Net Neutrality...

[Tugg Speedman]

I give up on this 1.21 has zero idea what he is talking about. He just said the average household doesn't need 50mb/s. If people like him are in control of this, its over. LOL

I understand why you gave up, as reading comprehension is a real problem for you.  I said nothing remotely close to this.  Try applying you MU education and read it slowly.

This might also explain you lack of understanding on this topic. 

[jesmu84]

Here's a nice crossover between our "disinformation" thread and this one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/22/official-says-hes-been-stymied-by-the-fcc-in-investigation-of-fake-net-neutrality-foes/

[GB Warrior]

I understand why you gave up, as reading comprehension is a real problem for you.  I said nothing remotely close to this.  Try applying you MU education and read it slowly.

This might also explain you lack of understanding on this topic.

*your (x2)

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

*your (x2)

[Hards Alumni]

See, this is the mistake you and everyone for Net Neutrality here makes.  They are not censoring you.  They don't care what websites you visit.  They don't care what video you watch.  This is not a type of first amendment argument.

What they care about is bandwidth/usage.  Right now they are charge variable rates based on speed.  The problem with this is 99% only need the standard package of 50 MiPS or so.  Fiber is nice (I have gig speeds here in Moscow Tower) but it is really not necessary.  Netflix and Porn work just fine at 50 MiPs. 

But in the future when VR/AR, Cloud, 4K video (followed by 6k or 8k) etc come, you will need these faster speeds.  But instead of charging variable rates on speed, why not charge on usage Pay a premium for VR/AR, pay a premium for 4k video.  Don't want to pay the premium?  Then download 720p porn/Netflix.

The worst idea is your suggestion that we have a blanket hike in rates. 

Regarding my references to porn.  Here are the top 12 most trafficked sites in the US over the last 24 hours, as calculated by Similar Web.  So, yes, a lot of this discussion is about porn

1    google.com     Internet and Telecom > Search Engine         
2    facebook.com     Internet and Telecom > Social Network         
3    youtube.com     Arts and Entertainment > TV and Video         
4    amazon.com     Shopping > General Merchandise         
5    yahoo.com     News and Media         
6    pornhub.com     Adult            
7    xvideos.com     Adult         
8    craigslist.org     Shopping > Classifieds            
9    xnxx.com     Adult         
10    ebay.com    Shopping > General Merchandise         
11    netflix.com        Arts and Entertainment > TV and Video      
12    xhamster.com    Adult

Misinformation, disinformation, and ignorance. 

[GGGG]

I for one am shocked that our resident corporatists are in favor of the administration’s position on this. 

[mu_hilltopper]

I give up on this 1.21 has zero idea what he is talking about. He just said the average household doesn't need 50mb/s. If people like him are in control of this, its over. LOL

Network guy here .. that number would be correct.  Really.

Consumers are WAY over-sold on bandwidth.   It's all about video: How many *simultaneous* video streams does your household need?   50 megs is around 10 HD streams .. admittedly "only" two 4k streams. 

I have 15meg service with two Youtube consuming children.  Never have a problem.

Yes, yes, if you torrent a 3 gig file, you're going to have to wait an extra few minutes, for shame.

[Tugg Speedman]

Network guy here .. that number would be correct.  Really.

Consumers are WAY over-sold on bandwidth.   It's all about video: How many *simultaneous* video streams does your household need?   50 megs is around 10 HD streams .. admittedly "only" two 4k streams. 

I have 15meg service with two Youtube consuming children.  Never have a problem.

Yes, yes, if you torrent a 3 gig file, you're going to have to wait an extra few minutes, for shame.

Thank you

[Hards Alumni]

Thank you

Ah so you concede that the pipes aren't clogged. 

Thank you

[Tugg Speedman]

Ah so you concede that the pipes aren't clogged. 

Thank you

Today they are not clogged, agree

But if the increase in data transfers continues to grow according to Moore’s law, that is doubling every 18 months, then they will be soon and paying for the continued buildout to keep up will be important.

Ending Net Neutrality would allow for a more equitable way to pay for it then the most inequitable way possible, which was suggested in this thread ... jacking  up prices on everyone.

[Tugg Speedman]

This article is not about Net Neutrality but about the absolute explosion in data that is coming and why the "pipes" we have not are going to be inadequate and have to be built out.

How to pay for it?

----------------------
The Financial Times
November 26, 2017
Let the 5G battles begin
There is exponentially more wealth to be made and tech titans are vying for position
https://www.ft.com/content/d8d615ae-cf9c-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc


The consumer internet revolution of the past 20 years has brought us many amazing things, from online search engines to phones doubling as personal assistants. But as dramatic as that change was, it’s nothing compared with the coming evolution of 5G wireless and the internet of things, which will involve putting data mining chips in everything from your fridge to your car.

This will not only create entirely new businesses, but also allow advertisers to reach you in ever more targeted ways (they’ll know not only where you are, but if your garden needs watering or if you are running out of milk). The economic stakes are high. As rich as big tech companies are, there is exponentially more wealth to be created in this new 5G world. Yet the technology that underpins it all is being threatened by a battle over which businesses and industries will seize which slice of this juicy pie.

[jesmu84]

Today they are not clogged, agree

But if the increase in data transfers continues to grow according to Moore’s law, that is doubling every 18 months, then they will be soon and paying for the continued buildout to keep up will be important.

Ending Net Neutrality would allow for a more equitable way to pay for it then the most inequitable way possible, which was suggested in this thread ... jacking  up prices on everyone.

Sad that it comes to this.

But I'd gladly pay more to avoid ISPs from blocking my access to whatever they decide they don't want me to see.

Or from them nickle and dime-ing me from accessing what I want.

[mu03eng]

Today they are not clogged, agree

But if the increase in data transfers continues to grow according to Moore’s law, that is doubling every 18 months, then they will be soon and paying for the continued buildout to keep up will be important.

Ending Net Neutrality would allow for a more equitable way to pay for it then the most inequitable way possible, which was suggested in this thread ... jacking  up prices on everyone.

Here's how I know you're all wet on this and are just peacocking, you're not even using Moore's law correctly. Has nothing to do with bandwidth

[Tugg Speedman]

Sad that it comes to this.

But I'd gladly pay more to avoid ISPs from blocking my access to whatever they decide they don't want me to see.

Or from them nickle and dime-ing me from accessing what I want.

Your fear that they are going to be some sort of moral police is completely unfounded.    I get that saying it makes for a good post, but this is not going to happen.

Nor are that going to nickel and dime you.  They do not now.

All net neutrality does is give them another way to differentiate cost to customers.  It allows for a fairer way to price their product.  And yes, you can buy a package that allows full access, it will be the most popular package they have. 

But for those on a budget, they can buy non-steaming access for a very cheap price (as in free if they agree to purchase video or phone).  Parents can block “bad stuff “ from coming into their house to protect their kids.  Businesses can purchase a high-speed lane for extra money.

It will be no more complicated than purchasing a landline with long distance or a mobile phone plan.  Why?  Because mobile (LTE) provides competition.  If your cable company jerks you around, you have plenty of other options.  So they cannot and stay in business.

[Tugg Speedman]

Here's how I know you're all wet on this and are just peacocking, you're not even using Moore's law correctly. Has nothing to do with bandwidth

Yes, the original Moore's law was about processing power (doubling every 18 months).  But with increased processing power comes an increased appetite for data to process.  Everything flows from the limits and growth of processing power.  So yes, Moore's law does apply to the amount of data sent via the internet.

For many gigabit speeds are not necessary because they do not have the processing power in their house to handle data at that speed (A phone/tablet/computer that can process one-gigabyte of data per second).  5G, which will kick that up to 10gig/s which requires Moore's law to continue to reach the processing power to handle data at that speed.  Getting this massive processing processing power will be accomplished via cloud computing.

It is estimated that by 2030 the "Internet of things" means the United States will have one trillion connected devices.  More than double this for the rest of the world.  Essentially anything that uses electricity will be connected.  Some of this like the hundreds of millions of connected driverless cars, that create about 750 megabytes of data every second, or the billion plus number using cloud computing, billions of electronic wallets, blockchain transfers and 4k (and beyond) video demanded by nearly a billion people in the developed world is going to produce such huge amounts of data that you will learn new words beyond kilobyte, then megabyte and Gigabyte.  Next is terabyte and eventually Pebiyte.

What makes all of this work is a basic understanding of economics.  Economics is all about allocating scarce resources.  The coming scarce resource is data and processing.  The fear of Net Neutrality by you, Jesmu, Jockey, 82, Sultan etc is just confirmation that you do not understand the basics of economics, or how to allocate a scarce resource.  Becuase if you did, instead of turning this into a political/moral argument, you would understand the need for Net Neutrality, and how it will lower your costs. 

Net neutrality means you overpay for the internet access. How do I know this?  Becuase you probably pay for more than 50MiPS access, 99% of those that do are overpaying for access and thus subsidizing the Facebooks, Amazons, Google, and the porn industry.

----
Added later


Who is screaming the loudest to keep Net Neutrality?  The answer, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, Amazon, the porn industry, etc.  Why?  Becuase they are the biggest beneficiary of it. 

Their products require huge data transfers and they are not bearing any of the cost of the infrastructure that requires those huge data transfers.  They stick the bill on everyone because internet access is all or nothing (aka net neutrality).  So you have to pay for tons of data access (MiPS) for things you never want or need in the name of net neutrality.  They are brilliant in this regard.

So they tricked Jesmu into paying their costs and he is demanding his price raised even more (in about four posts now) so he can cover the costs of Facebook's Zuckerberg (worth $62 billion) and Amazon's Bezos (worth $100 billion).  Jesmu wants the bill for their product via net neutrality!  It's no different than the than Jesmu demanding the energy industry turn his neighborhood into a toxic waste dump because he wants "energy neutrality" or the ability to consume as much energy as he wants, for whatever reason he wants at whatever time he wants to consume it ... all for a flat fee, the same flat fee charged to everyone else.

They have him so twisted up he is incapable of telling what is in his best interest anymore.  But don't worry Jesmu as Sultan, 82, Jockey, Forget and the rest are even more "gone" than you.

[jesmu84]

Your fear that they are going to be some sort of moral police is completely unfounded.    I get that saying it makes for a good post, but this is not going to happen.

Wrong. Review the list I posted earlier

[Tugg Speedman]

Wrong. Review the list I posted earlier

You mean the first post with the John Oliver videos?  Oliver ... the guy that is amazingly wrong on almost every issue and plays incredibly fast and loose with his facts, including his slanderously incorrect description of Ajit Pai.

It was this first post and its over the top political viewpoint, that you said is not about politics, where you lost all credibility with me. 

You're just another hysterical leftie that will not engage anyone that disagrees with you but will try and scream me off this board as the way to win your position.

These stories take apart everything you wrote in the first post.

John Oliver finds humor in net neutrality, but loses the facts
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-john-oliver-gets-net-neutrality-wrong-20140604-story.htmlet-neutrality

What John Oliver And His Army Of Trolls Are Getting Wrong About Net Neutrality
http://uproxx.com/webculture/what-john-oliver-and-his-army-of-trolls-are-getting-wrong-about-net-neutrality/

What John Oliver won’t tell you about net neutrality
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/332113-what-john-oliver-wont-tell-you-about-net-neutrality
He accused one provider of a “shaking down” Netflix with slower service during connection negotiations but it turned out “Netflix had fatally misread the data” and its claims were simply false. (Indeed, this time around Netflix is staying on the sidelines and says repeal of net neutrality won’t affect its operations at all.)

----

Some advice ... if you find yourself agreeing with John Oliver on anything it means you don't understand the issue.

[jesmu84]

You mean the first post with the John Oliver videos?  Oliver ... the guy that is amazingly wrong on almost every issue and plays incredibly fast and loose with his facts, including his slanderously incorrect description of Ajit Pai.

It was this first post and its over the top political viewpoint, that you said is not about politics, where you lost all credibility with me. 

You're just another hysterical leftie that will not engage anyone that disagrees with you but will try and scream me off this board as the way to win your position.

These stories take apart everything you wrote in the first post.

John Oliver finds humor in net neutrality, but loses the facts
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-john-oliver-gets-net-neutrality-wrong-20140604-story.htmlet-neutrality

What John Oliver And His Army Of Trolls Are Getting Wrong About Net Neutrality
http://uproxx.com/webculture/what-john-oliver-and-his-army-of-trolls-are-getting-wrong-about-net-neutrality/

What John Oliver won’t tell you about net neutrality
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/332113-what-john-oliver-wont-tell-you-about-net-neutrality
He accused one provider of a “shaking down” Netflix with slower service during connection negotiations but it turned out “Netflix had fatally misread the data” and its claims were simply false. (Indeed, this time around Netflix is staying on the sidelines and says repeal of net neutrality won’t affect its operations at all.)

----

Some advice ... if you find yourself agreeing with John Oliver on anything it means you don't understand the issue.

Sigh...

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54874.msg963103#msg963103

[Tugg Speedman]

Sigh...

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54874.msg963103#msg963103

Sigh ...

You do realize that net Neutrality DOES NOT apply to mobile.  They can and have (past tense) block various sites (like streaming).  Where is the crying about the unfairness?  four pages and you have yet to attack mobile.

Is it because you have not noticed that net neutrality in mobile does not exist?  Is that because every single fear you have is unfounded because mobile has too much competition?  Competition is the argument that refutes every worry you have ... you'd know this if you understood basic economics.

http://mashable.com/2014/05/15/mobile-broadband-net-neutrality-fcc/#N9y0AzhgsPqL
Almost all of the discussion surrounding net neutrality has been confined to wireline (that is, cable, DSL and fiber) broadband. That's largely because the FCC's standards are different — and much less strenuous — for mobile broadband than they are for wired access.

In short, although mobile broadband providers — companies such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon — were supposed to be transparent about how mobile broadband was managed, all other aspects of the original net neutrality law didn't apply.

The no-blocking content rule had an entirely different standard and there was no unreasonable discrimination clause. In truth, we've never had net neutrality for mobile broadband. In truth, we've never had net neutrality for mobile broadband.

Your laundry list is a bunch of non-existent garbage.  You continue to promote a policy that screws you and poor, does not allow dynamic pricing and puts at risk further build-outs to keep up with the coming data needs.

Stop getting your news from comedians.