FCC Scuttles 2015 Net Neutrality Rules - Page 6 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 358Likes
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 11:15 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,904
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3811 Post(s)
Liked: 3506
Comcast did the very same thing to extort money from Netflix.
Thunder18 likes this.
Keenan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 11:25 AM
Writer & Reviewer
 
JimWilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere in New Joisey
Posts: 8,116
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2155 Post(s)
Liked: 3237
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
I think the issue that most people have a problem with is where to set the goal post and we are not really sure which company should get rich (ISP, content, services) for the "best" long term outcome and we don't even know what outcome we prefer.
Nobody in the chain should get richer then they already are, but sadly now they will. Well, a select few anyway.

 
If you take yourself too seriously expect me to do the exact opposite...
JimWilson is offline  
post #153 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 11:33 AM
Writer & Reviewer
 
JimWilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Somewhere in New Joisey
Posts: 8,116
Mentioned: 102 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2155 Post(s)
Liked: 3237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
Long story short, Verizon tried to use its position as a large ISP to extort money out of a competitor, and their own users suffered the consequences. The Title II reclassification put an end to these kinds of shenanigans, and now those protections are gone.
IIRC, Pai was their mouthpiece then, wasn't he?
Thunder18 and JMGNYC like this.

 
If you take yourself too seriously expect me to do the exact opposite...
JimWilson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 11:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimWilson View Post
IIRC, Pai was their mouthpiece then, wasn't he?
Pai served as Associate General Counsel for Verizon from 2001 to 2003 (e.g., an underlying of Verizon's top in-house attorney). He has been accused of being an insider; I certainly wouldn't call him an outsider. Tom Wheeler, prior to enacting the Title II reclassification as FCC chairman, had served as the president of both cable and cellular trade groups, so being an insider doesn't necessarily mean his agenda will be based on a sense of loyalty (or the promise of a comfy, do-nothing job when his term is up).

He may be acting as an industry mouthpiece, or he may be acting in accordance with his own sincere beliefs. I don't know. All I know is that I strongly disagree with him.
andygiddings and Thunder18 like this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #155 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,718
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by andygiddings View Post
I think most would agree that regulations in any area of industry should be set at a minimum. If we had freedom of choice as to which ISP we use, the net neutrality issue would, I suspect, be less of a hot button. Problem is most of us don't have a choice or can only choose between two huge ISPs. If getting rid of net neutrality brings in more competition (which I very much doubt) then I'll start to see some upside. Right now, based on experience of ISPs and Cable Cos, I see this as a net negative
Yeah it's hard to separate NN from telecom policy overall, and telecom policy going back 30-40'years ago even before the Internet was conceived as being this medium which would become a part of every day life.

It's this history which explains why there's only one broadband pipe going into most homes and also why there's no competition available to most households when it comes to choosing a provider.

And this policy history is the result of competing politics, regulatory capture and other political issues.

IOW, there's no technical reason why most of us have such limited broadband choices nor why there's such contention about how that one broadband provider should be regulated.
wco81 is offline  
post #156 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 02:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
IOW, there's no technical reason why most of us have such limited broadband choices nor why there's such contention about how that one broadband provider should be regulated.
I think it's mostly systemic and political reasons. Dealing with municipal bureaucracy and obtaining the easements necessary to lay down a network is an immensely arduous process. It's also difficult to compete with entities that benefited from billions of dollars in government assistance. And clearing the local bureaucratic hurdles isn't the end of it--they then have to deal with property owners (e.g., for high-rises and other multi-family dwellings). Assuming those owners haven't already signed an exclusivity agreement with an existing provider, the mere presence of an existing provider often reduces the sense of urgency to cooperate.

It's also not unusual for the incumbents to be able to slow competing roll-outs. In Nashville and Louisville, AT&T and Charter sued to strike down a "one touch make ready" law that would have allowed newcomers like Google Fiber to do all the prep work (e.g., moving cables) on utility poles themselves. Instead, Google has to wait for AT&T or whoever to come out and move their cables out of the way before they can get to work. And gosh, golly, and go figure, AT&T just isn't in a hurry to do that for some reason.

Red tape, regulatory capture, and lots of lobbying at the local government level: that's why we don't have more providers. When Google, with all their billions in capital, decides that it's more trouble than it's worth, then your barriers to entry might be a wee bit too high.
Thunder18 likes this.

Mike Strobel – Weehawken, NJ
Programmer, Overly Harsh UX Critic, and General Curmudgeon
XBR-65A1E, PS4 Pro, Apple TV 4K
Mike Strobel is offline  
post #157 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 03:22 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 102 Post(s)
Liked: 122
You folks really don't understand whats happening. Your ISP has no interest in slowing down or censoring the internet. The government wants total control of the internet and they con you by making ISP's the bogyman
FCC calls it net neutrality to sucker you in. Then like radio and television which they control they can decide wants appropriate content, meaning you will have government control of what you have access to the internet!
When I first got on the internet in 1991 there were no government regulations, internet was truly free bit by bit they are stealing from you and you want them to, sad. Game of Thrones fans watch out, you watch it over the internet FCC wants to censor it. Walking Dead fans lookout the show is on the internet it's way to violent, FCC with net neutrality they will make it more PG laugh now
AlanAbby is offline  
post #158 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 03:50 PM
Senior Member
 
andygiddings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
I think it's mostly systemic and political reasons. Dealing with municipal bureaucracy and obtaining the easements necessary to lay down a network is an immensely arduous process. It's also difficult to compete with entities that benefited from billions of dollars in government assistance. And clearing the local bureaucratic hurdles isn't the end of it--they then have to deal with property owners (e.g., for high-rises and other multi-family dwellings). Assuming those owners haven't already signed an exclusivity agreement with an existing provider, the mere presence of an existing provider often reduces the sense of urgency to cooperate.

It's also not unusual for the incumbents to be able to slow competing roll-outs. In Nashville and Louisville, AT&T and Charter sued to strike down a "one touch make ready" law that would have allowed newcomers like Google Fiber to do all the prep work (e.g., moving cables) on utility poles themselves. Instead, Google has to wait for AT&T or whoever to come out and move their cables out of the way before they can get to work. And gosh, golly, and go figure, AT&T just isn't in a hurry to do that for some reason.

Red tape, regulatory capture, and lots of lobbying at the local government level: that's why we don't have more providers. When Google, with all their billions in capital, decides that it's more trouble than it's worth, then your barriers to entry might be a wee bit too high.
Agreed, even if the competition overcomes the municipal red tape, running another network in the streets is prohibitive unless your offering is truly unique. An alternate network technology may break through or the current networks could be deregulated in much the same way as electrical utilities have been. Hard to see how significant improvements to the network would take effect though, with the electrical utility model

Room 1 system: Paradigm Reference Active 7.2 system, Anthem AVM50, Oppo BDP-103. Pioneer Elite 610HD. Room 2: Samsung 65HU8550 with SEK3500, Paradigm Monitor 5.1 system, Denon AVR-X2400H, Oppo BDP-203, Nvidia Shield, Apple TV 4k
andygiddings is offline  
post #159 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 03:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mgkdragn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Illinois, East of St Louis
Posts: 15,219
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2869 Post(s)
Liked: 3693
I don't often re-post, however ::

I don't think there is any doubt that the CATV ISP's see Web Service as the next Cash Cow for them .. the old model Cable business is slowly being supplanted .. the CATV ISP's are looking toward the future ..

If there is any good news, it is the idea that 5G may encourage smaller ISP start ups and begin to offer actual competition in underserved markets and rural areas .. real competition, IMO, negates whatever Net Neutrality stance may or may not be .. and 5G is likely going to be the new standard, at some point ..

It's video that is the issue here .. a Web page essentially loads the same at 15Mbps as it does at 100Mbps ..

My guess is wired connectivity will, at some point, be in the rear view .. which could very likely be another reason Google is not pressing fiber .. the Tech will evolve, regardless ..
thehun and xnappo like this.

Uncle Willie


Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
mgkdragn is offline  
post #160 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 04:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
grittree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,702
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 444 Post(s)
Liked: 270
I don't know if "net neutrality" is good or bad.

The internet was essentially unregulated until 2015. Seemed to work pretty good before that. And, so far, after.

Modern electronics was essentially always unregulated. Bell Labs gave us transistors. Other private firms gave us integrated circuits. The only US Govt contribution I know of is that they were the last people using vacuum tubes.

Do we want people who can't be fired for incompetence in charge?
grittree is offline  
post #161 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 06:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,718
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
I think it's mostly systemic and political reasons. Dealing with municipal bureaucracy and obtaining the easements necessary to lay down a network is an immensely arduous process. It's also difficult to compete with entities that benefited from billions of dollars in government assistance. And clearing the local bureaucratic hurdles isn't the end of it--they then have to deal with property owners (e.g., for high-rises and other multi-family dwellings). Assuming those owners haven't already signed an exclusivity agreement with an existing provider, the mere presence of an existing provider often reduces the sense of urgency to cooperate.

It's also not unusual for the incumbents to be able to slow competing roll-outs. In Nashville and Louisville, AT&T and Charter sued to strike down a "one touch make ready" law that would have allowed newcomers like Google Fiber to do all the prep work (e.g., moving cables) on utility poles themselves. Instead, Google has to wait for AT&T or whoever to come out and move their cables out of the way before they can get to work. And gosh, golly, and go figure, AT&T just isn't in a hurry to do that for some reason.

Red tape, regulatory capture, and lots of lobbying at the local government level: that's why we don't have more providers. When Google, with all their billions in capital, decides that it's more trouble than it's worth, then your barriers to entry might be a wee bit too high.
Other countries have last mile right of way issues as well.

The way they addressed it is to allow local loop unbundling. That is, they don't let one company own that cable, whether or not they built it. They have to lease it to any other ISP.

In many cases, the country pays for the infrastructure and lets private companies offer services on it. That's what Australia is currently doing with fiber. That's what I think many Asian nations did, either built it themselves or mandate that there is competition. So faster speeds at lower prices is the result in places like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc. Most of Europe is cheaper too.

The companies that built the lines in the US made sure that local, state and federal govts. all prevented competition on those lines. That is why we're in this situation today and it probably won't change in our lifetimes.

Americans just have to accept that we'll pay more for inferior service because the govt. allowed it.
Thunder18 likes this.
wco81 is offline  
post #162 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 06:25 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,904
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3811 Post(s)
Liked: 3506
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanAbby View Post
You folks really don't understand whats happening. Your ISP has no interest in slowing down or censoring the internet. The government wants total control of the internet and they con you by making ISP's the bogyman
FCC calls it net neutrality to sucker you in. Then like radio and television which they control they can decide wants appropriate content, meaning you will have government control of what you have access to the internet!
When I first got on the internet in 1991 there were no government regulations, internet was truly free bit by bit they are stealing from you and you want them to, sad. Game of Thrones fans watch out, you watch it over the internet FCC wants to censor it. Walking Dead fans lookout the show is on the internet it's way to violent, FCC with net neutrality they will make it more PG laugh now
Thanks for sharing...
Keenan is offline  
post #163 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 06:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,718
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Strobel View Post
Pai served as Associate General Counsel for Verizon from 2001 to 2003 (e.g., an underlying of Verizon's top in-house attorney). He has been accused of being an insider; I certainly wouldn't call him an outsider. Tom Wheeler, prior to enacting the Title II reclassification as FCC chairman, had served as the president of both cable and cellular trade groups, so being an insider doesn't necessarily mean his agenda will be based on a sense of loyalty (or the promise of a comfy, do-nothing job when his term is up).

He may be acting as an industry mouthpiece, or he may be acting in accordance with his own sincere beliefs. I don't know. All I know is that I strongly disagree with him.
He's still young so after a few years as FCC chairman, he'll leave, whether or not the president who appointed him chairman is still in the White House.

Then let's see what kind of job he gets.

Michael Powell, who was FCC chairman in the last decade, works for the industry trade group. While he was serving as FCC chairman, he once talked about how he'd like to have a Mercedes.

Probably got one now.
wco81 is offline  
post #164 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 07:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dnoonie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Seattle, WA area
Posts: 1,342
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 421 Post(s)
Liked: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post
Can't be good for Netflix.
I think Netflix disk service may become more important. Perhaps you mean Netflix streaming service..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
Of course anything is hypothetically possible. But assuming this move will result in the end of the Internet as we know it is foolish. Allowing the market a greater say in determining cost and service levels is just as likely to be a good thing for the average consumer. By the same token, ISP's will be free to focus revenue generation on the biggest bandwidth hogs. The most likely outcome I see is consolidation in a presently fragmented, overpriced industry.

Government regulation is a double-edged sword.
Presently I have one broadband provider and one slower than broadband provider. If there's consolidation...what then, no broadband service at all? How is one broadband provider fragmented? I don't know what ISPs service is available where you live but I don't think everyone sees the same ISP broadband choices availability that you do. I'd really prefer more choice and more competition, not consolidation, but that's just for my area.

This doesn't nullify present bandwidth payments/agreements between say (Comcast, Verizon, Centurylink, etc.) and (Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, Hulu, etc.) I'm not sure how things will change at all in that respect since high bandwidth users were already paying for their bandwidth and that cost is already built into there product.

My concern is more for my personal data and how it gets used and well...Google and Amazon had/used that information under the old system. So...yeah maybe my personal information will be even less personal and harder to control. So ID theft insurance and personal information management services may become more important.

Cheers,

OPPO UDP-205, LG OLED65C8, OPPO BDP-93, Pioneer Kuro Pro-150FD, Dynaudio 2x BM-12a Mk III Mains, 2x BM 6a Mk II surround, 2x BM 14s Subs, Allan and Heath MixWizard, room is 11'7"x 16'6"x 8" dedicated and treated. Tripp-Lite UPSs/power conditioners (because my power isn't as clean as it used to be)
dnoonie is offline  
post #165 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 08:36 PM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
Politics removed.

Discuss the topic, but leave political comments OUT.

Also, please provide a quote or something similar with any link you post. Here we are discussing the expense of internet access and, at the same time, forcing members on metered mobile data plans to link out to sites that can consume a lot more data than if you'd just included the highlights of your link.

Thread reopened.
Sure. The "Internet" is a few networking protocols. You can look them up. The protocols themselves are business-agnostic, and only cover a framework of open communication between computers. If you want to do business on the Internet, you have to figure out how to provide content or functionality that is compelling, so attracts an audience, and how to monetize that audience.

Since the earliest days of the Internet, businesses have tried to take over the Internet, one way or another, because the competition for the audience and the ability to monetize it are so difficult from a traditional business perspective. Remember that before the Internet, there were several network businesses that relied on controlling all aspects of commercial networking, starting with their proprietary protocols for connection to the consumer: AOL, EarthLink, The Well, etc. They're all gone, destroyed by the relentless pressure of the open Internet business environment to supply compelling content and functionality outside of controlling the protocols.

But giant new businesses have arisen in this environment, and society as a whole has been transformed by these open protocols. The Internet succeeded for everybody because of lack of control of the protocols that connect the consumer to the network.

The protocols themselves are not that important, or even very well-suited for the purposes they are being used for today. What was always important was that they were open, with a level playing field for businesses to either succeed or fail.

So the repeal of net neutrality is just another attempt for certain businesses to take over the Internet. It's questionable whether they will succeed, given the history of failures by dozens of other short-sighted businesses in the past. But the attempt will almost certainly lead to classic economic misallocation of resources and higher costs for many consumers.

For broadband video streaming, it is almost beside the point. All of the streaming services I'm aware of use HTTP for streaming video (which is almost criminally stupid), which is one of the protocols that define what we call the Internet. All streaming services attempt to take over that Internet protocol (and others) to provide a proprietary service that largely does not resemble the open Internet. Cable companies as one example should absolutely be able to provide those types of proprietary services to their customers. Note that the companies that could be called broadband Internet providers are busy partnering with streaming services (such as Netflix) to provide part of their offerings. Repealing net neutrality will give them additional negotiating leverage to force streaming services to partner with them (by threatening their "partners" to cut them off from their Internet service), making them the de facto provider of a streaming platform such as Roku for any consumers who have only one practical choice for broadband Internet in their homes.

But again, only time will tell if the cable companies (for one example) will get their wish to become the head-end paywall for streaming services. What is clear (to me at least) is the distinction between the open Internet with net neutrality, and the mere Internet protocols themselves. Nothing technically has ever stopped the cable companies from steaming video over HTTP, but HTTP or any protocol is not the true meaning of the Internet. The true meaning of the Internet is a level business playing field that allows for competition that ultimately is good for the consumer AND businesses (well, the ones that win, anyway). That's why I think the FCC is WAY off-base with this decision.

--
max
Ryan1 likes this.
maxreactance is offline  
post #166 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 08:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
The following is cross posted from the HOTP forum. I don't know anything about the company (Emprata) that did the report on the comments submitted to the FCC. A USA Today article in a HOTP news post cited Emprata and gave a link to a summary of their report.

My sense is that it should have been obvious to the FCC that many of the comments were fakes or duplicates. It may well be that many of the duplicates or fakes supported net neutrality, but a skeptical person might wonder whether allowing fake or duplicate comments in support of net neutrality wasn't something that the opponents of net neutrality wanted to happen. Allow a lot of fake comments in opposition to repeal of the regulation, and suddenly you are able to discredit the real comments in support of net neutrality.

Regardless of motivations, the internet just does not seem to be a good way of getting public input on proposed regulatory changes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
There are lots of indications that the process for collecting comments was flawed. (Makes me wonder if the flaws were known in advance, but nobody had the time, money, or inclination to improve the systems.) I wonder if prior to the internet the methods of collecting comments on proposed regulatory actions were so apt to generate so little useful information.

http://www.emprata.com/reports/fcc-r...reedom-docket/
veedon is offline  
post #167 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 09:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
As to the merits or demerits of net neutrality as a policy, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it would be terrible if ISPs were able to suppress political opinions that are within the mainstream but that are not popular with the ISP. On the other hand, freedom of the press (as a matter of law) has always belonged to the owner of the press, not to the reader of the newspaper. Nobody is entitled to have his letter to the editor published in a newspaper, and no reader is entitled to a low-cost newspaper subscription to a newspaper that preaches the opinions that the reader wants to hear. You might say that the ISP is just the pipes, so to speak, and the web sites are the content. But the real question is whether the pipes (or access to the pipes) should be a regulated public utility or whether they should be treated as private businesses.

What is needed is to get a system that is something like the broadcast TV system prior to the dominance of cable TV. That system was built for the masses, and it had a built-in business incentive to emphasize content and opinions that would appeal to mainstream audiences, not to fringes or narrow niches.
veedon is offline  
post #168 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 09:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
veedon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Raleigh,NC
Posts: 2,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked: 614
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
IOW, there's no technical reason why most of us have such limited broadband choices nor why there's such contention about how that one broadband provider should be regulated.
Well, if you're talking about broadband via cable or via fiber, most people would not want to have a half dozen companies digging up their front yards or back yards to lay down competing "internet pipelines".
veedon is offline  
post #169 of 277 Old 12-15-2017, 11:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 7,718
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2286 Post(s)
Liked: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, if you're talking about broadband via cable or via fiber, most people would not want to have a half dozen companies digging up their front yards or back yards to lay down competing "internet pipelines".
They could make one pipe accessible to all. That is how several other countries deal with the problem and they tend to have lower prices and better speeds.

Only hope for the US is if 5G can compete for home Internet services. But unfortunately, companies like AT&T and Verizon will be deploying 5G. It could be a boon for AT&T since they're mostly stuck with DSL and Uverse. But these former telcos tend not to compete with each other directly. AT&T and Verizon don't overlap the markets they serve -- almost seems deliberate that they don't try to compete against each other.

And Verizon and Comcast seem to have some kind of relationship, because Comcast is offering mobile through Verizon's LTE network.
wco81 is offline  
post #170 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 01:47 AM
Senior Member
 
maxreactance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post
Well, if you're talking about broadband via cable or via fiber, most people would not want to have a half dozen companies digging up their front yards or back yards to lay down competing "internet pipelines".
Yes, although in my case, they did dig up my "back yard" to lay down a T-100 fiber optic line years ago. It was laid down about 60 feet from my condo by AT&T. I know those types of lines were laid down all over the place in this area, so IN THEORY my choice is between the cable company--pretty fast--and the phone company--INSANELY FAST.

But the junction boxes and the internal wiring in the condo buildings are only set up for regular phone lines, but the cable company pulled cable into every unit over 30 years ago. So I'm stuck with pretty fast at home, but I can commute a few miles to work and get insanely fast (and robust, with hundreds of gigabit Ethernet drops), since most of the companies in the area went to the trouble of pulling the CAT6 throughout their buildings (and I had to endure guys standing on my desk pulling the wires several times) connected to the very same fiber optic lines (in some cases, there are actually two competing fiber optic trunks, one in the front of the building, one in the back, both used for reliability purposes).

Of course, by regulations and property rights, the cable and phone company can't use each other's lines. So for millions of people, it's not a case of "the last mile", but literally a matter of feet and a web of regulations and laws (some antiquated but enacted with the best of intentions 80 years ago) and very local infrastructure inactivity that CURRENTLY prevents just two broadband competitors from playing on the same field. If they did, you can bet that broadband Internet would be both cheaper and more useful for millions.

--
max
maxreactance is offline  
post #171 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 05:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Shadowed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 939 Post(s)
Liked: 909
We are at the mercy of our only available cable provider here.
basic TV, inet, phone =$170/month

A satellite provider is available for more money and slower service for those outside of the cable area.
Thunder18 likes this.
Shadowed is offline  
post #172 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 07:46 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,306
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1205 Post(s)
Liked: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGA$$TV View Post
It's these type of arguments that make no sense to me. Those arguments seem to me are geared to rile up the public without any supporting evidence. "Oh, now cable companies can charge you more for internet." Guess what, they can do that right now. They can double what they charge me and there are no rules to prevent it. They can double what they charge me for TV and there are no Net neutrality rules preventing them from doing so. I'm not happy that cable companies have a near monopoly, but net neutrality doesn't stop that or ameliorate it.

Net neutrality sounds great on the surface, but I've yet to see one iota of evidence that it is going to negatively impact me and others like me.
There's the problem right there.

People have no idea what net neutrality actually does.

It's not about how much they charge you. Like, at all.

It's about prioritizing the services you use on the internet, from streaming, to gaming, to websites, to news, to hosting and file sharing services. It's about when Comcast pulled hijinks on companies like Netflix to extort more money to keep them from being throttled. It's about giving priority to an ISP's own content over a competitor's. It's about potential censorship when an ISP with a viewpoint makes it hard to connect to the resources of the opposite viewpoint. It's about squashing the upcoming competitors of those services that have the resources to pay for priority connections to customers.

It has NOTHING to do with what the customer pays.

That's why so many people don't understand why it's important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post
I don't know if "net neutrality" is good or bad.

The internet was essentially unregulated until 2015. Seemed to work pretty good before that. And, so far, after.

Modern electronics was essentially always unregulated. Bell Labs gave us transistors. Other private firms gave us integrated circuits. The only US Govt contribution I know of is that they were the last people using vacuum tubes.

Do we want people who can't be fired for incompetence in charge?
Another misunderstanding.

Net Neutraliting provisions started in the early 2000's - about the time of the above cited COmcast vs. Netflix throttling issue. 2015 simply re-categorized the internet as a utility that could be regulated following a suit that claimed the FCC didn't have the authority to institute net neutrality.

It's been going on far longer than that because the internet WAS NOT working well under powerful ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner.

Last edited by NetworkTV; 12-16-2017 at 07:51 AM.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #173 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 07:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bobby94928's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
There's the problem right there.

People have no idea what net neutrality actually does.

It's not about how much they charge you. Like, at all.

It's about prioritizing the services you use on the internet, from streaming, to gaming, to websites, to news, to hosting and file sharing services. It's about when Comcast pulled hijinks on companies like Netflix to extort more money to keep them from being throttled. It's about giving priority to an ISP's own content over a competitor's. It's about potential censorship when an ISP with a viewpoint makes it hard to connect to the resources of the opposite viewpoint. It's about squashing the upcoming competitors of those services that have the resources to pay for priority connections to customers.

It has NOTHING to do with what the customer pays.

That's why so many people don't understand why it's important.



Another misunderstanding.

Net Neutraliting provisions started in the early 2000's - about the time of the above cited COmcast vs. Netflix throttling issue. 2015 simply re-categorized the internet as a utility that could be regulated following a suit that claimed the FCC didn't have the authority to institute net neutrality.

It's been going on far longer than that because the internet WAS NOT working well under powerful ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner.
I might disagree. You are right that it has nothing to do with with what you pay your ISP but it has everything to do with what you pay your provider like Netflix, etc. If Netflix gets extorted to pay Comcast and all the other ISPs more to get priority do you believe that Netflix will just eat that extra cost? Of course not, we will.....

Bobby 

bobby94928 is offline  
post #174 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 08:28 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 8,628
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1190 Post(s)
Liked: 766
Post

From my Video Download Services & Hardware thread FCC Approves Strong Net Neutrality Rules:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post
Much of the conversation regarding NN would be mute if it wasn't for the fact that most ISP's are run by monopolies. In a free market I have no issue with businesses being profitable as long as there is competition. The concern most Americans have with with this industry is not only reserved for non-competitive pricing, but for the trend of large corporations controlling a gateway of information, which not only can be critical to our needs, but often requires the protection of our privacy.
Ian
Brian Conrad, Ryan1 and thehun like this.

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
post #175 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 08:44 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,306
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1205 Post(s)
Liked: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Archetype View Post
All it does is increase cost for everyone. Big content providers "should" be paying more than basic cable subscribers, on a pro-rated basis.
They do pay more for their service. 100's fold more. They aren't just streaming off a typical home cable modem connection.

The issue is that the ISP's want to be able to prioritize their own content over outside companiwes like Netflix unless they pay a "quality assurance fee" for a fast lane they already pay for through their normal connection fees.

Quote:
It'll be interesting to return to this thread in a year or 2 or 3 after people forget about all the chicken-little BS.
It will be interesting to return to this thread in a year or 2 or 3 when people are seeing buffering and connection issues to video streaming sites that worked fine before over their Comcast/Universal/NBC owned connections.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #176 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,306
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1205 Post(s)
Liked: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielrg View Post
The statement above is the easiest to disprove. Satellites have significant issues in two way data transfer. First, they sit about 22200 miles above the earth (if geosynchronous). It takes light about 120 ms to make the trip.

Total trip to and from the satellite is 240 ms. That would be for one side of a link. The return trip is another 240 ms. So, assuming no other delays in the system at all, a "ping" over satellite link will take 480 ms just due to the speed of light. And that is to get data between two points that both can be seen by the one satellite. Satellite to satellite hops would add significant delays as well, adding tens of thousands of miles of light path satellite to satellite to get to a satellite that can see the other side of the earth.

Delays of 480 ms minimum wreak havoc on the TCP/IP stack due to buffering and ACK issues for any complex computer to computer interactions unless special provisions are made at higher layers - and for gaming, this kind of delay simply makes multiplayer games unplayable. Simple web browsing could probably be accomplished over these delays just fine.

The circumference of the earth is about 25000 miles. So from any point to another on the earth, taking the shortest path, will be less than 12500 miles. With a sufficiently built out global optical network, maybe 15000 would be the max optical distance between two points. That's about 165 ms round trip worst case (light path only) using a global optical network. And the closer together two endpoints, the faster the round trip. Data within the United states even from coast to coast has a round trip light path delay of less than 40 ms. But if we all did satellite, it would still be 480 ms light path delay alone just to the next city over.

And then imagine ruggedizing high speed network switch gear for use in space so the gamma radiation doesn't render it inoperable. And fitting enough switch gear and transceivers for millions of users on each satellite (even with high speed DSP antenna arrays). Then imagine the tens of millions of dollars to put each satellite into orbit.

It quickly becomes clear why the Internet isn't and never will be a satellite network. Satellite is cost effective for broadcasting, for sending the same content to many consumers where light path delays are not of consequence. The uplink is minimal compared the ability to reach millions on the broadcast side. But make it bi-directional, equal bandwidth on both sides of a link, and a satellite network becomes a poor solution. Even streaming would be a challenge with a satellite network with most data being download because each stream is not synchronized with any other, making it not a broadcast but a session-based streaming approach.

No - the Internet of the future will not be a satellite network. And to state it unequivocally is to discredit yourself.
Just one minor nit: satellite signals are radio waves - much slower than the speed of light. If they went light speed, there would be less lag than traditional wired ISP connections.

In fact, if they could use light-based technologies for satellite internet, bandwith wouldn't be an issue either since they could theoretically create a wireless form of fiber optics.
Thunder18 likes this.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #177 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:16 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,306
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1205 Post(s)
Liked: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby94928 View Post
I might disagree. You are right that it has nothing to do with with what you pay your ISP but it has everything to do with what you pay your provider like Netflix, etc. If Netflix gets extorted to pay Comcast and all the other ISPs more to get priority do you believe that Netflix will just eat that extra cost? Of course not, we will.....
Yes, but...money still isn't the object here.

Even if Netflix pays the extortion fee and passes it along to the customer, there's still no assurance Comcast will honor the agreement.

Cable connections exist at the neighborhood level. All kinds of throttling can happen in specific areas that might be Netflix heavy and Netflix would have little way to know if it was throttling or heavy usage in an area in need of an upgrade.

In other words, you might pay more and still not get the service you pay for.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #178 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 17,306
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1205 Post(s)
Liked: 2054
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post
Water yes, electric and gas no. Since de-regulation you have a choice of suppliers.

Ian
Technically, even water has an option. A lot of people have wells outside of urban areas.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #179 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
xnappo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,945
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by grittree View Post
I don't know if "net neutrality" is good or bad.

The internet was essentially unregulated until 2015. Seemed to work pretty good before that. And, so far, after.

Modern electronics was essentially always unregulated. Bell Labs gave us transistors. Other private firms gave us integrated circuits. The only US Govt contribution I know of is that they were the last people using vacuum tubes.

Do we want people who can't be fired for incompetence in charge?
It is only fairly recently that access to the internet has been consolidated among an Oligopoly of companies with a history of bad behavior toward the consumer. SMH. I will come back in five years to tell y'all I told you so. The companies *are* the government. We are a Corporatocracy now.
grittree likes this.

Last edited by xnappo; 12-16-2017 at 09:48 AM.
xnappo is offline  
post #180 of 277 Old 12-16-2017, 09:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 8,628
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1190 Post(s)
Liked: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
Technically, even water has an option. A lot of people have wells outside of urban areas.
True, but having your own well is not the same as having the option to shop different utility suppliers.

Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
net neutrality

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off