.
Further, trying to claim 13 ISPs is a joke.
No, I am not joking. I recognize the names of many of them, so I know they exist. And, as I recall, the wireless cell services were not included.
but most people get to choose between DSL or cable internet.
So more than one. And that limit is only if you ignore the other choices and focus on the common ones.
Companies can only get away with screwing customers if they have government-granted monopolies. So, if you don't like customers being screwed, stop granting monopolies to these jerks.
Name one ISP that has a government-granted monopoly in the US.
You should not base every decision solely upon the law and how it's intended to be interpreted.
I should not, but you keep forgetting that we are talking about the government here. The GOVERNMENT should not be looking for loopholes or deciding what to do based on the ends while ignoring the means.
As for net neutrality being necessary, it isn't an opinion.
Yes, I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It may be a well-supported opinion, and it may be a good thing to try to implement, but it is still nothing more than an opinion.
Government regulation was needed.
It was necessary to prevent internal sabotage and espionage when Japan brought war to us. You see, here we are again at the ends not justifying the means, and "for the right reasons" not being a valid excuse. "Government regulation was needed" does not excuse bypassing the process or using the wrong solutions.
Net neutrality was a counter to actions ISPs were already taking to restrict open access to the internet.
A few egregious examples that were being dealt with.
As ISPs are a monopoly/duopoly in a given locale,
The solution to ISPs not providing the service they contracted to provide is either FTC investigations (which they have proven they can handle), or go to a different ISP. If there is a customer base, this pretend monopoly will vaporize. In many places it has. Please tell me again how 13 ISPs in one city create a monopoly -- and that's ignoring the multiple cellular ISPs.
You conveniently forgot that Netflix offers or at least offered to set up equipment on the ISP's network that would host Netflix's content.
I don't think that has been forgotten.
But iirc, the ISP's wanted Netflix to also pay money to host this equipment,
Of course ISPs would expect Netflix to pay for colocation services. You think Netflix deserves to get free electricity, backup power, and network connections just because? Netflix is being paid for their services, why shouldn't the ISP get paid for providing direct service to Netflix?
which I think Netflix was offering free-of-charge to the ISP's.
"Free of charge" is not "free of cost". You want the ISP to pick up Netflix's costs of doing business, and the ISPs aren't that stupid.
Would you expect your local ISP to give you free colo services in exchange for you providing the hardware they would plug into their net? I don't. Then consider the amount of traffic that Netflix would be putting onto the ISPs net and then wonder why the ISP wouldn't hook them up for free.
No. It's you who are squealing like a pig being slaughtered.
And I thought you wanted to have a serious discussion instead of just toss insults.
they were DECLINING TO BUILD UP THEIR INTERCONNECTIONS.
Yes, they declined to pay to expand an interconnect that was being saturated with traffic primarily from one source. I note that you've now transitioned from talking about my responsibilities as an ISP into a rant about Comcast.
Nobody was asking them to provide free transit to Netflix,
Actually, Netflix asked them for free colo. And when did this discussion about what you think my responsibility to my customers is change into some "free transit" request? You're on a different topic now, altogether.
I offered this bet several times - if by the end of the next year I have at least 3 wireline ISPs that will provide me more with more than 50Mbps connection then I'll pay you $10000.
So you are deliberately slanting your bet by limiting the options to wireline and certain speeds. I'll bet you this: if by the end of next year there is a 10Gb fiber service to my house that costs just $10, I'll pay you $10,000. Otherwise, you pay me. How about those terms?
I can't control who competes in your area. If there isn't enough customer base to support another ISP, that's not my fault.
I actually used to run an ISP and I fucking know how deeply US ISPs are screwing people.
Somehow I don't doubt that you are intimately familiar with how ISPs screw people. I am also familiar with how some of them don't.
But that wasn't what you claimed. You claimed that an ISP has a responsibility to make sure the service works to everyplace on internet. You've yet to counter just one of the reasons I've told you why that isn't true. All you can do is go off on a tangent about Comcast.
I work in telecom, and I think you might be a little needlessly pedantic here.
When you talk both legal and technical matters, it is important to use the right terms. "Telco" is not synonymous with ISP. ISP is a much bigger universe. Yes, telcos and cable companies are also ISPs, but that function is still different. A major difference is that while the telcos have a true monopoly on wired telephone service, and cable companies used to have a true dejure monopoly on cable services (but no longer), neither one has ever had a true monopoly on ISP services.
That makes differentiating the terms important when you are talking about ISP regulation. ISP regulation isn't just trying to get back at those awful cable companies that we all hate so much, it includes ALL the ISPs, even the small ones trying to compete against the big ones.
If you want to throttle ISP competition, the best way is to regulate ISPs so that it is even harder for the small competitors to succeed.
Either that or you just woke from a coma
I think those that just woke from the coma are the ones who think that their ISP has a monopoly.
ISPs are definitely monopolies.
When a city the size of about 50,000 has 13 of them, I don't think the word "monopoly" applies in any sense.
I can't speak to your situation.
The people in power are supposed to make that decision based upon the needs/will of the people.
This justification leads to the tyranny of the majority. If the "needs/will of the people" say that we do something that the Constitution says is not an authorized privilege of government, then the "needs/will of the people" will just have to go lacking, and the government official has no authority to do it. If the Congress crafts laws that say one thing, it is not up to the "people in power" to decide they'll do something different because obviously, they're doing it "for the right reason".
Compare this to corporate activities when it comes to taxes. They will go to great lengths to minimize the amount of taxes they pay, short of breaking the law, because they know that they have "the right reasons" for ignoring the intent of tax law and relying on what tax law actually says. These corporations are evil because they do that. How is it not evil if the executive branch of government looks for ways to ignore the intent of Congress and instead find the "loopholes" that let it do what it wants?
Obama going through the FCC for net neutrality was, to me(apparently I need to specify opinions as such), the right decision.
It is often hard to accept that something you dearly want to happen cannot happen the way it has, but that's what being in a society with a limited government can result in. The government has limits. And no, we can recognize opinions when they appear, and we know that it is your opinion that the FCC decision to manage NN was "the right decision". It is also somewhat clear that you admit that it was done the wrong way. ("Ends justify the means" isn't used unless the means were questionable.)
In a perfect world, congress would do what is right for the people instead of their pocket book.
That may be. But the fact is, they did not vote the way you wanted them to. That fact does not mean that other parts of the government get to do what they think is better "for the right reason".
They would have enacted law to protect the principle of net neutrality.
We do not know that. That's your assumption based on your opinion that NN is so obviously Necessary and Good that there can be no valid opposing opinion.
Actually, it IS your duty to make sure that customers can reach the fucking 1-st most popular destination on the Internet with a reasonable speed.
You've changed a lot of words between your first claim and this one, but it is still wrong. My responsibility ends at the edge of my network. I cannot control what other network providers do, and I cannot control what bandwidth other content providers pay for.
If it weren't for a total lack of competition
There are four ISPs I can call at any time for service here, and those are just the ones I'm familiar with. There's 13 listed in the phone book. I see lots of competition. A friend of mine told me that he would routinely change ISPs, just to keep getting the "new customer" discounts. Six months with A, six months with B, back to A, then B ... were there no competition, how could he have done this?
You meant to write "my slaves", didn't you?
No, I wrote exactly what I mean. As an ISP I have no slaves. Every customer is free to go elsewhere for service, at which time they'll find that their new ISP also has no responsibility for anything off-network for them.
Because your customers PAY YOU to get the content.
No, they don't. They pay for a connection to the internet at the specific bandwidth to them. They do not pay me for a 100 Mbps connection to Netflix, simply because I have no control over the bandwidth they get to Netflix one they leave my network. I also have no authority to sell the Netflix content, so I cannot legally charge my customers for it.
It's not like Netflix just shoves data into your network.
No, they don't shove their data anywhere. The put it on THEIR ISPs network, which then has to pass a border gateway to mine, and then via mine to my customers. It's those other networks being involved that makes your original claim wrong.
First, it's actually YOUR DUTY as an ISP to make sure that your clients are getting good service.
It is my duty as an ISP to make sure they are getting the service they paid for. It is not my duty to make sure that every customer gets 100 mbps service to every site everywhere on the internet 24/7, because that's not what they're paying for.
Second, Netflix will gladly install caching edge servers in your datacenter and manage them for you: ...- all free of charge.
Of course I'm not paying them to do this. Why should I pay THEM to use my electricity and network backbone so they can charge my customers for their content?
This saves something like 95% of the total backbone traffic.
So this one company is 95% of the incoming backbone traffic I get? Wow. Sounds like it should be them paying for any network upgrades to deal with the traffic that causes the congestion and that they are making a profit from. They should absolutely be paying to be colocated in my datacenter since they're going to be putting such a load on my network. It will save them a lot of money in paying for their own network access, since they won't need the fat pipes they are buying from their ISP, so "free" isn't going to happen.
Yet Comcast was refusing it.
Yeah, and if you'd let them into your facility for free because gee, they aren't going to charge you for the privilege of them being in your datacenter, then you're going to go out of business very fast. How many other colo servers will you host for free? I'd like to get in on that deal. I'd love to put a server in a managed, backup-powered high-connectivity data center for free. And since the connection will have to be at the highest data rate (so no Comcast customer would get less than they paid for), it would be wonderful. And for free!
and then negotiate rights with each of the property owners along the way, so that you can locate your stuff on their property.
You don't locate "your stuff" on their property until they become a customer. Until then you stay on the already negotiated easements and public rights-of-way.
To do that, you would just need to gain rights to use the public spectrum. Your checkbook needs to open wide to do this.
Point-to-point microwave is relatively cheap. We've got a local wireless internet company, and their rates do not reflect a billion-dollar FCC licensing investment.
If they had to individually negotiate the rights to use - and pay a mutually agreed rent to - all of the property on which they've built,
They already pay a mutually agreed rent for access to the public rights of way. It's called a "franchise fee", and for Comcast in this area it is 3% of their revenue.
The *only* rational policy is to treat any infrastructure that uses government facilitated rights of way, or public air spectrum, as a public utility.
That is an assertion, not an obvious fact.
And it should not be possible for any company to simultaneously own any part of the infrastructure (directly or indirectly), and any content that it carries.
So telephone companies should not be allowed to operate a 411 (information) service?
As i understand it, the telco situation in the USA is monopolies.
Local telcos are still monopolies for wired telephone service. ISPs are not. The two words are not synonyms.
Do you realize it's perfectly possible to approve of someone's specific actions without approving of the person or the rest of their actions?
Of course. This doesn't really have anything to do with who did it. The only "person" issue here is that if one person who is President can do it, then the next one who is President can undo it the same way. I think there's a saying for that: "sauce for the goose". That seems to upset some people (who have mod points today), but it's a fact.
That you can approve of something that someone did because something needed to be done, even though it wasn't the best way to go about it?
No, sorry, but the ends do not justify the means. especially when we are talking about the government. Assuming that "something must be done" justifies bypassing the correct process is a dangerous thing. "'Something must be done' about all the Japanese living in the US now that we are at war with Japan. I know, I think the best way to handle it is to put them in internment camps..." "'Something must be done' about the potential entry of the US into our war in Asia, and I think the best way to handle it is to bomb the hell out of the US Pacific fleet while they are at anchor in Honolulu." "Something must be done" about hackers and intellectual property violators ... "Something must be done" has led to some very very bad laws and actions.
Sometimes it's not about how they go about it, but that they're doing it for the right reasons.
Do you really want a government that operates under the premise that "it doesn't matter how we go about it, it only matters that we did it for 'the right reasons', in our opinion"? Do you not understand what kind of abuses that can lead to?
"Well, we think Xenx is doing something illegal, and that's bad. We searched his house without a warrant, but we did it for what we thought were the right reasons." "For the right reasons" is right next to "something must be done" at the bottom of the list of excuses for government doing things the wrong way.
People need net neutrality, the principle, even if they don't realize it.
Problems with that excuse. First, government isn't mother and father, providing for us things we don't know we need. Second, there is a right way to do this, and "fiat" wasn't it. And third, laws are not principles, they are laws that try to enact principles but never seem quite able to avoid unintended effects.
"Principles by fiat" is a particularly bad way to govern from the Executive branch, especially when the Legislative branch has already provided their guidance in the form of laws.
Now, stop acting like the FCC undoing their regulations on net neutrality means that there are no and can never be any net neutrality regulation. Forcing congress's hand and moving the regulation to the right place isn't destroying the net as we know it. Companies that didn't do everything everyone is dreaming up before the FCC started controlling the internet won't suddenly start doing it when they stop.
How exactly was he supposed to do that with a congress that stated in no uncertain terms - and backed it up with their actions - that they would not work with him on anything?
The answer to government not doing what you want because the congress won't create the laws you want is NOT to govern by fiat. Once you accept that Obama can do anything he wants because the congress won't do what he wants, you have to accept that Trump can do whatever HE wants when the congress refuses to do what he wants.
You can't honestly say "it's ok when a President I like does it, it's bad when one I don't like does it". If the powers of the President include making new laws by proclamation, then those are the powers he has.
Under the worst-case scenario should the Net Neutrality rules go away, I'd still be paying for internet access, but I'd be limited to whatever Spectrum feels like is included in their "basic package".
Worst case scenario: Spectrum demands your first born child for ANY access to the Internet, and if you even try to visit a site on the unapproved list they come burn your house down and kill your wife. Beware those embedded links on random web pages, they could cost you more than you know.
If you are going to imagine "worst case scenarios", you should try a little harder. You're not even scratching the imaginary world that could be created here. Go wild! Hyperbole doesn't work if it isn't patently ridiculous. (Well, ok, your scenario is pretty ridiculous, so I guess it counts.)
Why do we ignore that there is more to the government than the FCC? Why should the FCC ignore congress and not let other departments do their job?
This caused a shitstorm of complaining letters and cancellations. Quite astonishing to me,
If you read /. on a regular basis, you might believe that computer people can do nothing but resort to name calling when an election doesn't result in their favorite as the winner. It should not be surprising that a large part of the population doesn't really want to see personal insult in everything they read and pay for.
Cancellation was not the right action, since that just results in lost money. You've already paid for the magazine, you might as well get the issues you've paid for. And maybe, just maybe, the next issue will carry an apology. But no, sadly, it did not. For something that resulted in as serious a response as you claim, the editorial staff was amazingly silent about it. "Ignore it and it will go away" boomeranged.
There are some pretty weird Americans out there, and some of them run Linux.
Yes, it is emotionally satisfying to insult those who object to irrelevant political commentary in a technical journal as "weird", and that just reinforces the stereotype.