MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on January 22, 2014, 11:08:57 PM
-
Warning shots fired:
http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/1/22/5335626/netflix-will-provoke-customer-action-if-isps-violate-net-neutrality
-
This has a long way to go, but why should Verizon pay the freight for delivering Netflix's traffic and not be compensated for it?
I still marvel at Netflix's stock (of which I'm a shareholder). Another $1.1billion in revenue this last quarter and only $48M in profit. How can a company make so much revenue and earn so little is staggering. $5.4 billion in liabilities coming due soon....$48M a quarter isn't going to cut it. Interesting times ahead.
Maybe they will raise their prices considerably and then blame Verizon and net neutrality for it...enough goofballs out there would actually believe that is the reason. Sounds like a winning marketing idea to me.
-
This has a long way to go, but why should Verizon pay the freight for delivering Netflix's traffic and not be compensated for it?
While I don't disagree with you, a LOT more people would side with Netflix in this situation vs any ISP. People want their shows/movies.
-
While I don't disagree with you, a LOT more people would side with Netflix in this situation vs any ISP. People want their shows/movies.
People want a lot of things....especially in today's day and age. Fewer and fewer want to pay for them either. We've raised generations of people to think stuff is free or heavily subsidized.
We will ultimately reap what we sow for those policy decisions.
-
This has a long way to go, but why should Verizon pay the freight for delivering Netflix's traffic and not be compensated for it?
Why should I have to pay my cable provider for delivering ESPN's traffic if I don't watch it?
-
People want a lot of things....especially in today's day and age. Fewer and fewer want to pay for them either. We've raised generations of people to think stuff is free or heavily subsidized.
We will ultimately reap what we sow for those policy decisions.
We have also had to pay for a lot of things that we don't want without choice. There are hundreds of channels on my cable package I never watch, yet I have to pay for their content.
-
We have also had to pay for a lot of things that we don't want without choice. There are hundreds of channels on my cable package I never watch, yet I have to pay for their content.
This. You can't come down on one side of the discussion without acknowledging the others. I don't want to pay for billions of dollars in defense spending. But I don't have a voice that matters.
-
People want a lot of things....especially in today's day and age. Fewer and fewer want to pay for them either. We've raised generations of people to think stuff is free or heavily subsidized.
We will ultimately reap what we sow for those policy decisions.
If AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast get their way, they will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.
So what if you’ve got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With the permission-based innovation over “our pipes” desired from the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… the product or service has no value unless the telecoms say that it does.
I guess capitalism only is great for some.
I would be interested in your opinion, Chicos, on the loss of net neutrality.
-
People want a lot of things....especially in today's day and age. Fewer and fewer want to pay for them either. We've raised generations of people to think stuff is free or heavily subsidized.
We will ultimately reap what we sow for those policy decisions.
Agree 100%. People being forced to subsidize content that they don't want and never watch violates the very economic principles that set this country apart and made her the envy of the rest of the world. Corporate welfare and subsidies are the most heinous of all - they provide a legitimacy to anyone with their hand out, whether truly needy or not.
-
Agree 100%. People being forced to subsidize content that they don't want and never watch violates the very economic principles that set this country apart and made her the envy of the rest of the world. Corporate welfare and subsidies are the most heinous of all - they provide a legitimacy to anyone with their hand out, whether truly needy or not.
hey. corporations are people too
-
This has a long way to go, but why should Verizon pay the freight for delivering Netflix's traffic and not be compensated for it?
but Verizon's customers are paying the freight. Why should Verizon expect to get paid by the folks at both ends?
-
My position is not just on this subject, it extends across the board. Too many people have no clue what stuff costs anymore. You have way too many people getting freebies and thinking the stuff is actually free. I was watching Letterman or one of those shows the other night and some young actress is on there talking about how she was in England and got sick and went to the emergency room. Then she says "its so wonderful, everything is free". Uhm, no sweetie, it's not....someone is paying for it through taxes, etc, etc, but this is the mentality of so many people. They don't know what stuff costs, they don't what they are paying for (if they are even paying for it at all since in many cases another segment of society is paying for everyone else).
Slowly but most assuredly, we are continuing to further create large cohorts of people that believe things should be free (or believe it actually is), it's ok to steal if you want something (cuz others are doing it), etc, etc.....that is a dangerous precedent.
On this particular subject of net neutrality, I just find a lot of irony in comments by the gov't and other folks. Tolls are ok on roads, you know, because it is fair to tax the actual users of those roads. Landing fees in airplane tickets are ok, because it is "just" impacts fliers (not true, but let's play along). Truckers have to pay extra fees for using highways via weigh stations because of the burden they put on the roads. But hell, if a business builds a network and wants to charge the companies using most of the bandwidth then all hell breaks loose? Cuz someone isn't going to be able to their free \ cheap stuff as free or cheaply anymore?
-
My position is not just on this subject, it extends across the board. Too many people have no clue what stuff costs anymore. You have way too many people getting freebies and thinking the stuff is actually free. I was watching Letterman or one of those shows the other night and some young actress is on there talking about how she was in England and got sick and went to the emergency room. Then she says "its so wonderful, everything is free". Uhm, no sweetie, it's not....someone is paying for it through taxes, etc, etc, but this is the mentality of so many people. They don't know what stuff costs, they don't what they are paying for (if they are even paying for it at all since in many cases another segment of society is paying for everyone else).
Slowly but most assuredly, we are continuing to further create large cohorts of people that believe things should be free (or believe it actually is), it's ok to steal if you want something (cuz others are doing it), etc, etc.....that is a dangerous precedent.
On this particular subject of net neutrality, I just find a lot of irony in comments by the gov't and other folks. Tolls are ok on roads, you know, because it is fair to tax the actual users of those roads. Landing fees in airplane tickets are ok, because it is "just" impacts fliers (not true, but let's play along). Truckers have to pay extra fees for using highways via weigh stations because of the burden they put on the roads. But hell, if a business builds a network and wants to charge the companies using most of the bandwidth then all hell breaks loose? Cuz someone isn't going to be able to their free \ cheap stuff as free or cheaply anymore?
1. If you don't want to pay the toll, you can take another interstate. If you don't want to pay comcast in a small town, likely you don't have another option.
2. I have an issue with the "network building" because they were already given a ridiculous amount of gov't money to build things that they never completed.
-
People being forced to subsidize content that they don't want and never watch violates the very economic principles that set this country apart and made her the envy of the rest of the world.
(http://crossfitmayday.com/files/2013/07/because_merica_thats_why_us_flag_american_eagle_sw.jpg)
-
Truckers have to pay extra fees for using highways via weigh stations because of the burden they put on the roads.
;) I realize you were just trying to show examples but I'm pretty sure weigh stations aren't collecting any $$$ unless the truck is overweight and then the driver gets a fine as it should
-
My position is not just on this subject, it extends across the board. Too many people have no clue what stuff costs anymore. You have way too many people getting freebies and thinking the stuff is actually free. I was watching Letterman or one of those shows the other night and some young actress is on there talking about how she was in England and got sick and went to the emergency room. Then she says "its so wonderful, everything is free". Uhm, no sweetie, it's not....someone is paying for it through taxes, etc, etc, but this is the mentality of so many people. They don't know what stuff costs, they don't what they are paying for (if they are even paying for it at all since in many cases another segment of society is paying for everyone else).
Slowly but most assuredly, we are continuing to further create large cohorts of people that believe things should be free (or believe it actually is), it's ok to steal if you want something (cuz others are doing it), etc, etc.....that is a dangerous precedent.
On this particular subject of net neutrality, I just find a lot of irony in comments by the gov't and other folks. Tolls are ok on roads, you know, because it is fair to tax the actual users of those roads. Landing fees in airplane tickets are ok, because it is "just" impacts fliers (not true, but let's play along). Truckers have to pay extra fees for using highways via weigh stations because of the burden they put on the roads. But hell, if a business builds a network and wants to charge the companies using most of the bandwidth then all hell breaks loose? Cuz someone isn't going to be able to their free \ cheap stuff as free or cheaply anymore?
I hear you, Chicos, but the illusion of free stuff to an unwitting citizenry is a most powerful aphrodisiac. And even the people smart enough to notice the man behind the curtain are tempted to consider their own situation as an exception to otherwise immutable laws. Subsidies, welfare (corporate and otherwise), government "favors", etc., have a deleterious effect on the real economy - except, of course, in that one unique situation that favors me. And everyone from the farmer to the baseball team owner to the Disney executive cashes their check.
-
;) I realize you were just trying to show examples but I'm pretty sure weigh stations aren't collecting any $$$ unless the truck is overweight and then the driver gets a fine as it should
One of my classmate's family owned a trucking company, and I could have sworn that she said that taxes on diesel were higher than unleaded gas because that way they could collect a disproportionately higher amount in "usage fees" from truckers. Whether that's so commercial users offset costs for passenger cars and/or it's to cover greater wear and tear, if that's true, then people who drive cars that run on diesel are really getting screwed.
-
I work in a trucking related field. Yes diesel taxes are more than gasoline and the ATA has asked for Washington to raise that tax even higher as they realize our infrastructure needs more investment than DC is providing but that has nothing to do with weigh stations is all I pointed out.
Trucks are much worse for wear and tear on highways, meanwhile back to net neutrality....
-
I hear you, Chicos, but the illusion of free stuff to an unwitting citizenry is a most powerful aphrodisiac. And even the people smart enough to notice the man behind the curtain are tempted to consider their own situation as an exception to otherwise immutable laws. Subsidies, welfare (corporate and otherwise), government "favors", etc., have a deleterious effect on the real economy - except, of course, in that one unique situation that favors me. And everyone from the farmer to the baseball team owner to the Disney executive cashes their check.
You mean it's not just poor & minorities ;D
-
Netflix to pay Comcast. Quite frankly, they should. I know a lot of people here won't like that, but Netflix uses those pipes, clogs those lines they should have to pay for the transport and congestion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?action=click&contentCollection=Technology®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
-
Netflix to pay Comcast. Quite frankly, they should. I know a lot of people here won't like that, but Netflix uses those pipes, clogs those lines they should have to pay for the transport and congestion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?action=click&contentCollection=Technology®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article
which is why the local municipalities should lay the pipes, then charge for their use. ;)
-
which is why the local municipalities should lay the pipes, then charge for their use. ;)
Sorry, I don't need the DMV, SSA, etc running my internet....these guys @#$@# up enough crap already. :D
-
I work in a trucking related field. Yes diesel taxes are more than gasoline and the ATA has asked for Washington to raise that tax even higher as they realize our infrastructure needs more investment than DC is providing but that has nothing to do with weigh stations is all I pointed out.
Trucks are much worse for wear and tear on highways, meanwhile back to net neutrality....
Especially if it's a snowplow. Here in Jersey they just resurfaced a main road this past fall. Now that the some of the snow has melted you can see that the plow just did not remove snow they took part of the road as well.
-
And now the rest start falling in line.....I smell a price increase from Netflix
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/24/verizon-expects-to-reach-its-own-deal-with-netflix/
-
And now the rest start falling in line.....I smell a price increase from Netflix
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/24/verizon-expects-to-reach-its-own-deal-with-netflix/
They have to.
No way will a business eat the costs and not pass it on, esp. NetFlix.
No one is a viable challenger. RedBox? Please. I tried their service to see if it was worth it and it was a waste: the new releases in the machine weren't available in the stream queue. What's worse is their catalog consists mostly of B movies and old 50s westerns as well as early B&W (some silent) movies.
I look forward to companies that can stream their content on their own via the net based on a subscription...and accessible in a hub like Apple TV presents.
-
Amazon Prime will be the next one. It will be interesting to see what these deals end up like.
-
They have to.
No way will a business eat the costs and not pass it on, esp. NetFlix.
No one is a viable challenger. RedBox? Please. I tried their service to see if it was worth it and it was a waste: the new releases in the machine weren't available in the stream queue. What's worse is their catalog consists mostly of B movies and old 50s westerns as well as early B&W (some silent) movies.
I look forward to companies that can stream their content on their own via the net based on a subscription...and accessible in a hub like Apple TV presents.
I know you are talking their stream services, but I actually quite like Rebox machines. Making reservations is easy, machines either at my subway stop or at a grocery store. $1.50 a night for a Blu-Ray.
-
They have to.
No way will a business eat the costs and not pass it on, esp. NetFlix.
No one is a viable challenger. RedBox? Please. I tried their service to see if it was worth it and it was a waste: the new releases in the machine weren't available in the stream queue. What's worse is their catalog consists mostly of B movies and old 50s westerns as well as early B&W (some silent) movies.
I look forward to companies that can stream their content on their own via the net based on a subscription...and accessible in a hub like Apple TV presents.
No need to look forward, they can do it today. There is a huge reason they don't. $$$$$$$$$
They would sacrifice massive amounts of money
-
Chicos, there is absolutely no way you can continue to defend these buffoons...
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2014/022414-verizon-heavy-web-users-should-279060.html
If you can get past this guy's schtick, he makes good points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb0ylZHHY08&list=UUNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg&feature=c4-overview
Here's a bit more in-depth info on ISPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37nfG8m0XzQ
-
Here's more on the money that our government gave away to help build infrastructure. And, shocker, the private corporations did next to nothing with it.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
-
Agree 100%. People being forced to subsidize content that they don't want and never watch violates the very economic principles that set this country apart and made her the envy of the rest of the world. Corporate welfare and subsidies are the most heinous of all - they provide a legitimacy to anyone with their hand out, whether truly needy or not.
sounds a lot like obama's unaffordable care act. umm, i don't think i will be needing any of that birth control or transgender surgery and homone therapy, but they expect me and others to pay for it
-
Here's more on the money that our government gave away to help build infrastructure. And, shocker, the private corporations did next to nothing with it.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
The gov't in bed with business and powerful interest groups? Shocking
-
Inevitable and the right decision in my view. Why should Netflix or others get a free ride on pipes they didn't build or own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Yes, this means prices for customers are going up
-
Inevitable and the right decision in my view. Why should Netflix or others get a free ride on pipes they didn't build or own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
Yes, this means prices for customers are going up
So the monopoly got what it wanted. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court. Mark it down. Enormous slippery slope.
This the most important quote from the article:
"The proposed rules would also require Internet service providers to disclose whether in assigning faster lanes, they have favored their affiliated companies that provide content. That could have significant implications for Comcast, the nation’s largest provider of high-speed Internet service, because it owns NBCUniversal."
We already have which news we get decided for us on television, so an open and free internet is essential.
-
So how much will Amazon have to pay to various ISPs for streaming HBO shows now?
-
So Daffy (the one-legged) Duck announces today that he's all for net neutrality, and evidently, this has been one of the worst kept secrets on the beltway since all of the providers and Elmer Fudd ("it's wike Daffycare fo' duh internet, huh huh huh huh huh") had their press releases out in response within minutes.
Here's what I don't get.... The FCC issues licenses and other permits for radio and TV stations, i.e. you can't just start your own OTA TV station without passing through the FCC, and you probably can't air porn 24 hours a day if you do. But the FCC has dominion over all interstate wire, cable, and OTA communication, right? Why can't the FCC simply start requiring licenses for all broadband communications providers and issue the licenses on the condition of net neutrality?
In other words, if you're Verizon or Comcast, etc., how do you really expect to get around an executive order issued by the guy who appoints the people who run the agency to whom you subordinate your livelihood.
-
Wheeler is put in a very tough spot because the Commission has been working on this for the last year and now bambi comes in at the last moment. He (Wheeler) also knows that if he goes along with bambi, more than likely the whole thing is thrown out in court based on the rulings to date and precedents set the last 15 years. The idea of the internet as a public utility is bad on so many levels.
This is a debate that 90% of Americans have no idea what it really means. They hear things like it will make my Netflix movies come to me faster, if it was only so simple.
Fun times ahead
-
Maybe, I don't know, we should do things like put former Big Cable lobbyists into positions like running the FCC. I'm sure there's no possibility of that going poorly for the public.
-
So Daffy (the one-legged) Duck announces today that he's all for net neutrality, and evidently, this has been one of the worst kept secrets on the beltway since all of the providers and Elmer Fudd ("it's wike Daffycare fo' duh internet, huh huh huh huh huh") had their press releases out in response within minutes.
Here's what I don't get.... The FCC issues licenses and other permits for radio and TV stations, i.e. you can't just start your own OTA TV station without passing through the FCC, and you probably can't air porn 24 hours a day if you do. But the FCC has dominion over all interstate wire, cable, and OTA communication, right? Why can't the FCC simply start requiring licenses for all broadband communications providers and issue the licenses on the condition of net neutrality?
In other words, if you're Verizon or Comcast, etc., how do you really expect to get around an executive order issued by the guy who appoints the people who run the agency to whom you subordinate your livelihood.
Aww... you and your little buddy are sooooooo cute with your nicknames. Extremely clever....
-
And we KNOW what the telecoms will do if they get what they want. That fact is not a hypothetical.
Example #1 (none other needed): Last year Comcast DEMANDED that Netflix pay up or they would slow things down for all Netflix users. Comcast then carried out that threat blackmailing Netflix into paying dearly.
Net Neutrality is about only one thing. Big corporations attempts to control the flow of information. It's just one more attempt to control the airwaves.
"Daffy", as some half-wit on this board cleverly referred to, called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. That is it.
-
Wheeler is put in a very tough spot because the Commission has been working on this for the last year and now bambi comes in at the last moment. He (Wheeler) also knows that if he goes along with bambi, more than likely the whole thing is thrown out in court based on the rulings to date and precedents set the last 15 years. The idea of the internet as a public utility is bad on so many levels.
This is a debate that 90% of Americans have no idea what it really means. They hear things like it will make my Netflix movies come to me faster, if it was only so simple.
Fun times ahead
It's amazing how often you refer to yourself as smarter than most Americans. Many here have a different idea.
-
And we KNOW what the telecoms will do if they get what they want. That fact is not a hypothetical.
Example #1 (none other needed): Last year Comcast DEMANDED that Netflix pay up or they would slow things down for all Netflix users. Comcast then carried out that threat blackmailing Netflix into paying dearly.
Net Neutrality is about only one thing. Big corporations attempts to control the flow of information. It's just one more attempt to control the airwaves.
"Daffy", as some half-wit on this board cleverly referred to, called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. That is it.
(http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png)
Can you guess what event took place during January 2014?
-
^^^ But what explains Google Fiber, Cablevision, and Cox?
I think data compression may be an answer to this, no?
If more info can be compressed into even smaller packets, streaming should have little effects on its speed (notwithstanding demand), no?
-
Honestly, given what commerce and general life enablement occurs on the internet, I'd like someone to tell me how the internet shouldn't be treated like the interstate highway system or the ISPs regulated like utilities?
The internet has become a critical and vital component of life, one that the masses can't provide for themselves. This is a classic example of where the government should step in and provide regulation and oversight. The ISPs are defacto monopolies who depended on goverment funding (right of ways, loans, grants, etc) to create their pipes which they now want to use their ownership of to extort funds. Yes they invested in the pipes as well, they are allowed to profit from their investment but not by extorting users and companies.
Ultimately, it's not about Netflix getting more expensive, they are established and can absorb it. It's about the next disruptive technology not being able to get off the ground because they can't afford the same extortion fees that the established players can.
Additionally, it should be no surprise that the vast majority of ISPs are also content delivery companies. Want to keep the paradigm from shifting? Make the technologies forcing the change artificially expensive in comparison.
-
Honestly, given what commerce and general life enablement occurs on the internet, I'd like someone to tell me how the internet shouldn't be treated like the interstate highway system or the ISPs regulated like utilities?
The internet has become a critical and vital component of life, one that the masses can't provide for themselves. This is a classic example of where the government should step in and provide regulation and oversight. The ISPs are defacto monopolies who depended on goverment funding (right of ways, loans, grants, etc) to create their pipes which they now want to use their ownership of to extort funds. Yes they invested in the pipes as well, they are allowed to profit from their investment but not by extorting users and companies.
Ultimately, it's not about Netflix getting more expensive, they are established and can absorb it. It's about the next disruptive technology not being able to get off the ground because they can't afford the same extortion fees that the established players can.
Additionally, it should be no surprise that the vast majority of ISPs are also content delivery companies. Want to keep the paradigm from shifting? Make the technologies forcing the change artificially expensive in comparison.
No way there can be a conflict of interest there. Or any sort of monopoly control.
-
This article talks about how difficult Bambi made things yesterday for Wheeler.
Many lawsuits will be coming and likely will prevail.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-chair-under-bus-obama-003147315.html?.tsrc=applewf
-
I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.
Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.
This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".
Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.
-
This article talks about how difficult Bambi made things yesterday for Wheeler.
Many lawsuits will be coming and likely will prevail.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-chair-under-bus-obama-003147315.html?.tsrc=applewf
For the record Obama made things difficult for himself when he kowtowed to lobbyists interests by appointing Wheeler in the first place. Wheeler was one of the chief lobbyists for the ISP side of things prior to becoming a fundraiser for Obama that likely landed him the job in the first place.
What lawsuits are going to be filed? How could you possibly know if they will prevail? If the ISPs want to take this to court that's great, but they might stir the monster that is popular opinion which could in turn wake the Congress' ability to assess internet providers as monopolies and establish law of the land that treats them as utilities.
-
I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.
Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.
This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".
Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.
I agree with all of this, which is why I think it is all very analogous to the interstate highway system. I really think at some point the pipes should be taken over by the state and federal goverments. In the meantime, I'm all for the pipe providers generating an income to profit off the risk of creating the pipes....as long as the profit is generated equal from all customers.
What'll be interesting is if data compression becomes the next disruptive technology to render some of this discussion obsolete.
-
I agree with all of this, which is why I think it is all very analogous to the interstate highway system. I really think at some point the pipes should be taken over by the state and federal goverments. In the meantime, I'm all for the pipe providers generating an income to profit off the risk of creating the pipes....as long as the profit is generated equal from all customers.
What'll be interesting is if data compression becomes the next disruptive technology to render some of this discussion obsolete.
Nationalization of the transport networks, such as a publicly traded company like CenturyLink? That is... unlikely.
Data compression is an ongoing effort that works with the constraints of physics. I'm not aware of any significant techniques under development that would be considered disruptive. The primary effort these days is caching nodes in transport networks to reduce the core impact.
What is also being done is trying to increase the capacity in the last mile of high speed bandwidth delivery (ie - to your house). There are some efforts to roll out Gigabit Ethernet service to consumers, but a good rule of thumb is $1000 per customer just to lay fiber. That's not equipment or operations costs or salaries. Repeat times 300 million Americans and you get a feel for the scope and stakes of supporting increased data growth.
-
For the record Obama made things difficult for himself when he kowtowed to lobbyists interests by appointing Wheeler in the first place. Wheeler was one of the chief lobbyists for the ISP side of things prior to becoming a fundraiser for Obama that likely landed him the job in the first place.
What lawsuits are going to be filed? How could you possibly know if they will prevail? If the ISPs want to take this to court that's great, but they might stir the monster that is popular opinion which could in turn wake the Congress' ability to assess internet providers as monopolies and establish law of the land that treats them as utilities.
I've been in this industry for a long time. It was well over a year ago when I told you guys Aereo would fail in SCOTUS despite protestations here. It ultimately did fail. I told you mergers were coming and would be approved long before they started, and what happens...Comcast and TWC to merge (it will be approved IMO), AT&T and DTV to merger (it will be approved IMO). More are coming.
I told you guys a few weeks ago HBO will be likely $20 or more as a standalone, many of you disagree......let's see how that one plays out, but I'm ready to bet the farm.
I'm a little surprised by your comment about lobbyists, however. Could have sworn in 2008 no lobbyists were going to be put into these positions. Very strange. ::)
Why will the lawsuits prevail, I could give you any number of reasons, but they are outlined here for starters. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462
At the end of the day, this is a subject that most Americans know nothing about except a few gothca headlines. As one of the Bambi architects who was caught on tape (reveled yesterday) about bambicare stated (I'm paraphrasing), most of the American public is stupid and we crafted legislation so the stupid couldn't figure it out but as long as it achieved the means to the end, it was ok.
Ends justifies the means.
Treating the net like a public utility is bad news in the long run for development, innovation, etc. Sorry, I'm not excited about having more government intervention.
-
I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.
Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.
This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".
Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.
Sorry RL...much of what you stated I agree with. You have a better grasp on this than 99% of the public, the problem I have is when people say make it a public utility, that is dumb beyond dumb, but we have many dumb people in this country so it gains traction.
-
Sorry RL...much of what you stated I agree with. You have a better grasp on this than 99% of the public, the problem I have is when people say make it a public utility, that is dumb beyond dumb, but we have many dumb people in this country so it gains traction.
While preferable to not take it all the way to a public utility to say it is a dumb idea is...well....dumb. There are positive and negatives to all solutions, perhaps there are better solutions but that doesn't mean treating it as a utility is a terrible one.
And for someone who purports to be a believer in democracy you seem to have an awful lot of disdain for those that would be participants in said democracy.
-
Nationalization of the transport networks, such as a publicly traded company like CenturyLink? That is... unlikely.
Data compression is an ongoing effort that works with the constraints of physics. I'm not aware of any significant techniques under development that would be considered disruptive. The primary effort these days is caching nodes in transport networks to reduce the core impact.
What is also being done is trying to increase the capacity in the last mile of high speed bandwidth delivery (ie - to your house). There are some efforts to roll out Gigabit Ethernet service to consumers, but a good rule of thumb is $1000 per customer just to lay fiber. That's not equipment or operations costs or salaries. Repeat times 300 million Americans and you get a feel for the scope and stakes of supporting increased data growth.
Yeah data compression, barring a change in theoretical physics isn't going to be the pancea but I do know there are some efforts underway to identify and prioritize traffic based on data type that might yield some short term benefit. Demand for data is growing far too fast though for it to have a lasting impact.
-
Chicos: At the end of the day, this is a subject that most Americans know nothing about except a few gothca headlines.
Chicos: the problem I have is when people say make it a public utility, that is dumb beyond dumb, but we have many dumb people in this country so it gains traction
Chicos: The lack of fundamental business understanding on this board is alarming at times, quite frankly. MU should make every student enroll in several business classes because too many graduates either believe fairy dust is running the world or they just don't get it.
Wow... somebody has a bit of an ego situation
-
Chicos: At the end of the day, this is a subject that most Americans know nothing about except a few gothca headlines.
Chicos: the problem I have is when people say make it a public utility, that is dumb beyond dumb, but we have many dumb people in this country so it gains traction
Chicos: The lack of fundamental business understanding on this board is alarming at times, quite frankly. MU should make every student enroll in several business classes because too many graduates either believe fairy dust is running the world or they just don't get it.
Wow... somebody has a bit of an ego situation
Chico is very much an elitist and as such holds more people than not in contempt. The only time he defends the hoi polloi is when their ignorance aligns them with his world view. As an example, if your "dumbness" makes you unaware that a word is defined as a racial slur, he'll support the conclusion your dumbness brings you to because it's in agreement with his position. Hell, he'll more than support your dumbness - he'll be insulted on your behalf.
-
Chico is very much an elitist and as such holds more people than not in contempt. The only time he defends the hoi polloi is when their ignorance aligns them with his world view. As an example, if your "dumbness" makes you unaware that a word is defined as a racial slur, he'll support the conclusion your dumbness brings you to because it's in agreement with his position. Hell, he'll more than support your dumbness - he'll be insulted on your behalf.
Actually, no one can be slurred unless they feel slurred. That's the action or inaction, but that's a discussion for a different thread....feel free to bring it up there.
Thanks for quoting Brand, he continues to not understand and I'm not going to bother...life is too short. I will say, however, it has nothing to do with ego but common sense reality of the busy lives that people have. You're talking about a populace in which almost 50% can't identify New York on a US map. You can choose whichever reason(s) you wish for this. Education. Too busy. Don't care. Net neutrality a complex issue that the vast vast vast majority does not understand. That is not being elite, and it certainly isn't holding someone in contempt....people only have so much time to understand their daily lives, let alone something this complex. That's just the way it is. Journalists can't get it right and when they can't, they are only passing on wrong information to the already misinformed.
Henry correctly stated some of the complexities, though a few were untouched. One way or another, this is going to be in the courts for many years. Involves a tremendous amount of money, regulatory discussion, freedom issues, technological innovation and investment, etc. Topics that all too many Americans don't get to any level of sophistication.
-
While preferable to not take it all the way to a public utility to say it is a dumb idea is...well....dumb. There are positive and negatives to all solutions, perhaps there are better solutions but that doesn't mean treating it as a utility is a terrible one.
And for someone who purports to be a believer in democracy you seem to have an awful lot of disdain for those that would be participants in said democracy.
Yes, treating it as a public utility is a terrible idea....and a dumb one. There are other solutions, better beyond compare. Public utility of the net is beyond dumb, which is why the gov't is looking at it. If they go this approach, I would gather within 10 years it is broken up because of the unintended consequences of it.
How am I holding in disdain participants of a democracy? Am I preventing people from talking to their representatives? Voting? Contributing to campaigns? Volunteering? Holding forums? Participating in public comments by gov't agencies? Please explain.
-
I sense the Dunning-Kruger effect at work here.
Or, as Bertrand Russell put it:
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."
Anyhow, all this talk of data compression reminds me of one of the funniest scenes in recent memory, from the show "Silicon Valley."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY
-
I sense the Dunning-Kruger effect at work here.
Or, as Bertrand Russell put it:
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision."
Anyhow, all this talk of data compression reminds me of one of the funniest scenes in recent memory, from the show "Silicon Valley."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY
We studied DK effect in managerial work. I'm sure you will find this ironic, but I've been rated as someone with too much self doubt, not inclined to go with my first instincts enough and looking for too much collaborative evidence. Something that I've had to work on. As one VP would often say, "You completely underestimate yourself too often, you are way too hard on yourself. You usually have the right strategic answers out of the gate, but you spend too much time looking at every possible way to kill your own conclusions." As I politely told him, "yes, because if that strategy is wrong and I don't find every possible hole in the strategy up front, then it is my ass". :D I'm extremely self-aware of my abilities, so I have no problem telling someone "I don't know" or "I can't do it" rather than watching people pretend they can and fall short.
DK has it's flaws....good read. http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/
-
We studied DK effect in managerial work. I'm sure you will find this ironic, but I've been rated as someone with too much self doubt, not inclined to go with my first instincts enough and looking for too much collaborative evidence. Something that I've had to work on. As one VP would often say, "You completely underestimate yourself too often, you are way too hard on yourself. You usually have the right strategic answers out of the gate, but you spend too much time looking at every possible way to kill your own conclusions." As I politely told him, "yes, because if that strategy is wrong and I don't find every possible hole in the strategy up front, then it is my ass". :D I'm extremely self-aware of my abilities, so I have no problem telling someone "I don't know" or "I can't do it" rather than watching people pretend they can and fall short.
DK has it's flaws....good read. http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/
Chicos has finally let us in on the simple secret. He is just really smarter than the rest of us. And he will be the first to tell you.
-
We studied DK effect in managerial work. I'm sure you will find this ironic, but I've been rated as someone with too much self doubt, not inclined to go with my first instincts enough and looking for too much collaborative evidence. Something that I've had to work on. As one VP would often say, "You completely underestimate yourself too often, you are way too hard on yourself. You usually have the right strategic answers out of the gate, but you spend too much time looking at every possible way to kill your own conclusions." As I politely told him, "yes, because if that strategy is wrong and I don't find every possible hole in the strategy up front, then it is my ass". :D I'm extremely self-aware of my abilities, so I have no problem telling someone "I don't know" or "I can't do it" rather than watching people pretend they can and fall short.
DK has it's flaws....good read. http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/
Your humility is only exceed by your good looks....and with that, I'm out on this
-
Sometimes satire just writes itself.
-
Holy chit...did Chicos just post part of his performance review???
-
i just sit back and read-these topics and occasionally chime in. this one, which i found to be very interesting by the way, can't help but notice how "people" seem to be salivating and waiting for the right moment to jump all over chico. then it's like a pack of hyenas...chico just dusts himself off and walks away or the topic ends up getting a padlock. ?-(
-
Holy chit...did Chicos just post part of his performance review???
Nah, just honest feedback I've received over the years. I learned long ago that message boards and the proxy wall that is provided can change a person in that environment....I'm as guilty as anyone on this. I'm different behind a keyboard than I am in the boardroom, on the phone, face to face. Definitely a fault of mine and I see it all the time on ESPN, here, or pretty much anywhere where social interaction via the net takes place. Again, big failing of mine. I would guess that the vast majority of people that know me say I'm mild mannered, fairly quiet, certainly not a hot head, humble, etc. Though it is funny that in actual performance reviews, "too nice" came up often and in my part of the world with what I was doing, that isn't always a compliment. People in that role often have to live outside their own skin as it were. Can be a challenge and certainly a stressful one at times. One of the reasons I changed gigs after all these years. At any rate, that isn't always my persona here and that's on me.
Work in progress.....try to get better, that's all I can do. That's why I ignore certain people on here, ignore certain topics, or just bail out of some if I am in them. Just not worth it anymore.
-
You guys realize that this is Chicos business right? Any chance that any of you actually know more about this then he does? This is addressed to anyone but Henry.
-
I think Mr. Wheeler, who was appointed by Bambi, said it pretty well yesterday in a way that was somewhat deflective.
From the AP:
The issue of net neutrality is so highly technical and legally complex that even FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler -- who was appointed by Obama -- suggested that the president may have oversimplified things. In a statement issued Monday, Wheeler said applying Title II of the 1934 Communications Act raises "substantive legal questions," including whether that law would cover mobile devices.
-
Nah, just honest feedback I've received over the years. I learned long ago that message boards and the proxy wall that is provided can change a person in that environment....I'm as guilty as anyone on this. I'm different behind a keyboard than I am in the boardroom, on the phone, face to face. Definitely a fault of mine and I see it all the time on ESPN, here, or pretty much anywhere where social interaction via the net takes place. Again, big failing of mine. I would guess that the vast majority of people that know me say I'm mild mannered, fairly quiet, certainly not a hot head, humble, etc. Though it is funny that in actual performance reviews, "too nice" came up often and in my part of the world with what I was doing, that isn't always a compliment. People in that role often have to live outside their own skin as it were. Can be a challenge and certainly a stressful one at times. One of the reasons I changed gigs after all these years. At any rate, that isn't always my persona here and that's on me.
Work in progress.....try to get better, that's all I can do. That's why I ignore certain people on here, ignore certain topics, or just bail out of some if I am in them. Just not worth it anymore.
Chico - As one who has sometimes questioned your ability/desire to self reflect please accept my sincere congratulations. I think your post is insightful and even borderline courageous. Well done.
-
I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.
Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.
This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".
Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.
Hey Henry...appreciate this. After a full day of reading sound bites on Facebook, simplistically labeling one side against the other, this certainly adds a great deal of context.
-
A lot of litigation.....
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/technology/call-for-open-internet-sets-up-fight-over-rules.html?_r=0&referrer=
-
Thanks for quoting Brand, he continues to not understand and I'm not going to bother...life is too short. I will say, however, it has nothing to do with ego but common sense reality of the busy lives that people have. You're talking about a populace in which almost 50% can't identify New York on a US map. You can choose whichever reason(s) you wish for this. Education. Too busy. Don't care. Net neutrality a complex issue that the vast vast vast majority does not understand. That is not being elite, and it certainly isn't holding someone in contempt....people only have so much time to understand their daily lives, let alone something this complex. That's just the way it is. Journalists can't get it right and when they can't, they are only passing on wrong information to the already misinformed.
Not to get off topic, but that's exactly how I feel on the nickname issue. It's not as simple as it seems, and there are some layers that aren't fully understood.
-
AT & T to halt investment in broadband for now. Makes sense, why invest or innovate and take those risks based on last fees days. They will not be the last.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/12/att-ceo-comment-after-obama-statement/18915917/
-
AT & T to halt investment in broadband for now. Makes sense, why invest or innovate and take those risks based on last fees days. They will not be the last.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/12/att-ceo-comment-after-obama-statement/18915917/
Innovation and investment have always, and will continue to, occur in any markets, even in risky situations if the pay-off is there. If ATT feels things are beginning to change and they don't see it as the same lucrative investment it's been, fine. Someone will take their place eventually. There's a market there that needs companies and there is money to be made.
Granted, you are almost assuredly the expert on this board. But you post this and make it sound like a big threat. To the point it almost seems like extortion - "don't threaten us or we'll do things you don't like"
-
AT & T to halt investment in broadband for now. Makes sense, why invest or innovate and take those risks based on last fees days. They will not be the last.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/12/att-ceo-comment-after-obama-statement/18915917/
AT&T could start by innovating my Uverse Internet to be as fast as my 10 year old DSL service. Biggest mistake I ever made technology-wise was bailing on DSL for horrible Uverse
-
Innovation and investment have always, and will continue to, occur in any markets, even in risky situations if the pay-off is there. If ATT feels things are beginning to change and they don't see it as the same lucrative investment it's been, fine. Someone will take their place eventually. There's a market there that needs companies and there is money to be made.
Granted, you are almost assuredly the expert on this board. But you post this and make it sound like a big threat. To the point it almost seems like extortion - "don't threaten us or we'll do things you don't like"
That's the point, will the payoff be there? Look, this is just a large Telco firing a warning shot at POTUS comments. It's the right play. Last year AT&T spent $20billion in capital to improve their business (more cell towers, more fiber, etc, etc), but if they don't have the chance to recoup those expenses, they aren't going to do it....nor should they. It's not extortion, it's good business. Will some innovation continue? Some investment? Of course, but it may be bit players, or tertiary enterprises while those that could bring some true innovation decide to invest elsewhere. For now, I'd call it just a warning shot and I think there will be others. The idea of a public utility is so beyond stupid in so many ways....business is simply reacting to that stupidity, as they should.
At the end of the day, all of this goes to the courts for many years.
-
Innovation and investment have always, and will continue to, occur in any markets, even in risky situations if the pay-off is there. If ATT feels things are beginning to change and they don't see it as the same lucrative investment it's been, fine. Someone will take their place eventually. There's a market there that needs companies and there is money to be made.
Granted, you are almost assuredly the expert on this board. But you post this and make it sound like a big threat. To the point it almost seems like extortion - "don't threaten us or we'll do things you don't like"
Broadband is the future - if A T T is bailing, it is because they know they can't compete right now. These guys aren't dumb. My guess is that they will still be investing in broadband companies
As more channels offer a la carte, cable providers will start to shift their businesses to focus more and more on broadband services. They will gradually evolve to rely less on video and to become more broadband-centric. That is the big point. This is all about broadband. That will leave satellite companies like DirecTV and Dish Network as the guys with the most to lose.
Cable companies will fight the changes at first, but they know where the future lies – and they plan to be a part of it. millions of people will still want the convenience and value of a bundled package without the attendant hassles inherent in a la carte. But the cable companies will continue to do what they need to make sure that they have a big voice in what the future will be – as they obviously want to stay as on top as the big player.
-
Wait .. so .. all this time AT&T has been getting "internet revenue" from selling its Uverse / DSL services, charging folks for their backbone connections, and using that to build out its network, right? (or wrong?).
As far as I can recall, they don't have a kickback from someone like Netflix (yet.)
So .. somehow AT&T has been able to have a funding mix of 100% consumers of their product, and 0% from the big-data-senders.
Why would that model not work in the future? If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.
-
Wait .. so .. all this time AT&T has been getting "internet revenue" from selling its Uverse / DSL services, charging folks for their backbone connections, and using that to build out its network, right? (or wrong?).
As far as I can recall, they don't have a kickback from someone like Netflix (yet.)
So .. somehow AT&T has been able to have a funding mix of 100% consumers of their product, and 0% from the big-data-senders.
Why would that model not work in the future? If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.
Title II requirements if a public utility and pricing. That's the whole point, if it becomes a public utility and companies are forced to adhere to Title II requirements, then the model doesn't work...especially true if pricing is also regulated. Why would any company want to risk their capital for that? They absolutely wouldn't...which is why a public utility idea is so dumb.
you are thinking about the very high level stuff like throttling and data fast lanes....I'm talking about what it means to be a public utility.
-
That's the point, will the payoff be there? Look, this is just a large Telco firing a warning shot at POTUS comments. It's the right play. Last year AT&T spent $20billion in capital to improve their business (more cell towers, more fiber, etc, etc), but if they don't have the chance to recoup those expenses, they aren't going to do it....nor should they. It's not extortion, it's good business. Will some innovation continue? Some investment? Of course, but it may be bit players, or tertiary enterprises while those that could bring some true innovation decide to invest elsewhere. For now, I'd call it just a warning shot and I think there will be others. The idea of a public utility is so beyond stupid in so many ways....business is simply reacting to that stupidity, as they should.
At the end of the day, all of this goes to the courts for many years.
Yup! Got to keep those lawyers employed.
-
Why would that model not work in the future? If the suggestion is that they can't raise rates on their end-internet video-hungry customers, I have a bridge to sell you.
Data is projected to grow by 5-10x current capacity.
You interested in paying 5-10x your current broadband bill? How about just 2x your current bill? How about just your current bill increasing by 50%?
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?
I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?
I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.
Who is paying for those innovations, that infrastructure, etc? PCell technology, towers, spectrum auctions, etc? It's the same issue, especially if you force title II regulations on these companies. Why on earth would they want to spend all that capital and take on all that risk, plus have to build out in areas where they would be so under water (which title II requires) it would destroy them. This is why public utility classification is so dumb that even Wheeler, who was appointed by POTUS, politely had to state how stupid it is. Now let's see if he caves because of who appointed him.
I find it fascinating that the same POTUS that as a Senator and POTUS believes that trucking companies, etc that move heavy commerce across roads and puts heavy usage on our transportation networks and thus charges surcharges, taxes, etc for that, is opposed to network companies charging extra for those clogging their networks (i.e. video aggregators, etc). Netflix didn't build that network, but wants a free ride with the same treatment as Johnny 8th grader's blog.
-
Forgive me if I'm being stupid, won't wireless internet coverage eventually solve some of the infrastructure issues?
I know businesses are usually going to require a wired feed, but in theory, couldn't wireless speeds continue to increase enough where residential customers won't require a wired connection at all.
Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.
Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.
-
Data is projected to grow by 5-10x current capacity.
You interested in paying 5-10x your current broadband bill? How about just 2x your current bill? How about just your current bill increasing by 50%?
Answer: I wouldn't like that at all. Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?
.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure? Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.
-
Answer: I wouldn't like that at all. Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?
.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure? Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.
The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.
-
Is the net neutrality war anything like the War on Christmas?
-
The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.
and significantly more dense.
-
Answer: I wouldn't like that at all. Can I vote for the plan where other people pay for stuff instead of me?
.. Anyone know how other super-fast countries pay for their infrastructure? Like South Korea, where you get 100megs to the home for like two chickens per month.
That already exists in the good old USA....you're just not allowed to say it. Every April 15th is my reminder.
-
That already exists in the good old USA....you're just not allowed to say it. Every April 15th is my reminder.
Another typically stupid comment regarding this subject. Now back to reality!!
Thanks to tax loopholes, many companies paid nothing to the IRS — but still received tax breaks in the billions. Among the worst offenders are telecoms that are also busy trying to strip Internet users of their online freedom:
Between 2008 and 2010, Verizon received $12.3 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government and had an effective tax rate of –2.9 percent.
In the same period, AT&T received nearly $14.5 billion in federal tax breaks, second only to Wells Fargo, which received nearly $18 billion. It had an effective tax rate of 8 percent.
The telecom industry as a whole paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent during the 2008–2010 period — far below the standard 35 percent corporate tax rate.
It’s telling that AT&T and Verizon stand out so prominently in this report. These are the same companies that don’t want Washington to stop them from taking advantage of Internet users. Just as they are finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they’re on the constant lookout for loopholes that will allow them to block our right to speak freely online.
-
The answer is primarily geography. Korea is much smaller than the US.
Ding ding...winner winner
-
If only companies paid their taxes. That'd sort out this net neutrality thing right away.
-
Another typically stupid comment regarding this subject. Now back to reality!!
Thanks to tax loopholes, many companies paid nothing to the IRS — but still received tax breaks in the billions. Among the worst offenders are telecoms that are also busy trying to strip Internet users of their online freedom:
Between 2008 and 2010, Verizon received $12.3 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government and had an effective tax rate of –2.9 percent.
In the same period, AT&T received nearly $14.5 billion in federal tax breaks, second only to Wells Fargo, which received nearly $18 billion. It had an effective tax rate of 8 percent.
The telecom industry as a whole paid an effective tax rate of 8.2 percent during the 2008–2010 period — far below the standard 35 percent corporate tax rate.
It’s telling that AT&T and Verizon stand out so prominently in this report. These are the same companies that don’t want Washington to stop them from taking advantage of Internet users. Just as they are finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they’re on the constant lookout for loopholes that will allow them to block our right to speak freely online.
What I mean by my above tongue in cheek comment is:
It sounds like you're saying that bad government policy appears to provide an advantage to the ISPs, therefore we should enact more government policy to harm them, thus balancing out in the end.
1. I'm not convinced that the failings (and there are many) of the tax code are directly applicable to this discussion.
2. I'm not convinced that a good regulatory scheme should be a system where we continually enact poorly thought out policies with the objective being balancing out negative impacts.
Wouldn't a better idea be to 1, reform the tax code so as to prevent the abuses you describe* and 2, come up with a reasoned way to address "net neutrality" issues with an eye towards balancing all of the issues at play rather than just black and white siding with one side or another?**
* Yes, easier said than done. This I realize.
** Yes, easier said than done. Also, it doesn't play into our if you're not on my side of the aisle you must be put down rhetorical system of the last generation so it's never going to happen. I guess, both sides should just resume sniping at each other. Carry on.
-
What I mean by my above tongue in cheek comment is:
It sounds like you're saying that bad government policy appears to provide an advantage to the ISPs, therefore we should enact more government policy to harm them, thus balancing out in the end.
1. I'm not convinced that the failings (and there are many) of the tax code are directly applicable to this discussion.
2. I'm not convinced that a good regulatory scheme should be a system where we continually enact poorly thought out policies with the objective being balancing out negative impacts.
Wouldn't a better idea be to 1, reform the tax code so as to prevent the abuses you describe* and 2, come up with a reasoned way to address "net neutrality" issues with an eye towards balancing all of the issues at play rather than just black and white siding with one side or another?**
* Yes, easier said than done. This I realize.
** Yes, easier said than done. Also, it doesn't play into our if you're not on my side of the aisle you must be put down rhetorical system of the last generation so it's never going to happen. I guess, both sides should just resume sniping at each other. Carry on.
It was nice your comment was tongue in cheek since my little mini-rant was meant as semi-tongue-in-cheek. It was not meant as a remark about gov't policy - but about people in general.
It was in response to a post how everybody wants free stuff and I was just pointing out that everybody (just about) gets free stuff already. They get it regardless of what side of the aisle they are on or if they are rich or poor. I just added the examples because that is the subject of the thread. So as we don't have too much sympathy for the billion dollar players in this thing who also have their hands out.
-
Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.
Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.
Thanks Sug.
I realize incremental gains become more and more expensive, but I was hoping newer and newer technology would help reduce the costs.
Laying cable is expensive. It's expensive now. It's expensive 10 years from now. I was thinking wireless transmitter technology could ease some of the infrastructure costs.
Sounds like I'm dreaming. (for now anyways).
-
Wireless is worse! Three things:
#1 - There are only three ways to increase wireless capacity. Improved physics can get 2x current. Adding spectrum can get 2x current (and it's fricking expensive because auctions cost billions). The only way to handle wireless data growth projections is via building more cell sites (called small cells like in the AT&T commercials)
#2 - Wireless connections go from the cell tower to a switch, where the traffic just becomes wireline traffic anyway.
#3 - Even with LTE wireless speeds, which get close to some cable modem speeds, some carriers are rolling out fiber, which will be 100s of times faster than wireless.
Having said that, one of the key things we project is a convergence of wireless and wireline. This would be via your home broadband connection, wireless access, and then public/private wifi hotspots. The idea is to access any content you want on any device.
I don't know actual numbers, but it would seem that any bottleneck in data is going to be in the download bandwidth. In theory, why couldn't you deliver all or a portion of the heavy-traffic (i.e. video) download bandwidth via UHF/VHF, thus freeing up the fiber for regular traffic? Is that what you're talking about in the underlined portion?
-
What about equipment obsolescence? I was involved in cable decades ago and I seem to remember that there was a finite period of
time and then the infrastructure needed to be replaced. Am I remembering this correctly and is this the case now?
-
What about equipment obsolescence? I was involved in cable decades ago and I seem to remember that there was a finite period of
time and then the infrastructure needed to be replaced. Am I remembering this correctly and is this the case now?
Happens all the time. Whether it is compression hardware, receiving hardware, etc. Yes, equipment can become obsolete as data protocols change, what spectrum (Radio Frequencies) are going to be used, etc.
-
Is the net neutrality war anything like the War on Christmas?
More like the successful battles we waged in the War on Drugs.
-
More like the successful battles we waged in the War on Drugs.
Or the War on Poverty?
sniping at one another on issues that are only tangentially related to the topic of the thread is fun.
-
Remember the good ole days when we used to be good at war? ;D
-
AT & T to halt investment in broadband for now. Makes sense, why invest or innovate and take those risks based on last fees days. They will not be the last.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/12/att-ceo-comment-after-obama-statement/18915917/
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11/fcc-calls-atts-fiber-bluff-demands-detailed-construction-plans/
So, ATT basically went with the "we're going to play by my rules or I'm taking my ball and going home" strategy?
Again, if there is a market and profit to be made, someone will do it. Why not allow local governments to build out their own networks? My local utilities work just fine.
-
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/11/fcc-calls-atts-fiber-bluff-demands-detailed-construction-plans/
So, ATT basically went with the "we're going to play by my rules or I'm taking my ball and going home" strategy?
Again, if there is a market and profit to be made, someone will do it. Why not allow local governments to build out their own networks? My local utilities work just fine.
Some of those local utilities might be a private company blessed with a government sanctioned monopoly. Works fine but not exactly run by your local village common council.
-
In reference to my question about other countries .. this was an interesting read ..
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/
-
In reference to my question about other countries .. this was an interesting read ..
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/12/what-france-has-taught-me-americans-are-suckers-who-have-themselves-to-blame-for-crappy-broadband/
"Government has played a strong role in ensuring competition, and that has increased choice and driven down prices for consumers.
Go ahead, America. Read that last sentence a few times. I know it probably makes your head hurt.
The problem is that in current U.S. economic policy, politics, and culture, Americans have been told that they have a choice. Either you believe in government regulation, or you believe in free markets. Government intervention is the enemy of innovation and competition.
It’s a choice that is as simple as it is false. Unfortunately, a gullible American public has swallowed it whole.
...
Of course, it would seem impossible that someone will stand up in the near future and demand that the U.S. government play a stronger role. Politicians and regulators would be cowered by an army of telecom lobbyists and pundits who would chew their heads off.
But the real problem is that the average American has bought into this false choice: government vs. competition. And so, they are not going to insist on the new regulations and stronger enforcement that might a lead to more competition."
Brutal honesty. We've been duped several times in this country. I think I've posted this one before:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
Not my statement, but one I agree with:
"If you look at the history of telecommunications in the US in great detail with regards to the cable and telephone companies, you will see they do this over and over again.
Whenever they need a government concession or tax break, they claim if they don't get it they will not provide universal service. When they want to keep their monopolies and destroy competitors, they claim that competition would weaken them and make universal service impossible. When they Argue against laws enabling technologies that threaten their revenue stream, they actually state that anything that reduces the amount of money they take in hurts their company, making it impossible for them to deliver universal service.
Telecom companies in the US are pretty much a case study in corporations corrupting the government, lying to the public, and getting away with it."
-
"Government has played a strong role in ensuring competition, and that has increased choice and driven down prices for consumers.
Go ahead, America. Read that last sentence a few times. I know it probably makes your head hurt.
The problem is that in current U.S. economic policy, politics, and culture, Americans have been told that they have a choice. Either you believe in government regulation, or you believe in free markets. Government intervention is the enemy of innovation and competition.
It’s a choice that is as simple as it is false. Unfortunately, a gullible American public has swallowed it whole.
...
Of course, it would seem impossible that someone will stand up in the near future and demand that the U.S. government play a stronger role. Politicians and regulators would be cowered by an army of telecom lobbyists and pundits who would chew their heads off.
But the real problem is that the average American has bought into this false choice: government vs. competition. And so, they are not going to insist on the new regulations and stronger enforcement that might a lead to more competition."
Brutal honesty. We've been duped several times in this country. I think I've posted this one before:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
Not my statement, but one I agree with:
"If you look at the history of telecommunications in the US in great detail with regards to the cable and telephone companies, you will see they do this over and over again.
Whenever they need a government concession or tax break, they claim if they don't get it they will not provide universal service. When they want to keep their monopolies and destroy competitors, they claim that competition would weaken them and make universal service impossible. When they Argue against laws enabling technologies that threaten their revenue stream, they actually state that anything that reduces the amount of money they take in hurts their company, making it impossible for them to deliver universal service.
Telecom companies in the US are pretty much a case study in corporations corrupting the government, lying to the public, and getting away with it."
This. All of this.