Some of us suggested that this would happen but others pooh-poohed the idea.

Quote:....economist Hal Singer of the Progressive Policy Institute predicted ... that if price and other regulations were introduced, capital investments by ISPs (in broadband) could quickly fall...
Now Mr. Singer has analyzed the latest data, and his prediction has come true. He found that in the first half of 2015, as the new regulations were being crafted in Washington, major ISPs reduced capital expenditure by an average of 12%, while the overall industry average dropped 8%....Capital spending was down 29% at AT&T ...

Link to WSJ

These companies are going to eventually end up like utilities being managed by public service commissioners. It's the only way I think ISP's are going to be able to decrease the ROI window.

The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

Always been torn on this issue.

I hate the government take over of pretty much anything. Internet included. I use government LAN on the reg and it's as crappy as anything else.

I also hate the overlord ISPs with their horrible rates, (actual) bandwidth, customer service, and "bundles."

The internet has become a vital form of infrastructure that should not be controlled by private companies.

(09-14-2015 10:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The internet has become a vital form of infrastructure that should not be controlled by private companies.

So the government should run it?

Based on what? Their track record of running things?

(09-14-2015 11:21 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The internet has become a vital form of infrastructure that should not be controlled by private companies.

So the government should run it?

Based on what? Their track record of running things?

I never said they should run it but I do believe they need to regulate it.

When the internet is such a vital part of the nation's economy and infrastructure, then the government cannot allow private business to call the shots.

(09-14-2015 11:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:21 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The internet has become a vital form of infrastructure that should not be controlled by private companies.

So the government should run it?

Based on what? Their track record of running things?

I never said they should run it but I do believe they need to regulate it.

When the internet is such a vital part of the nation's economy and infrastructure, then the government cannot allow private business to call the shots.

You want less of something, regulate it.

Yay, regulate it like my health insurance?

So middle-class folks with private sector jobs pay out the ass and the perpetually unemployed or "disabled" get it at ridiculously low rates or on the free?

No thanks.

Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

Broadband is going to end up like power and water ... and it is just as important and those two. Hell, it even makes sense to be delivered through the power company who already has pole and conduit right of way.

The third most filthy rich tech company on Earth has tried to enter the ISP space to alleviate things. Notice how in the markets Google is in -- WOW LOOK AT THAT suddenly everybody is able to offer Gigabit uncapped service for under $100/mo. Outside those markets? Nope just not possible sorry GFY.

And for allllllllll of Google's money ... and allllllll the politicians and companies and consumers lobbying hard for Google to come to their city ... in over a decade they've only offered service in 3 cities with initial/partial roll out in 6 others and future "potential expansion" to 6 more. At this rate you too will get Google fiber ........ in 2070. And that is a *filthy* rich company with a vested financial interest in high speed uncapped internet access for all.

There are a few niches where the traditionals actually offer decent service (Verizon FiOS in VERY few markets). And a few people who got started when DSL providers were REQUIRED by law to line share with competitors ... and that's how Sonic.net was born, America's best ISP to this day. They got big enough to survive after McCain ended line share requirements. Thankfully.

But everybody else? Pile of dog ****.

Satellite is not broadband.
3mbit DSL is not broadband.
3mbit WISP is not broadband.

Cables are offering 50/60/100 mbit ... but they are doing it by saturating the final mile of copper to the home. Using allllll kinds of nasty stuff like Digitally Switched Video. Did you notice how you were REQUIRED to get a set top box before those faster speeds became available? That wasn't a coincidence, and there is actually technical reasons why they have to do that pertaining to DSV, they aren't just gouging you for the rental fee. Though they like doing that too. DOCSIS 3.0 is the end of the line for cables over their existing copper. There isn't much more blood to squeeze from that turnip. But when Google comes to town suddenly they get alllllll fiber happy and want to bring fiber directly to your curb. Amazing!

You don't want net neutrality? Fine. Here's a compromise: Google is granted, at the federal level, nationwide right of way access through all existing poles, conduits, and trenches where any existing cable or telco or cellular provider is in place. The WiMAX 50 GHz spectrum is redesignated as non-4G (it's dead anyway) and reallocated to the WISP market. WISPs are given a 10 year tax holiday to spur rapid growth.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Hardline ISPs are going to die out in the next 5-10 years. FCC is already clearing bandwidth for broadcast broadband once things reach the tipping point.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/244...um-auction

(09-14-2015 08:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The internet has reached the point in time that they need to be opened up to the public, just like roads, canals, phone lines, and more have done.

I will die a happy man as soon as Comcast goes broke, and WOW!. God I hate WOW!.

That fact that Comcast is more hated than Exxon or Haliburton is amazing.

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

Broadband is going to end up like power and water ... and it is just as important and those two. Hell, it even makes sense to be delivered through the power company who already has pole and conduit right of way.

Which is why I suggested a set up that the power company has with the state and public service commissioners. Ultimately, ISP's gaining regional monopolies means that the normal competition for service no longer exists. The issue is ensuring that there is a standard that can be achieved that can be implemented across that country.

I don't has much knowledge about that and unfortunately, people like you GTS won't be given such important political positions. We'll be left with people who liken that internet to pipes.

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

(09-14-2015 11:25 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:21 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 10:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The internet has become a vital form of infrastructure that should not be controlled by private companies.

So the government should run it?

Based on what? Their track record of running things?

I never said they should run it but I do believe they need to regulate it.

When the internet is such a vital part of the nation's economy and infrastructure, then the government cannot allow private business to call the shots.

You want less of something, regulate it.

Yep, just like less tainted foods, less phony drugs, and less pollution.

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Wait, you don't think they're making a profit with these regulations? Any source for that?

Because quite frankly, the fact that investment is going down could very easily just mean that the previous egregious profits being made are no longer there for the taking. I'm sure removing all regulations on casino games and their odds would result in booming investments for them, but that doesn't mean it's better overall for society.

You've already made your judgement, and you're simply looking for anything to support it.

(09-14-2015 01:50 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 01:39 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 11:40 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dude at the WSJ titled it "ObamaNet" right in the title.

Instant credibility loss.

I still believe there should be a federal program to roll out massively and nationwide large conduit for utilities. An Eisenhower Interstate System for Utility Services. Lease access by the footage at market rate to help cover the costs.

Did you read the article?

It was making one point, that corporations are cutting back on investment in infrastructure. That is a fact. Get it, a fact.

You can throw all the hissy fits you want but until there is another reason to expand broadband (which won't be your pipe dream of a nationwide govt expansion) this is what we get.

The reality is that net neutrality has ended any real hope for expanded broadband. Done. Finished. Finito. End of dreams.

Seems a bit early to make that call. And by a bit early, I mean lol at you actually saying that.

Well I suppose it is possible that the FCC will reverse its position. But for now, or until someone can figure out how to make money in the new regime, I'm comfortable with "done."

Broadband will switch to broadcast. If you can get cell reception, you'll be able to get broadband. It's no wonder why traditional ISPs are not investing in laying cable that will be largely obsolete within a decade.

Thankful that my internet is fiber optic and alread supplied by the power company.

The fact that so many people think this is a "government takeover" speaks volumes on how far right folks have moved in terms of economics in the last 50 years.

The truth is, nothing is new about this, and it isn't a government takeover as commonly understood in the public lexicon.