Is a big unnatural carnal knowledgeing deal. And the FCC/lobbyists/ISPs are trying to kill it.
Here's a ELI5:
QuoteYou're probably familiar with your electric bill, right? You get charged for what you use, not how you use it. The power company doesn't care whether you have a drill press in your garage, a server farm in your basement, or an herb garden under some heavy-duty lights.
The argument happening now is about the same thing, but with Internet access.
Since the creation of the Internet, the federal government, through the Federal Communications Commission, has required your Internet provider to treat all of your activity equally. Your Internet company is not allowed to charge you differently for what you do with your Internet. They're certainly allowed to charge you more if you use more, but they're not allowed to charge you more if you use it for video games instead of streaming video, or for running your own server. That's the principle of Net Neutrality.
The announcement today was an expected one from the new chairman of the FCC, who was appointed by the new president of the United States. On Dec. 14, the FCC will vote on whether or not Net Neutrality should exist.
If the proposal passes as expected, companies will be allowed to charge you differently, based on what you use the Internet for. They might also decide to simply not provide Internet access to specific applications, websites or uses.
Nothing requires these companies to do this. The repeal of Net Neutrality simply allows them to do so, if they wish.
People are concerned by this because in most places within the United States, there is limited competition for Internet access. If a consumer is unhappy with a company's practices, there may not be an easy alternative.
If you're outside the United States, this would have indirect effects on you. If companies do take advantage of Net Neutrality repeal and institute preferential treatment, it would affect how people use the Internet. Users in the United States would have an economic incentive to use particular websites, and those websites would receive more traffic. For websites that rely on user-created content, that would have a significant impact.
In short, your access would not be affected, but what you access would be affected.
What can you do?
-Call/email/tweet/fax/etc your local reps
-Go to battleforthenet.com
A few more videos on net neutrality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak
Please note: I do NOT think this should be a partisan issue whatsoever. Unfortunately, Congress and lobbying has turned it into a partisan issue in the last 5-7 years.
The really bad part is that each bill that was sent through the house or senate (SOPA, etc) that threatened neutrality was rejected due to voter influence. Now with it going through the FCC, it is less subjected to voter influence. 3 republicans and 2 democrats are voting to determine the next step. (Un)Shockingly, they're voting along party lines.
This cannot be allowed to happen.
It should be killed. Dumbest thing out there to regulate based on a 1930's utility. Don't you guys understand the world changes. The constitution is a living document. We continue to evolve. Net neutrality is an oxymoron. This is a great area where light touch of gov't is correct in my opinion. Other areas of gov't require a heavy touch. Let the market innovate and create, get gov't out of the way on this one.
What you have posted doesn't address at all the stifling effects of net neutrality. You make it sound like your side didn't have the FCC supporting this just last year under a different administration, their own lobbyists. Let's not pretend that didn't happen, because it did. Powerful corporations on both sides of this, not the one side you are portraying in my opinion.
Quote from: TYME Machine on November 21, 2017, 10:23:42 PM
It should be killed. Dumbest thing out there to regulate based on a 1930's utility. Don't you guys understand the world changes. The constitution is a living document. We continue to evolve. Net neutrality is an oxymoron. This is a great area where light touch of gov't is correct in my opinion. Other areas of gov't require a heavy touch. Let the market innovate and create, get gov't out of the way on this one.
What you have posted doesn't address at all the stifling effects of net neutrality. You make it sound like your side didn't have the FCC supporting this just last year under a different administration, their own lobbyists. Let's not pretend that didn't happen, because it did. Powerful corporations on both sides of this, not the one side you are portraying in my opinion.
You couldn't be more wrong. Though, I can see why you have such a strong bias.
Further, I didn't say anything about sides. Actually said it shouldn't be partisan. Way to project your own shortcomings.
Internet should be treated like power, water, etc. As a commodity you pay to use, without companies influencing the use.
Let's see if the little lady (chicas) can destroy another thread.
This should really be a both side of the aisle agreement. Cmon now, net neutrality is just common sense...This seriously sounds like something at the start of a authoritarian novel.
The other perspective, including the astute analysis that investment in infrastructure went down for the first time after these rules were put in place in 2015.
This country should be encouraging investment in broadband and fixed wireless, not the other way around. This is the necessary fuel to do so.
I read yours, will you take a moment to read mine?
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast
The 2020 democratic nominee for President, Mark Cuban is against net neutrality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/?utm_term=.33e7bda82908
The example above about electricity is way off. You pay for the electricity you use, kilowatt/hours. In other words, a variable cost. So yes if you have a drill Press in the basement, you pay more for it than another person that only has a reading light in their basement.
If the net was the same, you'd pay by the downloaded gig. You don't, you pay a flat fee.
37% of All North American internet traffic is Netflix
https://www.google.com/amp/appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes/amp/
30% is porn
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3187682
So two-thirds of internet traffic is Netflix and porn streaming.
It clogs everything for everyone else. You should pay more to jack off so everyone else can have a better online experience.
Great. Can't wait for my comcast bill to get more partitioned, complicated and nickel-dimed.
Probably leads to more invasion of privacy issues as well.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 21, 2017, 10:28:39 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. Though, I can see why you have such a strong bias.
Further, I didn't say anything about sides. Actually said it shouldn't be partisan. Way to project your own shortcomings.
Internet should be treated like power, water, etc. As a commodity you pay to use, without companies influencing the use.
Your words absolutely projected which side you are on this in the very first post, just as most of your threads do. Otherwise you wouldn't start the threads in the first place.
The internet is not a utility. It most certainly isn't a commodity. Not yet anyway. The cost of running broadband into rural areas is enormously expensive in a country this size. Even dense urban deployment is not cheap, but at least you get bang for your buck with users per bits.
You want to stifle investment, stifle growth, just like we have with water and power, then go for it. That's exactly what happened starting in 2015, with almost $4 billion in fewer investment. I find that to be a really bad idea. The pipes used to allow the internet to foster and grow were largely (not entirely) done so by business investment. Now all of a sudden people want that for free without allowing those that put the billions into building it to recoup their investment? Plus, if companies are willing to spend more to be on the fast lane, why is that a problem? Big powerhouses like Google want this to go through. They were in the pockets in a major way with the previous administration. Those that built the pipes don't want it to go forward, corporations like Verizon. Powerful arguments on both sides, but we are close to 2020 and applying 1936 laws to govern this space? Relic thinking in my opinion.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 21, 2017, 11:26:10 PM
Great. Can't wait for my comcast bill to get more partitioned, complicated and nickel-dimed.
Probably leads to more invasion of privacy issues as well.
But that is exactly what will happen if net neutrality continues. The gatekeepers will charge like a utility. You want utility options like Jesu states? OK, then you get it. We pay by the kilowatt, we pay by the gallon of water consumed. Get ready to pay by the megabit purchased. Is that what you want? That's how a utility operates.
Quote from: TYME Machine on November 22, 2017, 12:12:02 AM
But that is exactly what will happen if net neutrality continues. The gatekeepers will charge like a utility. You want utility options like Jesu states? OK, then you get it. We pay by the kilowatt, we pay by the gallon of water consumed. Get ready to pay by the megabit purchased. Is that what you want? That's how a utility operates.
This isn't all about commerce. Or maybe you realize that and just don't give a sh*t.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 22, 2017, 12:18:05 AM
This isn't all about commerce. Or maybe you realize that and just don't give a sh*t.
Of course he knows that.
Why is the little fellow always allowed to come back after being banned?
Quote from: Jockey on November 22, 2017, 12:24:10 AM
Of course he knows that.
Why is the little fellow always allowed to come back after being banned?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Get banned five or more times and keep coming back then you've got some issues.
In this thread, all Chico's has done is express an opinion multiple times. Save the outrage for when it is earned.
I don't know enough about net neutrality to have an informed opinion. But there are obviously two sides.
In this thread, side#1 insists there is only one side and when a poster brings up the reasons behind side #2's thinking side #1 attacks the person rather than answering his argument.
Hmmm....
Quote from: TYME Machine on November 22, 2017, 12:12:02 AM
But that is exactly what will happen if net neutrality continues. The gatekeepers will charge like a utility. You want utility options like Jesu states? OK, then you get it. We pay by the kilowatt, we pay by the gallon of water consumed. Get ready to pay by the megabit purchased. Is that what you want? That's how a utility operates.
You are actually CONSUMING something when you pay for power and water. When you pay for data, NOTHING is consumed. A much better example of the internet are state and federal roads. We don't pay per mile, we pay for the service... since that's what it is.
There should be no change in how internet is brought into people's homes. NO to throttling, NO to content blocking, and NO to forced advertisement.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 21, 2017, 11:06:56 PM
The 2020 democratic nominee for President, Mark Cuban is against net neutrality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/?utm_term=.33e7bda82908
The example above about electricity is way off. You pay for the electricity you use, kilowatt/hours. In other words, a variable cost. So yes if you have a drill Press in the basement, you pay more for it than another person that only has a reading light in their basement.
If the net was the same, you'd pay by the downloaded gig. You don't, you pay a flat fee.
37% of All North American internet traffic is Netflix
https://www.google.com/amp/appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes/amp/
30% is porn
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3187682
So two-thirds of internet traffic is Netflix and porn streaming.
It clogs everything for everyone else. You should pay more to jack off so everyone else can have a better online experience.
Nothing is 'clogged' you simpleton. This isn't sewer pipes. I'm not even going to address the Mark Cuban comment, since you are just trying to be inflammatory.
Quote from: TYME Machine on November 22, 2017, 12:09:23 AM
Your words absolutely projected which side you are on this in the very first post, just as most of your threads do. Otherwise you wouldn't start the threads in the first place.
The internet is not a utility. It most certainly isn't a commodity. Not yet anyway. The cost of running broadband into rural areas is enormously expensive in a country this size. Even dense urban deployment is not cheap, but at least you get bang for your buck with users per bits.
You want to stifle investment, stifle growth, just like we have with water and power, then go for it. That's exactly what happened starting in 2015, with almost $4 billion in fewer investment. I find that to be a really bad idea. The pipes used to allow the internet to foster and grow were largely (not entirely) done so by business investment. Now all of a sudden people want that for free without allowing those that put the billions into building it to recoup their investment? Plus, if companies are willing to spend more to be on the fast lane, why is that a problem? Big powerhouses like Google want this to go through. They were in the pockets in a major way with the previous administration. Those that built the pipes don't want it to go forward, corporations like Verizon. Powerful arguments on both sides, but we are close to 2020 and applying 1936 laws to govern this space? Relic thinking in my opinion.
Absolute horse plop. The tax payer has subsidized the telecom companies running of cable and fiber for DECADES, and what is worse is that they haven't even done what they've promised while still keeping a pile of money. You can preach all you want about government waste and inefficiency, but the telecom companies have been fleecing the American public to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for decades. We've paid all this money for what? Slow internet and high prices.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394.html
The internet has been funded like the Interstate highway system, yet we're getting gravel roads with potholes instead of the four lane highways we were promised.
Quote from: Jockey on November 21, 2017, 10:41:44 PM
Let's see if the little lady (chicas) can destroy another thread.
Someone who is as socially progressive as you claim to be should know that trying to insult someone by calling them a woman is offensive.
On top of what Hards posted, here are examples of what ISPs would like to be able to do more of:
QuoteAlso for anyone who tells you that "Net Neutrality is solving a problem that doesn't exist"... or anything along those lines:
Here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place:
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation's largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada's second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such "over-the-top" voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream's own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon's court challenge against the FCC's 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency's authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person's search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service's results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon's $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers' iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T's own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency's existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: "I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements." Walker's admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
Source has links to each case where you can read the legal documents about it: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
In terms of the "flat fee" pricing and the "fast lanes", people already pay for tiered speeds or data caps. So, it's not like it's all-you-can-eat and everyone is paying the same.
If current providers feel they aren't getting their investment back with increasing access by building infrastructure, then don't. Let the market dictate. Another company may come in and try it instead. Municipalities/local gov'ts/cities may give it a try. Let them have at it. Supply and demand.
I am strongly in favor of net neutrality.
Having promised JB that I will try harder to refrain from political talk even if others start it, I'll leave it at that.
Except to say that if chicos and Smuggles are against it, it makes me feel better about being for it.
I disagree strongly with the premise that the internet is not a utility. It is the bedrock of our economy, which granted is already highly walled off to most of America, but this puts it over the top. I'll agree with the Chicos that the constitution is a living document. Let's talk about the First Amendment. At some point, the freedom of speech evolves too. What the end of net neutrality threatens is access to that speech, and that's just as dangerous.
It's not hard to see how this gets abused. The comment about how people should pay more for their Netflix and porn bandwidth? Sure, in principle, that makes sense. The problem is that you have deregulated, so you've now lost the ability to have an opinion on the WHAT gets restricted. If it's porn, no one openly cries about it. But what if, all of a sudden, you're throttling access to, say, a politician's website because he or she favors safeguards that are suboptimal to the ISPs. Or to take a slightly more optimistic view of the world, what if this happens just because one candidate had deeper pockets? It's really only a matter of time before this finds its way into campaign finance.
In a completely distopian view of American society, I think this makes a bad problem of disinformation and "information silos" worse. Coupled with Pai's edict that a single company can own more than one media medium in a single market, you'll see more consolidation and a greater disconnectedness in the content Americans consume.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 22, 2017, 07:05:52 AM
Someone who is as socially progressive as you claim to be should know that insulting someone by calling them a woman is offensive.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/pamyup.gif)
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 22, 2017, 07:43:54 AM
In terms of the "flat fee" pricing and the "fast lanes", people already pay for tiered speeds or data caps. So, it's not like it's all-you-can-eat and everyone is paying the same.
If current providers feel they aren't getting their investment back with increasing access by building infrastructure, then don't. Let the market dictate. Another company may come in and try it instead. Municipalities/local gov'ts/cities may give it a try. Let them have at it. Supply and demand.
The current pricing is unfair. Why not allow for a "non-streaming" option for access? This takes so little bandwidth it is could be free. What not allow for ad-supported access at a lower cost? Net Neutrality will not allow this. (Right now, Net providers can charge for differing speeds, not differing access. But, if you understand MIPS, most way overpay for fast access they do not need. Eventually, they will understand this and this way of pricing will get more efficient).
If you don't like any of this, pay more and not deal with it?
Lastly, this conversation assumes that net access is a done and stable technology. Hards diatribe has this as its assumption ... just lay the fiber and you're done. This is a utility type of thinking, just lay the pipes and water access is done, same as it has been for 2,000 years.
But net access is not "done," a lot of R&D and innovation is to come. Net neutrality discourages this innovation.
Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)
This is the root of the support for net neutrality.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:17:03 AM
Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)
This is the root of the support for net neutrality.
This comment is why we can't have nice things on this board.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:17:03 AM
Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)
This is the root of the support for net neutrality.
Generalize much?
Quote from: warriorchick on November 22, 2017, 07:05:52 AM
Someone who is as socially progressive as you claim to be should know that trying to insult someone by calling them a woman is offensive.
You're right. I apologize.
I was actually trying to compare him to a little girl rather than a woman, but that is almost as bad. Gender should not have entered into it. I should have used the term "child" instead.
PC rocks ;)
Quote from: Jockey on November 22, 2017, 09:39:52 AM
You're right. I apologize.
I was actually trying to compare him to a little girl rather than a women, but that is almost as bad. Gender should not have entered into it. I should have used the term "child" instead.
PC rocks ;)
I have 4 children ages 2-8, plus several young nieces and nephews and I'm deeply offended that you'd put them in the same category as chicos!
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:17:03 AM
Most of the net neutrality supporters are afraid that the loss of neutrality means they are going have to pay to get access to free streaming porn (or Netflix)
This is the root of the support for net neutrality.
This is absurd, even for you.
The irony of this is that both sides of the "fight" ISP and Content Providers are inoculated against wherever this lands (Net Neutral or not Neutral). Netflix has deals in place with ISPs so that they won't be throttled should Net Neutrality be nixed as do other major content providers. This is really about creating a digital moat for all the current major corporations playing in this space.
The key to "solving" this problem is the pipes, he/she who owns the pipes owns the internet. Until the internet infrastructure is some sort of public utility or private/public hybrid the ISPs will dictate the rules and will vertically integrate with content providers(or sign throttling deals to the same effect) which will have the effect of killing competition and significantly reduce the ability to enter that market.
Roads/Interstate is the perfect analogy.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 22, 2017, 10:31:42 AM
This is absurd, even for you.
It probably is ...
But the larger point is correct. Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video. If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 22, 2017, 11:44:43 AM
The irony of this is that both sides of the "fight" ISP and Content Providers are inoculated against wherever this lands (Net Neutral or not Neutral). Netflix has deals in place with ISPs so that they won't be throttled should Net Neutrality be nixed as do other major content providers. This is really about creating a digital moat for all the current major corporations playing in this space.
The key to "solving" this problem is the pipes, he/she who owns the pipes owns the internet. Until the internet infrastructure is some sort of public utility or private/public hybrid the ISPs will dictate the rules and will vertically integrate with content providers(or sign throttling deals to the same effect) which will have the effect of killing competition and significantly reduce the ability to enter that market.
Roads/Interstate is the perfect analogy.
Highlighted is correct and is the problem/danger. Thinking net access is like interstate highways is a terrible way to go.
Once the technology stabilizes and does not change, then it can be a utility. What you assume is the "pipe" is a settled technology and once it is "laid (to keep with the analogy) it will never change. Well, it is already changing. The current "pipes" will be obsolete when 5G and 6G come out (over the air gigabit speeds). We will all go wireless.
If we make net access a utility, it will never change, and they will make it illegal to change (see the old AT&T that stifled competition and how much was unleashed when it was broken up in 1984).
Nothing is settled with internet access. It is far from being a utility and it should not be treated as such. It is still a rapidly evolving technology.
Make is a utility and they will tax 5G and 6G to "pay for" pipes no one wants anymore.
See mobile broadband speeds, we subsidize and promote the dead technology of copper wired landlines which have lead to the US ranked 28th in the world for mobile broadband speeds, Estonia, Kenya, Egypt, and Greece are ahead of us.
http://time.com/money/4808996/fastest-internet-countries-mobile-broadband/
This is what happens when things become a utility.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:00:59 PM
It probably is ...
But the larger point is correct. Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video. If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.
Not at all about ISPs deciding which content/sites I can access? (Non-streaming)
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 22, 2017, 12:19:22 PM
Not at all about ISPs deciding which content/sites I can access? (Non-streaming)
then you don't understand net neutrality
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:22:04 PM
then you don't understand net neutrality
Lol. If you don't think that's what they would try, I'll refer you to my previous post outlining what they have tried already.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
The current pricing is unfair. Why not allow for a "non-streaming" option for access? This takes so little bandwidth it is could be free. What not allow for ad-supported access at a lower cost? Net Neutrality will not allow this. (Right now, Net providers can charge for differing speeds, not differing access. But, if you understand MIPS, most way overpay for fast access they do not need. Eventually, they will understand this and this way of pricing will get more efficient).
Wrong. AOL dial up still has 2.1 million monthly subscribers. So don't tell me that people are overpaying for fast access they do not need.
I think the fundamental reason you don't agree with Net Neutrality is because you simply don't understand it. There is no cheaper version of bandwidth. What you seem to think is that a certain amount of bandwidth costs a certain amount of money for ISPs. It doesn't. The only thing that costs money is laying new fiber or replacing old fiber.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
If you don't like any of this, pay more and not deal with it?
Pay more than $60ish per month for something all of our tax dollars have already helped to pay for? I'm not saying I shouldn't be charged for using the Internet, I should, obviously. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be up to my ISP to decide what I can and can't do with the service. They shouldn't be able to censor what they choose to censor. They shouldn't be able throttle how fast I can access different websites without my knowledge.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Lastly, this conversation assumes that net access is a done and stable technology. Hards diatribe has this as its assumption ... just lay the fiber and you're done. This is a utility type of thinking, just lay the pipes and water access is done, same as it has been for 2,000 years.
But net access is not "done," a lot of R&D and innovation is to come. Net neutrality discourages this innovation.
I never said that, but I'm sure that was a pretty easy Straw Man to knock down.
What I said is that the internet infrastructure is akin to the interstate highway system. Something we've all paid for, which needs constant maintenance.
I think if you actually educated yourself in the subject you'd probably be FOR net neutrality. Instead you seem to be having a knee jerk reaction against it.. are you for free speech, no government subsidies for private companies, and free market economics?
Then you're FOR net neutrality. The ONLY people who are against it are people affiliated with telecoms... stock holders, employees (Chicos is one), or their rubes.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:00:59 PM
It probably is ...
But the larger point is correct. Net neutrality is all about heavy bandwidth usage like streaming video. If the world was non-streaming, this would not be an issue.
It probably is about heavy bandwidth usage... until it's not.
This is why smart, thoughtful regulations will always have a role in preventing unforeseen consequences. A well meaning regulation can have enough holes to be meaningless in 5-10 years time, too. And even if I thought the FCC was well-intentioned in removing guardrails off the ISPs as you are suggesting (I don't think that), removing regulations rather than creating smarter ones is even worse than writing bad regulations. Pandora's box. We lose all control over this solution from here on out. What starts with heavy bandwidth may not evolve that way.
And for the record, I'm not suggesting that we have this 100% right as it stands now. But it's better than letting technology run its course without having some input into where it takes us.
Here's my question, why is this a vote by the FCC and not by congress? Seems like it should have to be a bill that would be passed.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:22:04 PM
then you don't understand net neutrality
No. Clearly you don't.
At all. Turns out I was right. You're not dealing with a real understanding of the topic at hand.
Let's make it really simple for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyzP5hejxI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsyzP5hejxI)
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:08:49 PM
Highlighted is correct and is the problem/danger. Thinking net access is like interstate highways is a terrible way to go.
Once the technology stabilizes and does not change, then it can be a utility. What you assume is the "pipe" is a settled technology and once it is "laid (to keep with the analogy) it will never change. Well, it is already changing. The current "pipes" will be obsolete when 5G and 6G come out (over the air gigabit speeds). We will all go wireless.
If we make net access a utility, it will never change, and they will make it illegal to change (see the old AT&T that stifled competition and how much was unleashed when it was broken up in 1984).
Nothing is settled with internet access. It is far from being a utility and it should not be treated as such. It is still a rapidly evolving technology.
Make is a utility and they will tax 5G and 6G to "pay for" pipes no one wants anymore.
See mobile broadband speeds, we subsidize and promote the dead technology of copper wired landlines which have lead to the US ranked 28th in the world for mobile broadband speeds, Estonia, Kenya, Egypt, and Greece are ahead of us.
http://time.com/money/4808996/fastest-internet-countries-mobile-broadband/
This is what happens when things become a utility.
You realize road building is an evolving technology, both how it's done and what a road "is", correct?
And you know why those 3rd world countries are ahead of in wireless technology? Because they have to be. They can't support two infrastructures so they pick one and as a consequence they have limited redundancy and run everything through one "pipe". We have the luxury of two pipes that allows us to support two different uses cases appropriately (do both well, while these countries you speak of don't do either that great)
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 22, 2017, 12:43:24 PM
Here's my question, why is this a vote by the FCC and not by congress? Seems like it should have to be a bill that would be passed.
Same reasons that EPA controls what is and isn't pollution or the SEC has final say on Bitcoin regulations, etc. Bureaucracies are a helluva thing.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 21, 2017, 11:06:56 PM
The 2020 democratic nominee for President, Mark Cuban is against net neutrality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/24/why-mark-cuban-opposes-net-neutrality-i-want-there-to-be-fast-lanes/?utm_term=.33e7bda82908
The example above about electricity is way off. You pay for the electricity you use, kilowatt/hours. In other words, a variable cost. So yes if you have a drill Press in the basement, you pay more for it than another person that only has a reading light in their basement.
If the net was the same, you'd pay by the downloaded gig. You don't, you pay a flat fee.
37% of All North American internet traffic is Netflix
https://www.google.com/amp/appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes/amp/
30% is porn
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3187682
So two-thirds of internet traffic is Netflix and porn streaming.
It clogs everything for everyone else. You should pay more to jack off so everyone else can have a better online experience.
There is no "clog" in the bandwidth. Only ISP artifically created ones. ROFL you're dumb or ignorant.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
The current pricing is unfair. Why not allow for a "non-streaming" option for access? This takes so little bandwidth it is could be free. What not allow for ad-supported access at a lower cost? Net Neutrality will not allow this. (Right now, Net providers can charge for differing speeds, not differing access. But, if you understand MIPS, most way overpay for fast access they do not need. Eventually, they will understand this and this way of pricing will get more efficient).
If you don't like any of this, pay more and not deal with it?
Lastly, this conversation assumes that net access is a done and stable technology. Hards diatribe has this as its assumption ... just lay the fiber and you're done. This is a utility type of thinking, just lay the pipes and water access is done, same as it has been for 2,000 years.
But net access is not "done," a lot of R&D and innovation is to come. Net neutrality discourages this innovation.
This literally already exists. How ignorant are you? lol
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 12:22:04 PM
then you don't understand net neutrality
After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. ;D
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 02:56:25 PM
After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. ;D
Smuggles will NEVER admit this. Been reading his stuff for years; when he's wrong he never apologizes or admits it ... he just leaves the thread never to be heard from there again. Then starts a new thread. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Quote from: MU82 on November 22, 2017, 03:10:36 PM
Smuggles will NEVER admit this. Been reading his stuff for years; when he's wrong he never apologizes or admits it ... he just leaves the thread never to be heard from there again. Then starts a new thread. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Don't worry, there will be a few oversized charts coming soon to explain why we're all wrong.
Also, infowars hyperlinks.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 02:56:25 PM
After reading your comments, I don't think you understand internet in general. ;D
1.21 probably:
(https://i.imgflip.com/ov3in.jpg)
Quote from: Pakuni on November 22, 2017, 03:14:05 PM
Don't worry, there will be a few oversized charts coming soon to explain why we're all wrong.
Also, infowars hyperlinks.
Whatever Moscow provides.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 22, 2017, 06:57:38 AM
You are actually CONSUMING something when you pay for power and water. When you pay for data, NOTHING is consumed. A much better example of the internet are state and federal roads. We don't pay per mile, we pay for the service... since that's what it is.
There should be no change in how internet is brought into people's homes. NO to throttling, NO to content blocking, and NO to forced advertisement.
With the greatest respect, this could not be more wrong. When you pay for data, NOTHING is consumed? Data isn't without properties that fill capacity. This is what network engineers do, they help solve and push data through a network path. This is why there is capacity.
I'm not sure why you indicated you are not consuming anything? You very much are consuming something, data. In the form of bits (millions of them) per second. The pipes which carry that data has limits in terms of volumes and organization, it doesn't just happen.
Jesu listed a bunch of items that ISPs stopped or slowed in years past. If one looks at his list, it is ancient by networking standards. Years old. It also was done for a reason, because of capacity constraints. The consumption of data has accelerated to unbelievable amounts each and every year, especially with video and everyone having handsets. ISPs had to put some gating on it to allow the free flow of data.
The more data that flows, the more capacity is needed. That takes investment and investment slowed in 2015 after the Obama administration rules were put into place.
What you want, no throttling, no gatekeeping, free data flow until your heart desires is NOT POSSIBLE without infrastructure investment by ISPs. Which is why you should be doing backflips over this announcement.
This is purely a theory, but I truly believe many of you just have no idea what net neutrality really is based on what benefits or outcomes you want. If you want those outcomes, then you wouldn't be desiring a system that SLOWS investment and expansion into the capacity needed for all the data consumption you want. And yes, that consumption is massive and to suggest NOTHING is consumed is an amazing statement.
Now just let me say I'm fairly conservative in a lot of things. Gun rights, pc culture, taxes, some health care issues etc... But if I'm opposed 100% to the bill of net neutrality that should tell the rest of you something.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
Now just let me say I'm fairly conservative in a lot of things. Gun rights, pc culture, taxes, some health care issues etc... But if I'm opposed 100% to the bill of net neutrality that should tell the rest of you something.
It is interesting and leads me to ask the questions.
1) What do you want?
2) Is what you want possible without investment and capacity expansion?
3) if capacity expansion is needed to fill your want (#1), will that happen more or less likely with net neutrality?
If we can break it down into those core questions and then add a fourth/fifth. How much capital will be needed to achieve #1 and who pays for it that should get you some answers.
Everyone wants fast internet, no throttling, the ability to consume to no end. Can we all agree to this? How does one get there knowing towers have to be built, ditches dug, fiber laid, compression schemed improved, over a massive footprint to handle billions of devices (iOT) and future peak data consumption patterns? When 4K becomes the norm, then 8K, the future projections of data are unfathomable already.
The end state we all want, yes? Net Neutrality slows that achievement considerably in my opinion. I believe in regulation here, but it is more in terms of regulation to prevent companies from reading data, sharing data, and so forth. In terms of capacity expansion, net neutrality has already proven a bad idea. Could small data companies be hurt by new rules? Yes they can. There are winners and losers with any of these decisions, that is a fact of life.
Quote from: TYME Machine on November 22, 2017, 04:38:18 PM
It is interesting and leads me to ask the questions.
1) What do you want?
2) Is what you want possible without investment and capacity expansion?
3) if capacity expansion is needed to fill your want (#1), will that happen more or less likely with net neutrality?
If we can break it down into those core questions and then add a fourth/fifth. How much capital will be needed to achieve #1 and who pays for it that should get you some answers.
Everyone wants fast internet, no throttling, the ability to consume to no end. Can we all agree to this? How does one get there knowing towers have to be built, ditches dug, fiber laid, compression schemed improved, over a massive footprint to handle billions of devices (iOT) and future peak data consumption patterns? When 4K becomes the norm, then 8K, the future projections of data are unfathomable already.
The end state we all want, yes? Net Neutrality slows that achievement considerably in my opinion. I believe in regulation here, but it is more in terms of regulation to prevent companies from reading data, sharing data, and so forth. In terms of capacity expansion, net neutrality has already proven a bad idea. Could small data companies be hurt by new rules? Yes they can. There are winners and losers with any of these decisions, that is a fact of life.
You keep talking about expansion. Well, maybe these companies would be better believed in their goals had they used the 400 billion already given to them.
Also, do they necessarily need to invade everyone's privacy and have the ability to throttle and control the internet (and people's access to websites at the provider's discretion) to get the money that they so desperately need for continued building/upgrading? Or could they use what they have? Or maybe even increase prices further while maintaining an open internet?
I mean, if these companies need more money for expanding/upgrading, then just increase service price. Isn't that what they want? More money?
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 04:22:40 PM
Now just let me say I'm fairly conservative in a lot of things. Gun rights, pc culture, taxes, some health care issues etc... But if I'm opposed 100% to the bill of net neutrality that should tell the rest of you something.
Yes, that you have a basic misunderstanding of economics and this issue.
There you have it ... the guy who knows everything about everything is still in the house.
Actually, both of them are, including one who has been banned eleventy million TYMES.
They're right, everybody else is wrong! Always and forever!
Seems impossible, I know, but the rest of us have to face facts.
This isn't gonna mess up the loads of free pr0n currently available, is it? That would blow, aina
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 22, 2017, 04:51:29 PM
I mean, if these companies need more money for expanding/upgrading, then just increase service price. Isn't that what they want? More money?
The benefit is they now get a second revenue stream from B2B, in addition to being able to jack up prices on consumers
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 02:49:17 PM
There is no "clog" in the bandwidth. Only ISP artifically created ones. ROFL you're dumb or ignorant.
Doesn't the physical hardware/wiring/infrastructure used to provide us internet have some sort of actual bandwidth limitations?
Quote from: MU82 on November 22, 2017, 06:20:36 PM
There you have it ... the guy who knows everything about everything is still in the house.
Actually, both of them are, including one who has been banned eleventy million TYMES.
They're right, everybody else is wrong! Always and forever!
Seems impossible, I know, but the rest of us have to face facts.
What are we wrong about and what are you right about?
Explain it to me like you would to a child.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 22, 2017, 09:33:07 PM
What are we wrong about and what are you right about?
Explain it to me like you would to a child.
Already been explained several times in this thread.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on November 22, 2017, 06:52:45 PM
Doesn't the physical hardware/wiring/infrastructure used to provide us internet have some sort of actual bandwidth limitations?
It does, and we don't come close to consuming it.
Both chicos and 21 don't understand how internet works.
They laminate how people watching "porn" and netflix hog the internet but fail to understand how it works.
I pay 45 dollars for 100mb/s, some pay 50 for 1 gig/s and other 50 for 50mb/s. This means that I have a cap of 100mb/s. I can watch all the porn, netflix, hulu. basketball, etc my heart desires. If I step over 100mb/s then my internet slows and throttles. Both of these idiots laminate how I am hogging the internet they "paid" for. When in fact, I have already paid for how much I use it. The moment i exceed how much I pay for it, the ISP will shut that crap down automatically within .5 of a second.
If I exceed the 100mb/s transfer my internet will die until I go under it. This makes sense. Net neutrality regulation has ZERO to do with "clogging" or "expansion" (google already proved this in Texas where comcast sued them because comcast wasn't willing to compete with googles gigabyte). Net neutrality has everything to do with ISP's trying to bleed Americans for all that they are worth. ISP's were given billiosn to "Expand" their pipes into gigabytes. They pocketed this money and didn't rent a single shovel to improve.
Any time any company/city tries to improve the pipes and expand their own ip's they are sued and ISP's attempt to stop them from doing so. Just google and City, TDS, Google, ETC that attempts to put gigabyte internet into community's and see how ridiculous the ISP's are. They literally sue cities into submission to not put internet of their own (Which is 30x better) so they do not have to compete. This isn't opinion this is complete fact.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 11:03:26 PM
It does, and we don't come close to consuming it.
Both chicos and 21 don't understand how internet works.
They laminate how people watching "porn" and netflix hog the internet but fail to understand how it works.
I pay 45 dollars for 100mb/s, some pay 50 for 1 gig/s and other 50 for 50mb/s. This means that I have a cap of 100mb/s. I can watch all the porn, netflix, hulu. basketball, etc my heart desires. If I step over 100mb/s then my internet slows and throttles. Both of these idiots laminate how I am hogging the internet they "paid" for. When in fact, I have already paid for how much I use it. The moment i exceed how much I pay for it, the ISP will shut that crap down automatically within .5 of a second.
If I exceed the 100mb/s transfer my internet will die until I go under it. This makes sense. Net neutrality regulation has ZERO to do with "clogging" or "expansion" (google already proved this in Texas where comcast sued them because comcast wasn't willing to compete with googles gigabyte). Net neutrality has everything to do with ISP's trying to bleed Americans for all that they are worth. ISP's were given billiosn to "Expand" their pipes into gigabytes. They pocketed this money and didn't rent a single shovel to improve.
Any time any company/city tries to improve the pipes and expand their own ip's they are sued and ISP's attempt to stop them from doing so. Just google and City, TDS, Google, ETC that attempts to put gigabyte internet into community's and see how ridiculous the ISP's are. They literally sue cities into submission to not put internet of their own (Which is 30x better) so they do not have to compete. This isn't opinion this is complete fact.
Ok this all makes sense, thanks!
How will encourage growth into the rural parts of America where the "pipes" are few and far between?
Any projections on how this will affect Google's plans on fibering more towns?
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 11:03:26 PM
It does, and we don't come close to consuming it.
Both chicos and 21 don't understand how internet works.
They laminate how people watching "porn" and netflix hog the internet but fail to understand how it works.
I pay 45 dollars for 100mb/s, some pay 50 for 1 gig/s and other 50 for 50mb/s. This means that I have a cap of 100mb/s. I can watch all the porn, netflix, hulu. basketball, etc my heart desires. If I step over 100mb/s then my internet slows and throttles. Both of these idiots laminate how I am hogging the internet they "paid" for. When in fact, I have already paid for how much I use it. The moment i exceed how much I pay for it, the ISP will shut that crap down automatically within .5 of a second.
If I exceed the 100mb/s transfer my internet will die until I go under it. This makes sense. Net neutrality regulation has ZERO to do with "clogging" or "expansion" (google already proved this in Texas where comcast sued them because comcast wasn't willing to compete with googles gigabyte). Net neutrality has everything to do with ISP's trying to bleed Americans for all that they are worth. ISP's were given billiosn to "Expand" their pipes into gigabytes. They pocketed this money and didn't rent a single shovel to improve.
Any time any company/city tries to improve the pipes and expand their own ip's they are sued and ISP's attempt to stop them from doing so. Just google and City, TDS, Google, ETC that attempts to put gigabyte internet into community's and see how ridiculous the ISP's are. They literally sue cities into submission to not put internet of their own (Which is 30x better) so they do not have to compete. This isn't opinion this is complete fact.
The only caveat i'd put on this is that if you are talking only wireless data consumption the conversation is different. A small group of people can impact the experience of the rest of the folks by what they are doing with the shared "pipe". However, that impact is always limited to specific towers (as they are just the terminus for the physical pipe) and therefore would only impact a small group of end consumers. depending on your plan/carrier that person could get throttled and their impact limited as you stated. Also, the managing the impact of heavy consumption is not wholesale infrastructure investment, it is managing a small percentage of consumer behavior.
On the home ISP side, as always, it's good to live in a Google Fiberhood.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on November 23, 2017, 12:11:15 AM
How will encourage growth into the rural parts of America where the "pipes" are few and far between?
Any projections on how this will affect Google's plans on fibering more towns?
Wireless!
LTE now and 5G in the next few years (10 gig/s on your phone).
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/what-is-5g-and-when-do-i-get-it/
And why will 5G be needed? From the link ...
5G is about more than just shuttling GBs to and from your iPhone more quickly. The 5G revolution will cast a much wider net. It's an information conduit being built to connect self-driving cars, VR headsets, delivery drones, and billions of interconnected devices inside the home.5G is an incredibly expensive build-out. All the money paid to date on access will not help with this. Abolishing Net Neutrality will help create an equitable way to pay for this build-out.
The pipes will be obsolete in a few years.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 23, 2017, 07:15:03 AM
Wireless!
LTE now and 5G in the next few years (10 gig/s on your phone).
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/what-is-5g-and-when-do-i-get-it/
And why will 5G be needed? From the link ...
5G is about more than just shuttling GBs to and from your iPhone more quickly. The 5G revolution will cast a much wider net. It's an information conduit being built to connect self-driving cars, VR headsets, delivery drones, and billions of interconnected devices inside the home.
5G is an incredibly expensive build-out. All the money paid to date on access will not help with this. Abolishing Net Neutrality will help create an equitable way to pay for this build-out.
The pipes will be obsolete in a few years.
If they need more money, just raise prices. Don't need to control where I go on the web. Everyone wins
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 22, 2017, 11:03:26 PM
It does, and we don't come close to consuming it.
Both chicos and 21 don't understand how internet works.
They laminate how people watching "porn" and netflix hog the internet but fail to understand how it works.
I pay 45 dollars for 100mb/s, some pay 50 for 1 gig/s and other 50 for 50mb/s. This means that I have a cap of 100mb/s. I can watch all the porn, netflix, hulu. basketball, etc my heart desires. If I step over 100mb/s then my internet slows and throttles. Both of these idiots laminate how I am hogging the internet they "paid" for. When in fact, I have already paid for how much I use it. The moment i exceed how much I pay for it, the ISP will shut that crap down automatically within .5 of a second.
If I exceed the 100mb/s transfer my internet will die until I go under it. This makes sense. Net neutrality regulation has ZERO to do with "clogging" or "expansion" (google already proved this in Texas where comcast sued them because comcast wasn't willing to compete with googles gigabyte). Net neutrality has everything to do with ISP's trying to bleed Americans for all that they are worth. ISP's were given billiosn to "Expand" their pipes into gigabytes. They pocketed this money and didn't rent a single shovel to improve.
Any time any company/city tries to improve the pipes and expand their own ip's they are sued and ISP's attempt to stop them from doing so. Just google and City, TDS, Google, ETC that attempts to put gigabyte internet into community's and see how ridiculous the ISP's are. They literally sue cities into submission to not put internet of their own (Which is 30x better) so they do not have to compete. This isn't opinion this is complete fact.
You have the wrong POV.
The "bottleneck" is at the server/IP shoving data out to consumers. So it's not about the size of the pipe you have into your house, it is the amount of data and the size of the pipe leaving your ISP. (Home speeds are greatly over-rated. For 99% of consumers, 50 MiPS is fine. Google Fiber does change anything).
And with the "Internet of things," cloud computing, driverless cars, VR and AR coming, the amount of data flowing through your ISP is growing at Moore's law (doubling every 18 months). They have to keep spending a lot to keep up. And the desire for everything to be mobile means the wires into your house will not be needed in 5 to 10 years. So all this info has to go over-the-air.
Why not repeal Net Neutrality and have the VR/AR crowd, the driverless crowd and the cloud crowd pay for this massive build-out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/#b5c8b6570d51
Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 23, 2017, 07:22:11 AM
If they need more money, just raise prices. Don't need to control where I go on the web. Everyone wins
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
It's not a mistake. I don't want ISPs to have that control. If they can find a way to pinch pennies, they will. And it won't be limited to the 8k streaming crowd.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 23, 2017, 08:54:59 AM
It's not a mistake. I don't want ISPs to have that control. If they can find a way to pinch pennies, they will. And it won't be limited to the 8k streaming crowd.
Wireless means intense competition. They will not be able to do what you say.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 23, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
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
How the h*ll is Scoop not in the top 10? What's wrong with you people!
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 23, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
9 xnxx.com Adult
Had never heard of this site. Thank you for your service!
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
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 23, 2017, 10:55:46 AM
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.
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/
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 23, 2017, 11:02:29 AM
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)
Quote from: GB Warrior on November 23, 2017, 03:21:06 PM
*your (x2)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L0Wtow8M-tc/TLFY9gz5mbI/AAAAAAAAAAY/_sv8hPv0v4M/s1600/yeax3.png)
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 23, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
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.
I for one am shocked that our resident corporatists are in favor of the administration's position on this.
Quote from: #UnleashRowsey on November 23, 2017, 10:55:46 AM
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.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on November 25, 2017, 10:49:23 PM
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
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 25, 2017, 10:54:55 PM
Thank you
Ah so you concede that the pipes aren't clogged.
Thank you
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 26, 2017, 08:01:08 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 26, 2017, 04:31:29 PM
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.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 26, 2017, 04:31:29 PM
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
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 26, 2017, 06:35:50 PM
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.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 26, 2017, 07:34:31 PM
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 laterWho 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.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 27, 2017, 04:44:52 AM
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
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 27, 2017, 06:06:12 AM
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 factshttp://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 Neutralityhttp://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 neutralityhttp://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.
Quote from: 1.21 Jigawatts on November 27, 2017, 06:21:50 AM
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
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 27, 2017, 06:41:14 AM
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.