The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#9961
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
The telegraph altered the status quo for horse-based communication. The telephone altered the status-quo for the telegraph. Satellite communication broke down barriers to land-based telephony. Wireless and VoIP technology then displaced that.
All of these technologies were created by private companies, and paid for by consumers and businesses. Federal regulation of the telephone industry is largely responsible for the very complaints which subscribers voiced in the 1970s and 80s about high cost and poor quality of service (both technical and customer-service.)
Using legislation to enforce the status quo results in stagnation.
The internet is basically a utility or piece of critical infrastructure like a highway. We regulate those fairly heavily as well because if you don't you end up with rolling brown outs in California because Enron figured out how to make a lot of money from it.
- It is built and maintained almost entirely with private and corporate funds absent any government involvement, without easements or taking by eminent-domain, and without subsidy.
- It is highly decentralized, and the pieces which make it up are nearly all privately-owned.
- It is interactive, unlike a utility. The people who use it also contribute to its growth and evolution.
- It is constantly in a state of change and development, unlike a road or a water-main.
#9962
"Net neutrality" legislation isn't enforcing the status quo or preventing innovation of any sort, unless you consider the removal of current features to add back later for a fee innovation.
5G is going to roll out over the next few years anyway and then everyone in the entire country will have access to fast broadband at many Gbps wirelessly on whatever device they choose. All those wires are going to be so last century.
#9963
There's no reason Cockmast or CenturyLink or anyone else can't sell 5G internet access for the same price as wired. It'd probably be cheaper for them anyway, no modems and a single tower instead of a huge physical network. Also it's way easier for a competitor, like Google, to install 5G towers versus trying to wire an entire neighborhood for fiber which is what they're doing now. That means more competition. Right now you can already buy 3G or 4G ISP service and it's the same price or cheaper than the cable/phone lines.
#9964
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,922
Total Cats: 402
Out of 118 million US households, more than 10.6 million have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds. Half of all households having zero or one option for high-speed internet is not competition.
tethering my wife's phone's wifi
Comcast
DSL @ 7mbps
3 house's over's unsecure wifi
So really only one option, comcast. We were fine with DSL up until a few months ago when the connection started going to ****. Multiple Verizon visits and they sorta gave up trying to fix the phone line. Went with comcast 3 days ago...and my internet went out last night.
Isn't Elon supposed to give me internet from space?
#9965
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/1...s-to-interfere -- comcast blocks P2P traffic
Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions Fortune -- ATT blocks skype (VOIP) because it competes with their phone plans
Verizon blocks Google Wallet - Dec. 6, 2011 -- Verizon blocked Google Wallet to force customers into their version
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-you-no-shame/ -- att blocked facetime unless you pay for their mobile share plan
comcast-netflix-deal Time -- Comcast artificially slows access to Netflix until Netflix pays an arbitrary fee
#9966
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
yet you used them interchangeable when you provided "proof" internet ISPs were ******* us in the *** hard with big double sided ****** and the government HAD to swoop in and protect us from big bad corporations!
#9968
yet you used them interchangeable when you provided "proof" internet ISPs were ******* us in the *** hard with big double sided ****** and the government HAD to swoop in and protect us from big bad corporations!
#9969
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
Oh wait. Out of 118 million US households, more than 10.6 million have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds. Half of all households having zero or one option for high-speed internet is not competition.
8% of the US population cant stream 4K ****!
#9970
For what it's worth, I've yet to see any arguments in favor of repealing net neutrality beyond "gubmint bad! corporations good!"
#9971
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,688
Total Cats: 4,113
and: gubmit good! corporations bad! is a good one?
also new flash: wireless networks weren't protected by net neutrality, so about those links you used to as proof...
that's why it mattered that I pointed that out.
the Netflix thing was a throttling issue, and a B2B solution that benefited consumers without gov't intervention.
also new flash: wireless networks weren't protected by net neutrality, so about those links you used to as proof...
that's why it mattered that I pointed that out.
the Netflix thing was a throttling issue, and a B2B solution that benefited consumers without gov't intervention.
#9972
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
False, you and I (taxpayers) contribute significantly to last-mile broadband rollouts through grants and subsidies given to ISPs. https://www.ntia.doc.gov/grants-combined
Going to your last point, this is actually an interesting comparison. In many major cities, there are two (and sometimes three) separate classes of highway. There are the regular roads that are free* to drive on, then you have the tollways, and in some cities you also have express lanes which run above or between the regular freeway. The latter two categories of service are available to those who wish to pay extra to utilize them.
And nobody seems to have a problem with this.
* = your tax dollars at work
The same goes for bus service. In NYC, for instance, the local bus costs the same $2.75 per ride as the subway, but those who wish to reach the outer boroughs faster have the option to pay $6.50 per ride for the express bus, which runs non-stop from Manhattan to the more remote destinations.
And nobody seems to have an issue with this.
Utilities? Let's look at electrical power. Heavily subsidized, heavily government regulated. And beyond the fact that it's mostly a pay-as-you-go service, you also get charged more based upon the capacity of your service. Want a 200A main breaker in an area in which gas or oil are the predominant sources of heat? You're going to pay a higher connection charge and a higher base service charge.
And nobody seems to have an issue with this.
Lots of folks here have been talking about limited competition among ISPs. And I'll grant you, I'm spoiled to have lived in cities in which I have a choice between several different providers. If you live in an area with only one broadband option, then you probably have only one option for Cable TV as well; usually the same one. Why aren't people complaining about the fact that your cable provider charges you more money if you want to receive all of the various Sports and movie channels, while your neighbor, who is satisfied with the base tier package, pays a lower rate?
And nobody seems to have an issue with this.
So explain this to me: if we assume that all of these doomsday scenarios are true, why is it any different for an ISP to charge more to people who consume huge amounts of bandwidth sucking down videos from Netflix?
#9973
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
If you genuinely believe that "the bandwidth restriction doesn't exist," then, well, I don't know any polite way to say this... You don't really have a good understanding what you're talking about.
Laying new fiber and buying new routers costs money. Someone has to pay for that, and not merely the last-mile portion.
#9975
Interesting to see the Internet compared to a road...
In early America the towns were responsible for all roads within the town limits. Each able bodied male was assessed a 'Road Tax' that was comprised of 3 days labor provided to the town to maintain the roads. Most maintenance was done after planting and before haying to ensure availability of labor.
If the male didn't provide his 3 days he was fined $1 per day by the town. He was also able to hire another male for $0.62 per day which provided jobs for those men who didn't own a farm or who otherwise wanted to make money.
As the towns grew and commerce expanded beyond the immediate area private enterprise stepped in and developed Toll roads or Turnpikes where the goods or people being moved were assessed a fee and commerce expanded into the adjoining communities and beyond.
As the cost of maintaining those roads grew thereby increasing the tolls to cover it the farmers got pissed seeing more and more of their profits going to the owner of the toll road and banded together within the towns to expand the public road system from town to town thereby allocating public money [taxes] for commercial gain [farmers] insofar as the general public benefited.
And then came the trains...
I'm aware there are private takeovers of public road systems in areas of the US with mixed short term results.
In early America the towns were responsible for all roads within the town limits. Each able bodied male was assessed a 'Road Tax' that was comprised of 3 days labor provided to the town to maintain the roads. Most maintenance was done after planting and before haying to ensure availability of labor.
If the male didn't provide his 3 days he was fined $1 per day by the town. He was also able to hire another male for $0.62 per day which provided jobs for those men who didn't own a farm or who otherwise wanted to make money.
As the towns grew and commerce expanded beyond the immediate area private enterprise stepped in and developed Toll roads or Turnpikes where the goods or people being moved were assessed a fee and commerce expanded into the adjoining communities and beyond.
As the cost of maintaining those roads grew thereby increasing the tolls to cover it the farmers got pissed seeing more and more of their profits going to the owner of the toll road and banded together within the towns to expand the public road system from town to town thereby allocating public money [taxes] for commercial gain [farmers] insofar as the general public benefited.
And then came the trains...
I'm aware there are private takeovers of public road systems in areas of the US with mixed short term results.
#9976
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
So, is the solution here that the US government should annex all hardware related to the internet which is located within its boundaries, or that it should enact a new tax to fund the construction of a new internet which will eventually displace all commercially-owned networks?
#9977
So, is the solution here that the US government should annex all hardware related to the internet which is located within its boundaries, or that it should enact a new tax to fund the construction of a new internet which will eventually displace all commercially-owned networks?
I read town meeting reports from New England in the 1700’s that talked about the debate of using public money to finance the roads, which actually came about because the commercial toll road providers sucked at commercial ventures and could never charge what it took to maintain the roads and so they “proposed” to turn the roads over to the towns. Back in those days you actually went to jail if you couldn’t pay back debt so it wasn’t accepted to fail at business like it is today. The concept of “county jails” [we called them the county farm] originated as a place to put debtors.
I’m a firm believer in public/private enterprises where it’s in the publics interest.
Don’t know if my reply makes sense or not.
And along came the trains...
Last edited by bahurd; 12-04-2017 at 07:36 PM.
#9978
So, is the solution here that the US government should annex all hardware related to the internet which is located within its boundaries, or that it should enact a new tax to fund the construction of a new internet which will eventually displace all commercially-owned networks?
Maybe it’d be in the public interest for the government [the people] to own the backbone, if you can actually define it in a materialistic sense, much like the highways. Let the commerce develop at all points along that backbone or the exits of it. But then, we’d all owe royalties to Al Gore.
Very much like the European rail system. At all points/terminals there’s commercial activities but the backbone [railbed] is owned by the state. The German system even allows other carriers/lines to run on the system. The terminals are hubs of commercial activities.
When I buy my electricity and natural gas I buy from providers not even remotely close to me. I pay a transmission fee to Duke Energy for the use of their lines but everything is aggregated into one bill from Duke. I have no idea who pays who prior to the Duke lines....
EDIT: The fact I can buy electricity from Canada [hypotheticaly] and natural gas from a company in Texas while living in Ohio stems from a law enacted for the benefit of the public good and commerce as a whole benefited as a result.
Must. learn. to. type. better. and drink. less. wine.
Last edited by bahurd; 12-04-2017 at 09:55 PM.
#9980
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
There was a time when online service providers did strictly limit their users' access to information. Comuserv, Prodigy, AOL, Delphi, and all other such companies were built upon a model of funneling their users into their own proprietary services and information centers. Over time, consumer demand forced them to allow access to Usenet and the Web, and eventually, their users began to defect en masse to generic ISPs which acted as true gateways to the internet, not walled gardens with small windows looking out onto it.
Getting riled up about a few service providers talking about offering preferred service packages in the present day is a very short-sighted view of the history of the internet, and demanding government regulation to combat it will have disastrous ramifications in the future. It is the fundamental nature of the internet to be unrestricted, and it does a splendid job of this in the absence of government interference.
If you want to know how well granting the government regulatory control over content on the internet works, ask a Chinese person. Just try not to get them jailed for talking to you about it.