Net neutrality

[kwelz]

Why can’t congress either pass a law that states you’re a service provider or a content provider, but you can’t be both.

Better yet let’s have congress pass a law stating that an ISP must deliver every packet no matter it’s origin at their advertised data rate at any time if day. I’m sick and tired of paying for 24 Mbs service but really getting 8-10.

I disagree with the first part. A company should be able to expand the services it wishes to offer. Nothing wrong with doing both as long as you are fair.

The second is something that I hope happens. I understand that there are a lot of factors in internet sped and they can't guarantee service speeds all the time. But it is stupid how badly it goes.

I tried one of the "Alternatives" we always hear we have. Was promised 24Mbs speed. At the best of times I got less than 10. And it went down every day at 1AM. EVERY SINGLE DAY!


Another little fact most people don't know.. The ISPs like to make it sound like the bandwidth they provide is a precious commodity that is expensive and we have to be careful.

Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.

[tb-av]

When the geeks made the internet, they decided all packets were equal, and no packets were more equal than others.

Ok, the equal packet theory... I guess that works. Kinda like the equal radio waves. The ones the FCC regulates. the ones used by the alphabet soup media that only speak the truth and never feed us only what they want us to hear.

I've never had any issues with my ISP regulating me.

I basically don't trust Google, Facebook,or AT&T any more than I trust Comcast.

I trust the .gov even less than all those.

I mean the way you are describing it there is no issue to be concerned with.

Pre Obama Geeks declare all is well and equal --- Obama declares all is well --- Trump declares screw you Obama, the geeks already had it covered.

So if all three are the same thing, why does the .gov need to be involved in private business. Why not let the free market settle it.

It's all going to come down to money and who's pocket it goes in.

How is someone like me going to get hosed and why will it be too late when I find out?

[tb-av]

Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.

If it's that cheap why don't more people get in the game?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I disagree with the first part. A company should be able to expand the services it wishes to offer. Nothing wrong with doing both as long as you are fair.

The second is something that I hope happens. I understand that there are a lot of factors in internet sped and they can't guarantee service speeds all the time. But it is stupid how badly it goes.

I tried one of the "Alternatives" we always hear we have. Was promised 24Mbs speed. At the best of times I got less than 10. And it went down every day at 1AM. EVERY SINGLE DAY!


Another little fact most people don't know.. The ISPs like to make it sound like the bandwidth they provide is a precious commodity that is expensive and we have to be careful.

Well the actual cost of that? Less than a single penny per Gb.. Actually around about .5 of a penny currently with it decreasing steadily. That means that even your heaviest users such as myself, use so little data that you couldn't even buy a large Starbucks coffee with what it cost them.

So bandwith is either essential free or it is so costly that no one will invest in it. The issue is the next increment on a cable system costs very little, to start a new network is really expensive.

Now, with net neutrality, no one in their right mind would put money down to start new systems- and I think the bigger issue is to add new capacity, why do it if you can't control it.

I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.

I'm willing to pay for access and speed. To me, Net Neutrality sounds like Free Day at the Zoo. I hate free day at the zoo. Too many people, no parking, my kids can't see anything. I'm willing to pay so that I can park, get what I want and see the attractions.

Public commons always gets jacked and becomes crap with out some kind of ownership.

I said earlier:

Neither side is perfect, but to say that being against Net Neutrality is evil, isn't really helping things.

added a comma.

The media (who have a dog in this fight BTW) and others make it seem as though anyone that opposses NN is just a shill of big business and are evil. That isn't a real great place to work out a good ssytem, and is more of the Progressive demonization tactics.

[kwelz]

If it's that cheap why don't more people get in the game?

That is what it costs to provide the actual bandwidth. The up front cost though is far higher. We are talking Billions of Dollars for state or regional level stuff and high millions for small scale. There are very few companies who have the d;financing and desire to do it. Even google is only doing it in a few select markets. On top of the cost is the simple Logistics of it all.

Lets say that tomorrow I find out I have inherited billions of dollars. After I buy every gun I have ever wanted and my Mclaren 570s, I decide I want to make Indiana better by creating a new ISP that services everything south of Indianapolis. I have two options. I can rent the lines of existing ISPs or I can install my own. Renting the current lines poses a number of issues. I am at their mercy as far the the backbone goes. They can really screw with my ability to provide service, and I have no control over the hardware involved in actually servicing my clients. This is besides the regulatory nightmare involved.

So I decide I am going to sink my billions into putting in fiber.

I have the cost of the fiber itself.
The installers equipment.
Burying the lines. This includes going under roads, etc.
The COs and Data center(s).
Not to mention servers, a support center (unless you want me to outsource to India), then final run cost to get all of this into neighborhoods and buildings.
All of this is before we even talk about personnel costs.

And the single biggest thing that nobody likes to talk about. Real estate. The ultimate Finite resource. No a Fiber or Cable line doesn't take up much room. But you still have to lay it everywhere. And it cant' interfere with any existing lines. We all hate regulations but look at some photos of telephone poles in developing nations where they don't have some of the same rules. While hilarious it is also a reminder that common sense sometimes takes a back seat to doing whatever people want.

The current ISPs exist because they were able to build up over the last 125 years or so. But now they are in a position of power. They can and do crush anyone who tries to encroach on what they see as their territory. If they can't win in court then they just buy up the offender and make it part of their own.

Their goal is to eventually merge into one giant conglomerate again. Currently there are only 10 ISPs with more than 1 Million subscribers in the US. Only TEN. And of those the top 2 have more than the other 8 combined. It really is reaching scary levels. They have practical monopolies in their areas and they want a full monopoly if they can get it.

[kwelz]

So bandwith is either essential free or it is so costly that no one will invest in it. The issue is the next increment on a cable system costs very little, to start a new network is really expensive.

Now, with net neutrality, no one in their right mind would put money down to start new systems- and I think the bigger issue is to add new capacity, why do it if you can't control it.

I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.

I'm willing to pay for access and speed. To me, Net Neutrality sounds like Free Day at the Zoo. I hate free day at the zoo. Too many people, no parking, my kids can't see anything. I'm willing to pay so that I can park, get what I want and see the attractions.

Public commons always gets jacked and becomes crap with out some kind of ownership.

I said earlier:

added a comma.

The media (who have a dog in this fight BTW) and others make it seem as though anyone that opposses NN is just a shill of big business and are evil. That isn't a real great place to work out a good ssytem, and is more of the Progressive demonization tactics.

I said the current ones providing the data is cheap. It is the Infrastructure that is expensive, but once that is in place the costs are much lower. Do you have a few billion laying around to get started?

As for the rest. They have every interest in blocking sites. Lets say a competitor of Youtube pays them money to block you tube, or they create an alternative and block it so you have to use theirs. Not only could they do it but they HAVE done it.

[Renegade]

I've never had any issues with my ISP regulating me.

I basically don't trust Google, Facebook,or AT&T any more than I trust Comcast.

I trust the .gov even less than all those.

1) Because they have not been allowed to till yesterday.

2) Well with no nNN, you just put a whole lot of trust in them.

3) There was nothing to trust with the govt, they just said "treat all packets equal" and do what you want.

[Renegade]

I still don't get the ISPs blocking websites. Slow down; maybe. More likely make sure their streaming media and that of partners that pay gets priority; yes.

No different than how travel websites only show you flights and hotels for those they are partnered with.

The problem is since most folks do not have a lot of choices in their internet provider, and zero choice in who their providers gets backbone services from you cannot easily go elsewhere.

[Renegade]

Think of it this way:

Do you like your internet? Has it been working good all these years?

Well .gov just broke it for you.

[Dist. Expert 26]

It's utterly insane how much it costs to run fiber optic. The casino I used to work at was in the process of upgrading when I left. Just to put new lines in for the table games area (about 120 tables) was going to cost nearly a million dollars. And they aren't paying for real estate, telephone poles, etc.

Living in the mountains I'll likely never have landline internet, and if I do it'll be 20 years behind current technology. Which means my choices are A) Satellite internet or B) Mobile hotspot. Currently option B is better, but I still can't stream movies, play video games, download music, etc.

So if Verizon decides to choke me out of certain sites, I'm just screwed. Wonderful.