Sigh.

Also keep in mind that government involvement in our health care was supposed to improve service and reduce costs. Just something to think about.

(02-08-2015 06:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Also keep in mind that government involvement in our health care was supposed to improve service and reduce costs. Just something to think about.

And remember if not for government involvement, we'd still have hitler. Stupid irrelevant facts aren't useful and make you seem unintelligent.

(02-08-2015 06:28 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 06:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Also keep in mind that government involvement in our health care was supposed to improve service and reduce costs. Just something to think about.

And remember if not for government involvement, we'd still have hitler. Stupid irrelevant facts aren't useful and make you seem unintelligent.

I was thinking the same thing about you and your one letter comment in post #2, but I was too polite to point out that your irrelevant letter wasn't useful and made you seem unintelligent.

(02-08-2015 05:55 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 03:42 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 03:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 02:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 02:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The list of things the Republicans are on the wrong side of keeps growing and growing.

Does the internet need federal regulating?

That's an honest question. I know the Feds sticking their nose into healthcare insurance was foolish. But I don't know much about the internet.

The concern is that ISP's will, if allowed, start charging websites for a 'fast lane' of sorts, allowing their information to load faster/suffer less downtime/etc than those websites that do not/cannot pay. Which, if there were actual competition in the market, wouldn't be of much concern. As it is though, in most areas there is only one ISP, therefore it can strongarm any internet run business for money, and place those which it prefers at a drastic advantage. Claims that they will only offer 'fast lanes' without slowing down non-paying ones are pretty laughably circular, and go against any interaction I've had with any ISP in my lifetime.

The functional reality of this is that it will stifle innovation as internet start ups will not have the capitol to afford paying the ISP's to get the proper traffic needed to run a business.

Then pass a two paragraph law that says ISP's cannot offer said hypothetical 'fast lanes'. Residential services could be tiered depending on how much you want to pay, but commercial services cannot. End of problem and it would take one piece of paper and a no-nonsense vote, not a 332 plan full of regulations and taxes.

See how simple that was? Put me in charge of things and we can get some **** done!

Commercial services are what's slowing the internet down. Consider this:

Cable phone service and internet service are the exact same things. I repeat, they are the exact same things. So picture a store owner who has a cable phone and the internet for his ATM card swiper. Now across the street from him is a call center with 1000 employees all with their own phone lines and internet connection. If just half of the call center is using their phones or internet at the same time the shop owner's speeds could be drastically reduced. Still think there should be a one price solution?

More than likely the call center would contract with the cable company to bring in a dedicated fiber optic cable to provide for all their services which would give them greater speed along with much wider bandwidth so everything works seamlessly and the store owner would not be impacted. Naturally, the call center would pay substantially more for a dedicated fiber than the store owner who pretty much has the same service as the rest of us because that's all he needs.

It's like watching a toddler try to explain particle physics.

None of your example is at all relevant to net neutrality, and you're clearly confused about this issue. It has nothing to do with Netflix or other businesses not paying for their usage of the internet, or applying unforseen costs onto them, they are already paying their own way. Netlix is already paying the ISP to transfer their data, and I'm already paying to recieve that data. What Net Neutrality does is quarantee that they can't arbitrarily change prices based on what that data is.

Everyone is already paying their own way, Netflix is not slowing down the internet, and this is objectively bad for every other business outside of ISP's.

(02-08-2015 06:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What Net Neutrality does is quarantee that they can't arbitrarily change prices based on what that data is.

The ISP's have no idea what the data is, only how many packets are coming at them and from where.

(02-08-2015 06:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Everyone is already paying their own way, Netflix is not slowing down the internet, and this is objectively bad for every other business outside of ISP's.

You obviously have no clue about how the internet works, none whatsoever, otherwise you wouldn't claim that bandwidth hogs are not slowing it down, so leave that to someone who has been in the business for decades - me.

If you've been in the business for decades then you are lost, SMN. Those of us on here who truly have been are fully on board with it. Every network engineer I know is for it. All are republican, most donors.

(02-08-2015 07:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  If you've been in the business for decades then you are lost, SMN. Those of us on here who truly have been are fully on board with it. Every network engineer I know is for it. All are republican, most donors.

I've never said if I was for or against it, but from a technical perspective I'd rather the government stay the F out. The internet is already regulated to death by the feds, states, and local city franchises.

And if you look at your cable bill you'll see that the internet is the ONLY service not taxed. You can count on that changing if there's more government intrusion.

(02-08-2015 07:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  If you've been in the business for decades then you are lost, SMN. Those of us on here who truly have been are fully on board with it. Every network engineer I know is for it. All are republican, most donors.

I've never said if I was for or against it, but from a technical perspective I'd rather the government stay the F out. The internet is already regulated to death by the feds, states, and local city franchises.

And if you look at your cable bill you'll see that the internet is the ONLY service not taxed. You can count on that changing if there's more government intrusion.

Actually, the technical side is why I want the govt involved. It is the only reason I want them involved.

(02-08-2015 07:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:18 PM)mlb Wrote:  If you've been in the business for decades then you are lost, SMN. Those of us on here who truly have been are fully on board with it. Every network engineer I know is for it. All are republican, most donors.

I've never said if I was for or against it, but from a technical perspective I'd rather the government stay the F out. The internet is already regulated to death by the feds, states, and local city franchises.

And if you look at your cable bill you'll see that the internet is the ONLY service not taxed. You can count on that changing if there's more government intrusion.

Actually, the technical side is why I want the govt involved. It is the only reason I want them involved.

The technical side is exactly why I want them out.

Yeah, we know, and as someone who claims to have been in the industry for decades you should be able to provide more reasoning than 'GUBMENT HEALTHCARE BAD'.

(02-08-2015 07:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, we know, and as someone who claims to have been in the industry for decades you should be able to provide more reasoning than 'GUBMENT HEALTHCARE BAD'.

Tell ya what....go back to your cell phone with the capped data plan and extremely slow download speeds, ok?

You're hurting your own argument right now.

(02-08-2015 08:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You're hurting your own argument right now.

You don't even know what you're arguing for because you have no idea how any of this works. All you're thinking about is how fast can you get your porn and can you get it without a rate increase. But because of FCC intrusion you might have slower speeds and you WILL pay more for it - I would explain why but it would take too long and you wouldn't understand it. But if paying more and killing any hope of ever having competition makes you happy, then write to the FCC and tell them you're in favor of more regulations.

Ex-FCC Commissioner: Internet Users Will Pay More

A federal agency's plan to classify the Internet as a public utility, and regulate service providers as if they were gas and electricity companies, guarantees bigger monthly bills for everyone who pays for online access, economist and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"The reality will be higher prices to consumers and years of litigation," Furchtgott-Roth told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner. "That's the inevitable outcome."

The "utility" designation for Internet providers will preserve so-called "net neutrality" by preventing them from selectively speeding up or slowing down customers' Web traffic, or charging different fees for different speeds, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced on Wednesday

The announcement follows President Barack Obama's call in November for "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality."

"It's a mess," said Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist for the House Commerce Committee. "This is an ill-advised regulatory step by the federal government."

Under the existing system, most people can choose among Internet providers, he said.

"The vast majority of Americans — well over 90 percent of Americans — have access to two or three land-based broadband providers," said Furchtgott-Roth. "So it's a very intensely competitive market. and most of these companies aren't making very much money selling you broadband services." To be fair, the big cable tv companies are making a bundle off the internet.

"The efforts of the FCC in the coming weeks will make sure that the consumers won't get another choice because the broadband providers are going to have no incentive left to invest in new network equipment," he said.

"This isn't just about the cable companies," he added. "It's about cable companies, it's about telephone companies, it's about wireless companies. Everyone's going to be affected by these new regulations and each of these companies is going to have less incentive to invest in equipment and new services than they do without these rules."

"What the FCC is going to do is to say that it has the authority to regulate almost every aspect of the Internet, he said, adding, "That's not an environment in which a business is going to want to launch new services and to invest in very costly plans and equipment."

The good news, he said, is that the courts still throw out the new rules.

"It's not clear the courts are going to let the commission do this," said Furchtgott-Roth. "That will take a couple of years to decide.

"Hopefully at some point either the courts will throw it out or a future commission will receive better advice," he said, "and will have an opportunity to look at what's happening in the marketplace and come to a better conclusion about how to move forward, which will likely be not to have the types of rules … that the commission is about to impose on the American public."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Harold...z3RAK6ITcD

(02-08-2015 08:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, we know, and as someone who claims to have been in the industry for decades you should be able to provide more reasoning than 'GUBMENT HEALTHCARE BAD'.

Tell ya what....go back to your cell phone with the capped data plan and extremely slow download speeds, ok?

You realize that is pretty much exactly what the broadband providers are trying to do too / already doing, right?

(02-08-2015 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Ex-FCC Commissioner: Internet Users Will Pay More

A federal agency's plan to classify the Internet as a public utility, and regulate service providers as if they were gas and electricity companies, guarantees bigger monthly bills for everyone who pays for online access, economist and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"The reality will be higher prices to consumers and years of litigation," Furchtgott-Roth told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner. "That's the inevitable outcome."

The "utility" designation for Internet providers will preserve so-called "net neutrality" by preventing them from selectively speeding up or slowing down customers' Web traffic, or charging different fees for different speeds, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced on Wednesday

The announcement follows President Barack Obama's call in November for "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality."

"It's a mess," said Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist for the House Commerce Committee. "This is an ill-advised regulatory step by the federal government."

Under the existing system, most people can choose among Internet providers, he said.

"The vast majority of Americans — well over 90 percent of Americans — have access to two or three land-based broadband providers," said Furchtgott-Roth. "So it's a very intensely competitive market. and most of these companies aren't making very much money selling you broadband services." To be fair, the big cable tv companies are making a bundle off the internet.

"The efforts of the FCC in the coming weeks will make sure that the consumers won't get another choice because the broadband providers are going to have no incentive left to invest in new network equipment," he said.

"This isn't just about the cable companies," he added. "It's about cable companies, it's about telephone companies, it's about wireless companies. Everyone's going to be affected by these new regulations and each of these companies is going to have less incentive to invest in equipment and new services than they do without these rules."

"What the FCC is going to do is to say that it has the authority to regulate almost every aspect of the Internet, he said, adding, "That's not an environment in which a business is going to want to launch new services and to invest in very costly plans and equipment."

The good news, he said, is that the courts still throw out the new rules.

"It's not clear the courts are going to let the commission do this," said Furchtgott-Roth. "That will take a couple of years to decide.

"Hopefully at some point either the courts will throw it out or a future commission will receive better advice," he said, "and will have an opportunity to look at what's happening in the marketplace and come to a better conclusion about how to move forward, which will likely be not to have the types of rules … that the commission is about to impose on the American public."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Harold...z3RAK6ITcD

That alone is just completely wrong.


"aren't making very much money selling you broadband services"

90+ % profit margins on broadband services apparently aren't much money.

I realize you also pointed out that statement was false, but just further removes credibility from the article.

(02-08-2015 09:06 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 08:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, we know, and as someone who claims to have been in the industry for decades you should be able to provide more reasoning than 'GUBMENT HEALTHCARE BAD'.

Tell ya what....go back to your cell phone with the capped data plan and extremely slow download speeds, ok?

You realize that is pretty much exactly what the broadband providers are trying to do too / already doing, right?

I didn't realize they were trying to do this. I know if you have Time Warner's 100mb service they're going to upgrade you to 300mb automatically and for free. And every cable company I can think of caps you at around 250-300 gigs of data before they start charging more for anything over that. With that said, I know of NO ONE who has ever exceeded those caps...not saying no one does, but I've never even heard of it.

(02-08-2015 09:09 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Ex-FCC Commissioner: Internet Users Will Pay More

A federal agency's plan to classify the Internet as a public utility, and regulate service providers as if they were gas and electricity companies, guarantees bigger monthly bills for everyone who pays for online access, economist and former FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"The reality will be higher prices to consumers and years of litigation," Furchtgott-Roth told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner. "That's the inevitable outcome."

The "utility" designation for Internet providers will preserve so-called "net neutrality" by preventing them from selectively speeding up or slowing down customers' Web traffic, or charging different fees for different speeds, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced on Wednesday

The announcement follows President Barack Obama's call in November for "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality."

"It's a mess," said Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist for the House Commerce Committee. "This is an ill-advised regulatory step by the federal government."

Under the existing system, most people can choose among Internet providers, he said.

"The vast majority of Americans — well over 90 percent of Americans — have access to two or three land-based broadband providers," said Furchtgott-Roth. "So it's a very intensely competitive market. and most of these companies aren't making very much money selling you broadband services." To be fair, the big cable tv companies are making a bundle off the internet.

"The efforts of the FCC in the coming weeks will make sure that the consumers won't get another choice because the broadband providers are going to have no incentive left to invest in new network equipment," he said.

"This isn't just about the cable companies," he added. "It's about cable companies, it's about telephone companies, it's about wireless companies. Everyone's going to be affected by these new regulations and each of these companies is going to have less incentive to invest in equipment and new services than they do without these rules."

"What the FCC is going to do is to say that it has the authority to regulate almost every aspect of the Internet, he said, adding, "That's not an environment in which a business is going to want to launch new services and to invest in very costly plans and equipment."

The good news, he said, is that the courts still throw out the new rules.

"It's not clear the courts are going to let the commission do this," said Furchtgott-Roth. "That will take a couple of years to decide.

"Hopefully at some point either the courts will throw it out or a future commission will receive better advice," he said, "and will have an opportunity to look at what's happening in the marketplace and come to a better conclusion about how to move forward, which will likely be not to have the types of rules … that the commission is about to impose on the American public."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Harold...z3RAK6ITcD

That alone is just completely wrong.


"aren't making very much money selling you broadband services"

90+ % profit margins on broadband services apparently aren't much money.

I realize you also pointed out that statement was false, but just further removes credibility from the article.

Yeah, I qualified that statement in red when I posted it. But to be fair, the costs of bringing a cable system up to speed and the equipment and manpower involved in very expensive. A CMTS costs about $50k each. When I worked in El Paso they had about 200 of them and when I worked in Las Vegas they had about 800. That's not counting the miles and miles and miles of fiber that had to be placed.

(02-08-2015 09:15 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 09:06 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 08:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-08-2015 07:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, we know, and as someone who claims to have been in the industry for decades you should be able to provide more reasoning than 'GUBMENT HEALTHCARE BAD'.

Tell ya what....go back to your cell phone with the capped data plan and extremely slow download speeds, ok?

You realize that is pretty much exactly what the broadband providers are trying to do too / already doing, right?

I didn't realize they were trying to do this. I know if you have Time Warner's 100mb service they're going to upgrade you to 300mb automatically and for free. And every cable company I can think of caps you at around 250-300 gigs of data before they start charging more for anything over that. With that said, I know of NO ONE who has ever exceeded those caps...not saying no one does, but I've never even heard of it.

And those speeds mean nothing if they have the right to throttle my access arbitrarily based on which company pays out, like Netflix had to. You still don't seem to understand that by throttling internet content, they're throttling our usage. You simply can't act as if the two are somehow separate.