+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Net Neutrality ... our first case study (/thread-855957.html)
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - arkstfan - 08-23-2018 10:38 AM
(08-22-2018 11:06 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote: Technically, it's still unlimited data, it's the speed of that data that changes after a certain amount.
Legally I don't think that would be an issue.
It's kind of dirty pool, but not illegal.
Precisely. Legal. But not ethical in the least.
Your issue isn't an FCC issue. It's an FTC issue because it is about whether or not they are deceiving customers.
They advertise one thing then get the customer in the fine print.
The socialists over in the UK got tired of that crap and now ban providers from advertising the theoretical maximum speed a customer may get and instead can only advertise the speed they actually deliver.
In this case Verizon could not advertise unlimited high speed internet, they would have to advertise 25gb of high speed with unlimited slow speed and the "with unlimited slow speed" would have to be next to the 25 and not just a * signaling that you need to look at the itty bitty words at the bottom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6025359/Broadband-providers-forced-slash-advertised-web-speed-41-cent-new-rules.html
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - arkstfan - 08-23-2018 10:58 AM
(08-22-2018 11:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2018 11:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-22-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Those low cost providers, there are plans out there (if you don't use a lot of data on your phone either by choice or if you are connected to wifi most of the time) for national unlimited calling and unlimited text for $10 a month.(08-22-2018 11:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:Yep. Get rid of barriers to entry and competition will solve the problem. Get the government involved and you just created new barriers to entry.(08-22-2018 11:12 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Slowing the data speed on emergency services is BS, but I still want the government out of it. Just make sure nobody becomes a monopoly. If anything it is an opportunity for another service provider who can guarantee they wont throttle the speed down.^^^^^
If there is a need, somebody will provide it. See Southwest Airlines or Fox News. Unless government keeps them out.
There is a difference.
If Southwest invests in a 737 to fly direct Austin to Little Rock and the route turns out to be a bust, they can fly that 737 from Tulsa to Austin and see if that works and so on. Frontier or Jet Blue or American seeing that route finding success can with a few keystrokes change their routing to put an aircraft on that route.
Fox News if they hadn't caught on, they could take their relatively small investment in the satellite spot and repurposed it to something else, which is EXACTLY what Fox did when they changed the signal on their satellite transponder from Speed to FS1 and what happened when Outdoor Life became Versus and Versus became NBCSN.
As Google has discovered with their now no longer expanding Google Fiber project, investing in delivering high speed data takes a lot of upfront capital and if you reach the conclusion that the investment isn't working you aren't going to yank up the fiber and move it to a more profitable market.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - Claw - 08-23-2018 11:11 AM
One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - SuperFlyBCat - 08-23-2018 11:28 AM
(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - Claw - 08-23-2018 11:31 AM
(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
Satellite is slow though.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - SuperFlyBCat - 08-23-2018 11:40 AM
(08-23-2018 11:31 AM)Claw Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
Satellite is slow though.
Had satellite TV for a couple of years, but not for an ISP. It certainly goes down with heavy rain and storms.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - thespiritof1976 - 08-23-2018 11:43 AM
I'm dumb. Well, regarding this issue. Can someone explain it in layman's terms to me ? (Cause when most do it is like when I try to explain Star Trek to a non Trekkie)
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - arkstfan - 08-23-2018 11:45 AM
(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
I have two co-workers who are unable to work from home because they are on satellite internet. The latency convinces our servers that something is going wrong and will disconnect their computers. Plus it is slow even when connected.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - 200yrs2late - 08-23-2018 11:54 AM
(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
I'm in a rural area without access to high speed internet. I don't know about Direct, but Dish uses HughesNet for their high speed, which on good days is about a fast as a 3G signal. It's also limited, not to mention expensive. My farm is one mile off of a county road with access to high speed cable and the cable company wanted over $65,000 to run cable to the 15 houses on the farm - a total of about 2.5 miles of cable.
Cell service is spotty since I'm on a relatively un-populated area of the coast and there are very few overlapping towers. My phone spends about half the time with a weak 4G signal and the rest of the time with a decent 3G signal.
I'd like to have access to high-speed and honestly cable as well. Summer storms make Dish unreliable at best, but in the end it isn't that much of a issue.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - GeorgeBorkFan - 08-23-2018 03:03 PM
(08-23-2018 11:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
I'm in a rural area without access to high speed internet. I don't know about Direct, but Dish uses HughesNet for their high speed, which on good days is about a fast as a 3G signal. It's also limited, not to mention expensive. My farm is one mile off of a county road with access to high speed cable and the cable company wanted over $65,000 to run cable to the 15 houses on the farm - a total of about 2.5 miles of cable.
Cell service is spotty since I'm on a relatively un-populated area of the coast and there are very few overlapping towers. My phone spends about half the time with a weak 4G signal and the rest of the time with a decent 3G signal.
I'd like to have access to high-speed and honestly cable as well. Summer storms make Dish unreliable at best, but in the end it isn't that much of a issue.
I live just outside the suburbs of Chicago, and am four miles from a municipal area of 60,000. I am 1/2 mile off a state highway on a township road. My only internet options are Dish, or wireless broadband, which is what we have. I have an antenna on my house that points at another antenna on Farmer Fred's grain leg. That antenna hands my signal off to another where they have a fiber connection. Cell coverage at my house is spotty, so much that we can't drop the landline.
Wireless broadband is line of sight, so we have issues with it. And, it isn't that reliable.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - TigerBlue4Ever - 08-23-2018 03:11 PM
(08-22-2018 10:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(08-22-2018 12:11 PM)Claw Wrote:(08-22-2018 11:32 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:(08-22-2018 08:53 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote: The information superhighway should be a public utility available equally to all.
This
I think it already is.
They aren't refusing to sell Internet for gay marriages or anything.
You want to buy it? If they have it, and you can afford it, you can buy it.
That is what a utility does. Ever have pay to run the water line to your house? That's not free. The water coming in isn't free. If you use too little or too much, you may be charged a different rate because of it.
That's water coming in, but there is also water going out. As a household, your waste water is again your problem. You either have a septic tank or pay a sewer fee. If you have a LOT of waste water, you have to have special connections to the system and you pay a premium for the service.
This is what a utility is. Not some free service for everybody where everybody has the same size water main and the same size sewer drain. It is where people buy what they need and the utility provides it when they can.
I'm not arguing that it be free.
I'm arguing for the system to be treated like we treat roads. There is no private company manipulating our roads as to who gets on and how fast they can drive. We wouldn't allow that.
We shouldn't allow it here.
Also, the argument about "more you use the more you pay," doesn't hold water--no pun intended. The more water that is used by a consumer the more water must be treated etc. There is no cost for more data having been moved down the lines. It's purely private interests constraining trade for their own motives. The value to those private interests are vastly outweighed by society's interests as a whole in having those trade avenues unrestrained.
So you think there's infinite bandwidth...
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - TigerBlue4Ever - 08-23-2018 03:13 PM
(08-23-2018 11:31 AM)Claw Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
Satellite is slow though.
And used to be very costly, I don't know if the rates have gone down or not.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - Kaplony - 08-23-2018 03:14 PM
(08-22-2018 11:00 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:(08-22-2018 10:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: Almost 15 posts in and nobody has pointed out the inherent legal lie that is "unlimited" data plans. Unlimited unlimited unlimited (size 4pt: LTE speeds until (small number of GB) then slower data (3G for a while if your carrier is "generous") like 2G/Edge, which isn't even enough for navigational data if you have cached maps even.
Technically, it's still unlimited data, it's the speed of that data that changes after a certain amount.
Legally I don't think that would be an issue.
It's kind of dirty pool, but not illegal.
Sounds to me that Santa Clara County should have read the details of the contract before signing Verizon to be their provider. It also sounds to me that their emergency planners did a poor job preparing for large scale emergencies and didn't have contingencies in place to provide redundancies for critical services.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - SuperFlyBCat - 08-23-2018 03:25 PM
(08-23-2018 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
I have two co-workers who are unable to work from home because they are on satellite internet. The latency convinces our servers that something is going wrong and will disconnect their computers. Plus it is slow even when connected.
Wow that is bad. Had no idea that satellite ISP sucked so bad.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-23-2018 03:27 PM
When I got satellite TV I asked about satellite ISP and was advised by the satellite TV salesman not to go that route.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - stinkfist - 08-23-2018 07:45 PM
(08-23-2018 03:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:(08-23-2018 11:11 AM)Claw Wrote: One thing I would support is government projects to extend high-speed data infrastructure to rural America.
This was necessary with electricity and phone lines in the early part of last century. We may need that again.
Even this cranky right-wing old man would support that.
Most rural people use their satellite (Dish Direct TV or whatever it is called) for an ISP.
Mobile phone service can get sketchy at times as cell towers are less frequent.
I have two co-workers who are unable to work from home because they are on satellite internet. The latency convinces our servers that something is going wrong and will disconnect their computers. Plus it is slow even when connected.
Wow that is bad. Had no idea that satellite ISP sucked so bad.
wireless is dick.....that's the bottom line....
you run a dedicated line, buy a toasty modem, and connect via ethernet.....
I already showed you my ds/us/latency.....
you either do it or deal with bs.....
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - arkstfan - 08-23-2018 09:54 PM
(08-23-2018 11:43 AM)thespiritof1976 Wrote: I'm dumb. Well, regarding this issue. Can someone explain it in layman's terms to me ? (Cause when most do it is like when I try to explain Star Trek to a non Trekkie)
Net neutrality in a nutshell.
Internet service is reverse post office/UPS/FedEx.
With USPS/FedEx/UPS the person wanting to put something into the system pays (buy a stamp or pay UPS or FedEx) and the person receiving gets the letter or package in their mailbox or on their doorstep.Now the customer may pay a shipping fee to the person sending but the sender is responsible for paying.
With the internet the receiver pays.
The receiver pays a fee either monthly flat fee or pays for usage. The sender pays to create a connection and opens the door (server) to send their content to any receiver either for free or restricts access to subscribers or approved users. If it were a mail analogy an ATT customer would pay ATT to go get to the sender and pick up the mail.
With net neutrality the status quo is maintained. Whatever you want from CNN.com or Foxnews.com or Google.com or Youtube.com you pay your provider to go get for you when your computer or app sends a request for the content.
Without net neutrality the internet provider still charges you to go get stuff but they can also charge the content provider to deliver their content and if they don't pay the provider can delay delivery or just refuse to deliver it at all.
Imagine that you have a friend who collects pocket knives and you find a cool knife you think your friend would like so you but it as a gift.
Under the current system you pay UPS $15 to send the knife to your friend. In a post-net neutrality style system you would still pay UPS $15 to send the knife to your friend. UPS would then call your friend and tell him that they have a package from you. For $5 they will deliver it tomorrow. For $2 they will deliver it in three days, for $1 they will deliver it in a week and if he won't pay they will deliver it in 10 days.
What has been happening is that a person who was a customer of let's hypothetically say Verizon paid to have high speed internet. They would then pay a subscription fee to Netflix to watch the programming. All worked fine. As Netflix became more popular it took up more capacity and people like Verizon hit on an idea. If Netflix users on Verizon had trouble getting a good reliable picture they would complain and Netflix would try to address it. Netflix would notice that Verizon customers were having problems so they would contact Verizon and Verizon would say that they were having network congestion issues and suggest that Netflix lease space on Verizon servers to mirror Netflix (ie. create a copy of all or part of their stored programs) that could get to the customer faster and more reliably. Netflix would then basically pay Verizon to deliver and Verizon was getting paid by the customer to deliver as well. There were claims that there was evidence Verizon was deliberately slowing down Netflix in order to be able to sell the access.
Without net neutrality the practice would completely legal.
ESPN could go to ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc., and say we will pay you a whole lot of money to get our content to your customers 50% faster than anyone else offering sports news. Well there aren't many ways for them to get that sort of bump other deliberately slowing down ESPN's competitors. You are sitting at home wanting a score and it takes longer to get it on Fox, Yahoo, or Sportsline than on ESPN so ESPN becomes your go to for scores.
Some tech innovator comes up with a better solution for online word processing than Google Docs, Google runs and gets exclusive fast lane access and the better product dies because users hate how slow it is.
That's what net neutrality is all about.
RE: Net Neutrality ... our first case study - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-24-2018 05:05 AM
The goal that net neutrality seeks is laudable. The question is whether it's the right solution.
Look at telephones. They were a regulated utility for 100 years. We went from having the operator connect us to dials to push buttons. Then technology introduced new channels that essentially deregulated the market. Compare and contrast to the progress made since then. The advancement of the Internet without net neutrality has been incredible. Some markets just are not right for a regulated utility model, and I think one as technologically revolutionary as the Internet is one that isn't. Whatever regulation would be put in place would become outmoded as a result of technology in 6 months.
I still think this is an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. I don't see a problem that's big enough to justify the level of government regulation and intrusion required to implement and enforce this. I'd rather find market-based solutions.