No, I understand. Your points are idiotic at best.
You are very successful at strawmanning my position in your own mind. I can't penetrate your sense of things if you aren't even thinking.
Who brought up using HFT fiber connections? That was you. You brought up the irrelevant point that $14M connections that are not remotely feasible to the average consumer. That's as idiotic as recommending that if people don't like their choice of airlines, they should buy their own plane.
The problem with your position is that competition is demonstrably not stopped by infrastructure expenses but rather because people are not granted pole and conduit right of way.
This is a basic false dichotomy fallacy. Even if everyone had pole and conduit right of way it still won't be easy or cheap to lay fiber. I ask you again to lay fiber to my house for $50 if you get right of way.
That is evident in all the data.
You presented no data which supports your point. You presented data which only destroyed your point.
Your entire position is thus not supported by observation where as the contrary position is supported by observation.
What? Again lay fiber to my house for $50 to prove me wrong.
Legally the FCC can't classify them as title 1 (due to that damn court decision), so they classified the FCC classified the internet under title 2. That's not a good fit for it either though. I'm not blaming the FCC here for doing what it did.
No that's not what the court said. The FCC can classify ISPs as Title I but the court said that under Communications Act of 1934, the FCC could not enforce the regulations they wanted to enforce. The court specifically said under Title II the FCC could do that. Thus the FCC classified ISPs under Title II.
The ideal solution is for congress to amend title 1 (or make a new title 3) to include the internet. Will that happen? Probably not with this dysfunctional congress. Doesn't mean it's not the preferred solution though.
No because Title I has a specific provision. What you are saying is you need a Title VIII as other titles have been created. But not with this Congress.
Because there are such things as minimums and terms of service. My parents don't watch a lot of Netflix, but when they do, it should be at the speeds Comcast advertised when they signed the contract. The stream shouldn't be slower because Comcast wants more money from Netflix or that Comcast wants them to buy the same content from them instead of Netflix.
I read the article to you posted and it seems clear you didn't read it. Yet you accuse me of not thinking? Did you read your own article or not because it seems like you didn't. Wow that sounds a lot like Trump. Your idol perhaps?
The point is not what it cost. The point is that they were allowed to do it..
Bahahaha. So you're whole point is that it's possible but it's not economically feasible for everyone to have fiber. Well it's theoretically possible for me to travel in a FTL vehicle. I just need a great deal of energy and to invent a vehicle. That will really frighten those pesky airlines and I'll never have to use them again. Just wait. One day everyone will have FTL drives. Because that's akin to what you're saying.
Keep in mind that a competing ISP would wire not ONE person with that kind of connection but perhaps thousands of people which would more than make it work economically
Do you read what you post? That makes no sense. Connecting to thousands of people is not less expensive than connecting to node in a HFT scenario. Not remotely close. That's as idiotic as saying: well I built one 100 mile highway between two points; building thousands of miles of widely varying roadways should be less costly.
I don't expect you to be able to process any of this... you're not thinking. You're just making idiot comments. I've provided articles and credible arguments to back up my position.
Bahahaha. You did not provide any credible argument. You brought silly arguments which were destroyed in an instant. You brought in irrelevant articles like HFT trading fiber connections that cost $14M each. In fact I used your own articles against you.
You think we need to PREVENT people from laying cable because the cable is too expensive to run.
Please show me once where I said that. I NEVER SAID THAT. Now you're just lying about what I said. I said specifically that it's expensive to lay fiber and that most consumers can't afford to lay their own fiber like trading firms do; I said that the ISPs have done everything they can to avoid competition.
The moronic illogic of that is obvious to anyone that is thinking. I suspect it escapes you.
It seems like when some points out your flaws in logic, you just insult them.
NN ultimately is about treating the ISPs like old ma bell. I do not want that. It is either/or.
No, NN was about treating the ISPs like the jerks that they were. It's like a noise ordinance. Nobody really wants a noise ordinance telling you when you can and cannot play your music. That is until you get that one jerk neighbor who insists on playing his music full blast all night for weeks straight. Most rules are not in place because of the considerate people; they're in place for the jerks. Why is either/or? Are you saying that the FCC under a different director can't do both? It seems like there's no legal or technical reason they can't both.
If you accept the existing NN concept, then you're conceding the monopolies get to be monopolies indefinitely.
Logical fallacy: argument by assertion. You have to show how NN would advance monopolies; I don't.
No. I don't want NN. I want competition. I want right of way to the poles. Anything less is a farce.
No you don't want regulation. You think that is the only path to competition. It is not.
So to be clear you'll take another job that pays you 3% of your job?
Perfect -- then in the highly unlikely event that any of these doomsday scenarios come to pass and the beautiful people become dissatisfied with the incumbent ISPs, that willingness to pay will provide plenty of incentive for others to come in and fill the void.
Well now you're assuming that people are not dissatisfied now and don't have an incentive now? That's are rather major hole in your logic. I don't know where you live but Time Warner is generally hated everywhere.
No Obama was a secret Muslim who set up the country for the Islamist extremists to take over by killing him and replacing him with Biden who is so much darker than him. Aw, come'on. It's so obvious.
Stop. Do not respond. Read. Do not respond. Think. Then after you've read and thought about it... Then respond.
Bahahahahaha. Do you even read your own article?
"And HFTs were willing to pay through the nose to use it, with the first 200 to sign up forking out $2.8bn between them." That's $14M dollars a piece to sign up. That doesn't include any equipment. Can any consumer actually do that? Why don't you think about what you posted for a split second? Because no consumer could afford that.
Your comments are utterly ignorant and thoughtless.
What is your point about HFTs? It has nothing to with consumers and Comcast. Absolutely nothing. First consumers can't afford millions of dollars for the fastest fiber connection and equipment and, second, they don't do high speed trading.
Look, you think the reason something doesn't happen is because it is expensive? Well, then why prevent people from doing something that isn't economical? Certainly the bad economics would stop people from doing it in and of itself.
Bahahaha. Yes because burying fiber optic cable is cheap? Creating an ISP is also inexpensive? Yes cost is a major reason why things don't happen. But it's not the only reason. So why don't you prove me wrong by building a fiber connection to my house? I'll pay you $50.
The reason you have to make it illegal is because it is economical and they would do it. So you stop them to prevent competition. Absent those laws we'd have lots of competition in every city in the US as the operating ISPs that are providing poor service at inflated costs would lose market share.
Ah the perfect market competition fallacy. So before the 2015 FCC order there was lots of broadband competition? Or did the existing ISPs do everything within their power not to create actual competition?
I'm not even trying here with these articles. It all too fucking easy. Do any kind of research. Literally anything. Pull your stupid head out of your ass and try again.
Do you even read the articles you post? From your own article:
"But all of the nodes are eventually routed through a Time Warner Cable internet connection, which doesn't do much good if you're trying to create what could eventually be an alternative to Time Warner. It has to become more serious. . . "Everyone seems to hate Time Warner, that's the thing that unifies the city," Hall said. "It's going to be a while before we replace Time Warner, but there's some hope of it happening."
While a mesh is cool, that has nothing to do with your first point about HFTs.
What part of 3% is hard to understand? That's essentially the same as no competition. Would you take 3% of your salary if a competing company offered it to change jobs? Also did you not understand that is is 90210. These people could afford more expensive internet if they wanted. But even in a rich affluent zip code they really only have 2 providers.
If the incumbent ISPs really do end up jacking rates for full internet access like all the Chicken Littles fear, that price differential will create a market incentive for one of the nearby providers to come in to your neighborhood and poach the hell out of the disaffected customer base. This seems pretty basic.
What nearby providers? I think you're under the assumption that there are providers nearby. That the big ISPs won't sue and obstruct any kind of competition like they currently do now.
Verizon's lawyer outright stated it in Verizon v FCC. On prioritizing traffic, Verizon counsel Helgi Walker: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”
You mean the same ISPs that did things to require the FCC to implement net neutrality before? Now that it's going away, they won't do anything. They pinky swear it.
Not to mention that investment companies spend millions of dollars to shave off nanoseconds in trading. Your average person can't afford millions of dollars to get basic internet.
Google wants NN because (1) they know ultimately it will result in a lowest common denominator, which is helpful to some of their properties. (2) It make rules, that startups who have to buy internet access form tier 3 providers much the same way you and I do, have to follow. Google on the other hand is big enough that they can and do peer directly with the transport guys. So they will always have the FAST LANE, and you, me, and your small business won't even have the ability to purchase access at any price. So Google can lock out their competition forever!
So you're saying as a startup I have to buy Tier 3 access? Is that factually true?
What's ironic about that? Using an "unsecured" phone to broadcast a message on social media? Jesus fucking Christ! That's a breach of national security!!!!1111!!!
So you don't see a problem with the President of the United States using an unsecured phone for his phone conversations in addition to that the unsecured phone being open to being hacked to that hackers can do things like turning on the microphone and camera and location services? No problem with that at all?
You wouldn't have gotten shit modded up if it weren't for the hatred of Trump. Your post is stupid on its face and everyone knows it. Probably yourself included...
And if Obama used the same phone, would you have called out for his execution. My memory says that Obama went through security agencies to get his phone vetted and approved but that's just a President taking things like national security seriously.
No its not, I said companies offer faster services, its called priority services and its not just internet related. Saying ISP's can only offer faster services for medical, is the only one needing faster priority is a weak argument. Traders want faster service and built out their own networks.
Which is relevant and helpful how to millions of Comcast customers, how? Most people can't build their own network you know and don't do high speed trading.
Well actually it is. There are many communities that dont have high speed broadband, not everyone lives in the the cities, many live in rural america. Wanting things to be real vs what is real, I'm talking about is current and real.
Did you even read my post? You don't get many options for broadband in Beverly Hills, CA not to say middle of nowhere, Alaska. Please tell me how the one example of 90210 doesn't destroy your argument?
ViaSat 3 and LTE5 is a contender with terabyte speeds. Try doing some damn research on where the tech is going.
So how fast do you max out your mobile cap at supposed "terabyte" speeds? Or did you think that most mobile having a data cap really limits what you can do thus mobile isn't a substitute for broadband. As for satellite, you are aware that Viasat 3 will not provide "terabyte" speeds? Or have you not done your research?
Again, no, the history of ISPs show you are wrong. The history is many cities gave them monopoly because they had no IDEA what the Internet was. Some cities went the other way and put in dark fiber and even allowed community ISPs. There is no universal access. States are widely different.
What? Are you not aware of the multiple instances where a city tried to build broadband to service their towns because there was no broadband only to be sued by the major ISPs to prevent them from doing so?
My argument is what exactly I said it was. Deregulation and competition is a good thing, more choice is good. And your hyperbole of "the internet is gonna die!" is bullshit.
Ah the deregulation == good, regulation == bad argument. That's extremely simple thinking especially since you are rooting for less choice not more. And you don't even know it. But to be clear, you fault net neutrality for not taking down monopolies even though that was never the intent?
One official said that there are too many devices connected to the campus wireless network and that personal phones aren't as secure as those issued by the federal government.
And yet a certain president used his unsecured phone for months to tweet about important things like how terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger was during a reality show.
People need to stop clapping like trained seals and see what is actually been going on all along. Rather than fixate on NN, focus on ACTUAL Right of Way access to poles and conduits for alternative service providers.
It's not an either/or situation. We can push for Right of Way access but that will take years to build out the infrastructure. In the mean time, we can ensure the ISPs don't mess with the existing Internet. Also I have to point out that even if there was more Right of Way, that doesn't stop any ISP from prioritizing traffic according to their own guidelines.
Take the communications enjoyed by New York investment computers for the larger trading houses that do high frequency trading.
You mean like buying real estate as close to the trading house as possible for the extra nanosecond of speed? And buying the newest and greatest networking equipment? I never did either. Your example isn't exactly analogous to the situation of the American people.
Think there aren't fast lanes there?
They are not the point. If you want to build your own networking infrastructure to eek out nanoseconds, you can. Most people cannot do that. They have to rely on ISPs. For example, does everyone have access to fiber in the country? No. Not even remotely close.
Google is having trouble laying fiber. That is how f'ed up access to poles and conduits is right now. One of the most powerful companies in the world can't breach the franchise agreements that lock out alternative ISPs.
Is that the only problems of Google Fiber? Laying down fiber isn't cheap or easy. The fact that Google has trouble shows why it will be a long time before there will be any competition to the existing ISPs.
I'm 100% for the free flow of packets, but doing it via title 2 is potentially a VERY bad idea, and yet there's a hysterical reaction to all this that title 2 is the only way to save the internet (when in reality, it could be it's death knell). Tell the legislators to get off their lazy asses and make a title 3 especially for it, so the internet is not regulated by a law from 1934.
You are aware that it was the ISPs that forced themselves into being Title II right? Verizon in particular sued the FCC saying that it had no right to regulate them under Title I. The court agreed and said Verizon could be regulated under Title II. Thus that's what the FCC did. There is no Title III but do you want to rest your hopes on Congress passing something? This Congress?
Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
Er what? That's like saying there's plenty of Google fiber in the country. Just not in my neighborhood or many other neighborhoods, but man, is Google Fiber fast.
With LTE 5 and ViaSat 2 that just went up, and Viasat 3 going up in 2019, Facebook & Google offering internet access, within 5 years, Intenet access will be even more accessible and global.
Again what? Mobile isn't a replacement for broadband. Fiber that isn't in my neighborhood isn't a suitable replacement. Like many Americans, all we have limited broadband options. It isn't also about money. For example, broadband availability for 90210 shows 1 viable cable and 1 DSL provider (Time Warner Spectrum and AT&T) for most of the zip code. There are 4 broadband providers but 2 of them only service 3% of the area. There are 2 satellite services. There is no fiber option. I would say that 90210 is a pretty affluent zip code. And yet they can't get more than 2 choices.
FCC is working on guidelines to communities to allow new community ISPs and new companies to run services to the pole.
Are we talking about the same national ISPs that sued local municipal ISPs from providing service to towns that they themselves didn't service?
The FCC deregulating ISP's so smaller ISP's dont have the same regulations as big carriers and can now evenly compete again.
Again the history of ISPs shows that the big carriers will not tolerate smaller ones. This has the opposite effect of what you are saying.
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
So your argument against net neutrality is that it was put into place for 2 whole years and it didn't break up monopolies that have been in place for decades besides the fact net neutrality was never meant to break up the monopolies. Ever. The regulations were in place to keep the monopolies from gaining an unfair advantage, not to break them up.
Slashdot Mirror
You're trying to not understand.
No, I understand. Your points are idiotic at best.
You are very successful at strawmanning my position in your own mind. I can't penetrate your sense of things if you aren't even thinking.
Who brought up using HFT fiber connections? That was you. You brought up the irrelevant point that $14M connections that are not remotely feasible to the average consumer. That's as idiotic as recommending that if people don't like their choice of airlines, they should buy their own plane.
The problem with your position is that competition is demonstrably not stopped by infrastructure expenses but rather because people are not granted pole and conduit right of way.
This is a basic false dichotomy fallacy. Even if everyone had pole and conduit right of way it still won't be easy or cheap to lay fiber. I ask you again to lay fiber to my house for $50 if you get right of way.
That is evident in all the data.
You presented no data which supports your point. You presented data which only destroyed your point.
Your entire position is thus not supported by observation where as the contrary position is supported by observation.
What? Again lay fiber to my house for $50 to prove me wrong.
Legally the FCC can't classify them as title 1 (due to that damn court decision), so they classified the FCC classified the internet under title 2. That's not a good fit for it either though. I'm not blaming the FCC here for doing what it did.
No that's not what the court said. The FCC can classify ISPs as Title I but the court said that under Communications Act of 1934, the FCC could not enforce the regulations they wanted to enforce. The court specifically said under Title II the FCC could do that. Thus the FCC classified ISPs under Title II.
The ideal solution is for congress to amend title 1 (or make a new title 3) to include the internet. Will that happen? Probably not with this dysfunctional congress. Doesn't mean it's not the preferred solution though.
No because Title I has a specific provision. What you are saying is you need a Title VIII as other titles have been created. But not with this Congress.
Because there are such things as minimums and terms of service. My parents don't watch a lot of Netflix, but when they do, it should be at the speeds Comcast advertised when they signed the contract. The stream shouldn't be slower because Comcast wants more money from Netflix or that Comcast wants them to buy the same content from them instead of Netflix.
You didn't think. Sad.,
I read the article to you posted and it seems clear you didn't read it. Yet you accuse me of not thinking? Did you read your own article or not because it seems like you didn't. Wow that sounds a lot like Trump. Your idol perhaps?
The point is not what it cost. The point is that they were allowed to do it. .
Bahahaha. So you're whole point is that it's possible but it's not economically feasible for everyone to have fiber. Well it's theoretically possible for me to travel in a FTL vehicle. I just need a great deal of energy and to invent a vehicle. That will really frighten those pesky airlines and I'll never have to use them again. Just wait. One day everyone will have FTL drives. Because that's akin to what you're saying.
Keep in mind that a competing ISP would wire not ONE person with that kind of connection but perhaps thousands of people which would more than make it work economically
Do you read what you post? That makes no sense. Connecting to thousands of people is not less expensive than connecting to node in a HFT scenario. Not remotely close. That's as idiotic as saying: well I built one 100 mile highway between two points; building thousands of miles of widely varying roadways should be less costly.
I don't expect you to be able to process any of this... you're not thinking. You're just making idiot comments. I've provided articles and credible arguments to back up my position.
Bahahaha. You did not provide any credible argument. You brought silly arguments which were destroyed in an instant. You brought in irrelevant articles like HFT trading fiber connections that cost $14M each. In fact I used your own articles against you.
You think we need to PREVENT people from laying cable because the cable is too expensive to run.
Please show me once where I said that. I NEVER SAID THAT. Now you're just lying about what I said. I said specifically that it's expensive to lay fiber and that most consumers can't afford to lay their own fiber like trading firms do; I said that the ISPs have done everything they can to avoid competition.
The moronic illogic of that is obvious to anyone that is thinking. I suspect it escapes you.
It seems like when some points out your flaws in logic, you just insult them.
NN ultimately is about treating the ISPs like old ma bell. I do not want that. It is either/or.
No, NN was about treating the ISPs like the jerks that they were. It's like a noise ordinance. Nobody really wants a noise ordinance telling you when you can and cannot play your music. That is until you get that one jerk neighbor who insists on playing his music full blast all night for weeks straight. Most rules are not in place because of the considerate people; they're in place for the jerks. Why is either/or? Are you saying that the FCC under a different director can't do both? It seems like there's no legal or technical reason they can't both.
If you accept the existing NN concept, then you're conceding the monopolies get to be monopolies indefinitely.
Logical fallacy: argument by assertion. You have to show how NN would advance monopolies; I don't.
No. I don't want NN. I want competition. I want right of way to the poles. Anything less is a farce.
No you don't want regulation. You think that is the only path to competition. It is not.
What part of "if... then" is hard to understand?
So to be clear you'll take another job that pays you 3% of your job?
Perfect -- then in the highly unlikely event that any of these doomsday scenarios come to pass and the beautiful people become dissatisfied with the incumbent ISPs, that willingness to pay will provide plenty of incentive for others to come in and fill the void.
Well now you're assuming that people are not dissatisfied now and don't have an incentive now? That's are rather major hole in your logic. I don't know where you live but Time Warner is generally hated everywhere.
No Obama was a secret Muslim who set up the country for the Islamist extremists to take over by killing him and replacing him with Biden who is so much darker than him. Aw, come'on. It's so obvious.
Stop. Do not respond. Read. Do not respond. Think. Then after you've read and thought about it... Then respond.
Bahahahahaha. Do you even read your own article? "And HFTs were willing to pay through the nose to use it, with the first 200 to sign up forking out $2.8bn between them." That's $14M dollars a piece to sign up. That doesn't include any equipment. Can any consumer actually do that? Why don't you think about what you posted for a split second? Because no consumer could afford that.
Your comments are utterly ignorant and thoughtless.
What is your point about HFTs? It has nothing to with consumers and Comcast. Absolutely nothing. First consumers can't afford millions of dollars for the fastest fiber connection and equipment and, second, they don't do high speed trading.
Look, you think the reason something doesn't happen is because it is expensive? Well, then why prevent people from doing something that isn't economical? Certainly the bad economics would stop people from doing it in and of itself.
Bahahaha. Yes because burying fiber optic cable is cheap? Creating an ISP is also inexpensive? Yes cost is a major reason why things don't happen. But it's not the only reason. So why don't you prove me wrong by building a fiber connection to my house? I'll pay you $50.
The reason you have to make it illegal is because it is economical and they would do it. So you stop them to prevent competition. Absent those laws we'd have lots of competition in every city in the US as the operating ISPs that are providing poor service at inflated costs would lose market share.
Ah the perfect market competition fallacy. So before the 2015 FCC order there was lots of broadband competition? Or did the existing ISPs do everything within their power not to create actual competition?
I'm not even trying here with these articles. It all too fucking easy. Do any kind of research. Literally anything. Pull your stupid head out of your ass and try again.
Do you even read the articles you post? From your own article: "But all of the nodes are eventually routed through a Time Warner Cable internet connection, which doesn't do much good if you're trying to create what could eventually be an alternative to Time Warner. It has to become more serious. . . "Everyone seems to hate Time Warner, that's the thing that unifies the city," Hall said. "It's going to be a while before we replace Time Warner, but there's some hope of it happening."
While a mesh is cool, that has nothing to do with your first point about HFTs.
What part of 3% is hard to understand? That's essentially the same as no competition. Would you take 3% of your salary if a competing company offered it to change jobs? Also did you not understand that is is 90210. These people could afford more expensive internet if they wanted. But even in a rich affluent zip code they really only have 2 providers.
There's a difference between nonsense which he has been spewing and something which is actionable.
If the incumbent ISPs really do end up jacking rates for full internet access like all the Chicken Littles fear, that price differential will create a market incentive for one of the nearby providers to come in to your neighborhood and poach the hell out of the disaffected customer base. This seems pretty basic.
What nearby providers? I think you're under the assumption that there are providers nearby. That the big ISPs won't sue and obstruct any kind of competition like they currently do now.
Verizon's lawyer outright stated it in Verizon v FCC. On prioritizing traffic, Verizon counsel Helgi Walker: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.”
You mean the same ISPs that did things to require the FCC to implement net neutrality before? Now that it's going away, they won't do anything. They pinky swear it.
Not to mention that investment companies spend millions of dollars to shave off nanoseconds in trading. Your average person can't afford millions of dollars to get basic internet.
Plus I want the President to tweet his own downfall.
Google wants NN because (1) they know ultimately it will result in a lowest common denominator, which is helpful to some of their properties. (2) It make rules, that startups who have to buy internet access form tier 3 providers much the same way you and I do, have to follow. Google on the other hand is big enough that they can and do peer directly with the transport guys. So they will always have the FAST LANE, and you, me, and your small business won't even have the ability to purchase access at any price. So Google can lock out their competition forever!
So you're saying as a startup I have to buy Tier 3 access? Is that factually true?
Well most of the open spots are for normal everyday jobs that someone has to do. But they're not important other than to keep the country running.
What's ironic about that? Using an "unsecured" phone to broadcast a message on social media? Jesus fucking Christ! That's a breach of national security!!!!1111!!!
So you don't see a problem with the President of the United States using an unsecured phone for his phone conversations in addition to that the unsecured phone being open to being hacked to that hackers can do things like turning on the microphone and camera and location services? No problem with that at all?
You wouldn't have gotten shit modded up if it weren't for the hatred of Trump. Your post is stupid on its face and everyone knows it. Probably yourself included...
And if Obama used the same phone, would you have called out for his execution. My memory says that Obama went through security agencies to get his phone vetted and approved but that's just a President taking things like national security seriously.
No its not, I said companies offer faster services, its called priority services and its not just internet related. Saying ISP's can only offer faster services for medical, is the only one needing faster priority is a weak argument. Traders want faster service and built out their own networks.
Which is relevant and helpful how to millions of Comcast customers, how? Most people can't build their own network you know and don't do high speed trading.
Well actually it is. There are many communities that dont have high speed broadband, not everyone lives in the the cities, many live in rural america. Wanting things to be real vs what is real, I'm talking about is current and real.
Did you even read my post? You don't get many options for broadband in Beverly Hills, CA not to say middle of nowhere, Alaska. Please tell me how the one example of 90210 doesn't destroy your argument?
ViaSat 3 and LTE5 is a contender with terabyte speeds. Try doing some damn research on where the tech is going.
So how fast do you max out your mobile cap at supposed "terabyte" speeds? Or did you think that most mobile having a data cap really limits what you can do thus mobile isn't a substitute for broadband. As for satellite, you are aware that Viasat 3 will not provide "terabyte" speeds? Or have you not done your research?
Again, no, the history of ISPs show you are wrong. The history is many cities gave them monopoly because they had no IDEA what the Internet was. Some cities went the other way and put in dark fiber and even allowed community ISPs. There is no universal access. States are widely different.
What? Are you not aware of the multiple instances where a city tried to build broadband to service their towns because there was no broadband only to be sued by the major ISPs to prevent them from doing so?
My argument is what exactly I said it was. Deregulation and competition is a good thing, more choice is good. And your hyperbole of "the internet is gonna die!" is bullshit.
Ah the deregulation == good, regulation == bad argument. That's extremely simple thinking especially since you are rooting for less choice not more. And you don't even know it. But to be clear, you fault net neutrality for not taking down monopolies even though that was never the intent?
I'm hoping in 10 years time, the administration fills all the open positions that they need to fill but I know that's crazy talk.
One official said that there are too many devices connected to the campus wireless network and that personal phones aren't as secure as those issued by the federal government.
And yet a certain president used his unsecured phone for months to tweet about important things like how terrible Arnold Schwarzenegger was during a reality show.
People need to stop clapping like trained seals and see what is actually been going on all along. Rather than fixate on NN, focus on ACTUAL Right of Way access to poles and conduits for alternative service providers.
It's not an either/or situation. We can push for Right of Way access but that will take years to build out the infrastructure. In the mean time, we can ensure the ISPs don't mess with the existing Internet. Also I have to point out that even if there was more Right of Way, that doesn't stop any ISP from prioritizing traffic according to their own guidelines.
Take the communications enjoyed by New York investment computers for the larger trading houses that do high frequency trading.
You mean like buying real estate as close to the trading house as possible for the extra nanosecond of speed? And buying the newest and greatest networking equipment? I never did either. Your example isn't exactly analogous to the situation of the American people.
Think there aren't fast lanes there?
They are not the point. If you want to build your own networking infrastructure to eek out nanoseconds, you can. Most people cannot do that. They have to rely on ISPs. For example, does everyone have access to fiber in the country? No. Not even remotely close.
Google is having trouble laying fiber. That is how f'ed up access to poles and conduits is right now. One of the most powerful companies in the world can't breach the franchise agreements that lock out alternative ISPs.
Is that the only problems of Google Fiber? Laying down fiber isn't cheap or easy. The fact that Google has trouble shows why it will be a long time before there will be any competition to the existing ISPs.
I'm 100% for the free flow of packets, but doing it via title 2 is potentially a VERY bad idea, and yet there's a hysterical reaction to all this that title 2 is the only way to save the internet (when in reality, it could be it's death knell). Tell the legislators to get off their lazy asses and make a title 3 especially for it, so the internet is not regulated by a law from 1934.
You are aware that it was the ISPs that forced themselves into being Title II right? Verizon in particular sued the FCC saying that it had no right to regulate them under Title I. The court agreed and said Verizon could be regulated under Title II. Thus that's what the FCC did. There is no Title III but do you want to rest your hopes on Congress passing something? This Congress?
Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.
Er what? That's like saying there's plenty of Google fiber in the country. Just not in my neighborhood or many other neighborhoods, but man, is Google Fiber fast.
With LTE 5 and ViaSat 2 that just went up, and Viasat 3 going up in 2019, Facebook & Google offering internet access, within 5 years, Intenet access will be even more accessible and global.
Again what? Mobile isn't a replacement for broadband. Fiber that isn't in my neighborhood isn't a suitable replacement. Like many Americans, all we have limited broadband options. It isn't also about money. For example, broadband availability for 90210 shows 1 viable cable and 1 DSL provider (Time Warner Spectrum and AT&T) for most of the zip code. There are 4 broadband providers but 2 of them only service 3% of the area. There are 2 satellite services. There is no fiber option. I would say that 90210 is a pretty affluent zip code. And yet they can't get more than 2 choices.
FCC is working on guidelines to communities to allow new community ISPs and new companies to run services to the pole.
Are we talking about the same national ISPs that sued local municipal ISPs from providing service to towns that they themselves didn't service?
The FCC deregulating ISP's so smaller ISP's dont have the same regulations as big carriers and can now evenly compete again.
Again the history of ISPs shows that the big carriers will not tolerate smaller ones. This has the opposite effect of what you are saying.
All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.
So your argument against net neutrality is that it was put into place for 2 whole years and it didn't break up monopolies that have been in place for decades besides the fact net neutrality was never meant to break up the monopolies. Ever. The regulations were in place to keep the monopolies from gaining an unfair advantage, not to break them up.