OT: net neutrality vote today.
December 14th, 2017 at 7:19 AM ^
It seems bad, but I could honestly use less time on the internet, so I don’t really mind.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
Edit: Found my answer on the googz.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:23 PM ^
It looks like a string of Christmas tree lights!
Glad I could help bring some lights to this string.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:55 PM ^
Baaaaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaa
December 14th, 2017 at 4:25 PM ^
Head out off the (Information) highway! . . . Bored to be mild!
December 14th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^
Net Neutrality wouldn't be so desperately important if internet providers weren't monopolies in every consumer area of the country.
This does nothing for consumers and everything for ISPs that have monopolies wherever they happen to service.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:28 PM ^
Just out of curiousity, why isn't the fight about stopping local government from only allowing one or two ISP's in a given area?
December 15th, 2017 at 8:30 AM ^
Do you think the reason you only have one companies electric line and/or gas lines run to your house is because local government only allows one?
December 14th, 2017 at 7:19 AM ^
Run for the hills and don't look back. Ever since November 2016 alot of people feel like anything is possible including losing net neutrality.
that's as political as I will get on here. someone will post something on here much more detailed. But, those are my thoughts.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:40 AM ^
Businesses that want to have guaranteed QoS and CoS for their time sensitive applications pay extra for it. That benefit should not be handed out to everyone (it's not a "right"). If it was, everyone's rates would go up.
Also, the carrier networks have improved dramatically over the last decade. Where there were limited 10 Gbps backbones, we now have multiple 100 Gbps second backbones.
It's the equivalent of taking Route 66 from Illinois to California back in the day verses taking the Interstate roads today. Plus, we don't have "road neutrality" - trucks aren't allowed in the left lanes in some parts of the country and we pay extra (tolls) to get into fast lanes.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:46 AM ^
should be regulated like the utility companies.
No offense, but internet service in this country sucks ass compared to other first world countries. It's way slower and more expensive here than anywhere else.
Also, a lot of the infrastructure was government funded (fiber optic cables, etc).
December 14th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^
Your last point is huge. If the government (i.e. the people) pays to build the infrastructure as a public good, then it should get to regulate the market as a public good. Just like that billion dollars we spent on fiber optic cables between NYC and Chicago a few years ago; a few billion dollars so high-speed traders can make trades fractions of a second faster. Those same traders will lose their minds if the government every tries to regulate their industry, but were happy to take the money to pad their own pockets...
December 14th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^
Here is the list: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-countries-with-the-fastest-internet-speeds
We are #10 behind small EU countries, Hong Kong, and South Korea. Our average speed is 18.7 Mbps, a 22% year over year increase. #2 is at 23.5 Mbps and #1 is 28.6 Mbps. We are not that far behind
Look at the size of these countries in the list - most are close to the size of Michigan. It's less costly to build out a network there compared to running fiber from NY to Miami to Chicago to Seattle to Dallas to LA.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
Using government resources I might add. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect we should be a leader in providing internet service.
It's almost impossible to make an apples to apples comparison for our internet service, as no other country has a similar size, population, and GDP.
Also, most of the infrastructure is there already. We have fiber optic cables running all over the country (and under the ocean). The only challenge is connecting residential customers to those lines (the last mile or two of the system).
December 14th, 2017 at 10:51 AM ^
"We"? Unless you're standing in a room with Al Gore right now, you betta shut yo mouth...
December 14th, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
when "we're" playing in the Outback Bowl.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:40 PM ^
Yet just a few posts up you did exactly that by comparing internet speeds in the US to those of other countries.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^
I moved to Italy in 2001. I signed up for a new internet provider over there called FastWeb. IN 2001, I HAD FIBER OPTIC SERVICE that was quicker than anything I have had since then in the USA (and I currently have FIOS). I will never forget downloading my first full album on iTunes and it was done in mere seconds. Moreover, back then mobile hotspots were EVERYWHERE. You could basically walk into any pub, restaraunt, cafe, etc and get internet service. Granted, I was living in Milan at the time and I am sure the service south of Rome was probably pathetic, however when I moved back three years later to NYC, I just laughed at how slow my service was.
I was also stunned when I moved there how everyone I knew in Europe was texting a few years ahead of the US. Primarily because monthly plans are not favorable over there, but you buy minutes instead. So texting was cheaper than calling. Again, when I moved back here 3 years later, NY'ers were just starting to text.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:59 AM ^
Is the backbone really the subject of taxpayer money? I ask this because I remember around the year 2000 when DC streets (as was the case in many cities) were constantly being ripped up by numerous private companies laying fiber, some of which is still unused. When my neighborhoods over the years were upgraded to fiber and before that, cable, this was done by private corporations.
The development of today's Internet was a decades long in development. I was unaware our modern fiber backbones were originally done by our governemnt.
If I am wrong, please provide a link to our government's current spending on our internet backbone beyond military and specific government requirements.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:27 PM ^
The DoD funded ARPANET back in the 60's to help further IP as a protocal.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:47 PM ^
Ajit Pai is a dickhead.
December 14th, 2017 at 11:55 AM ^
i have a question for ya. how many utility companies can you choose service from? i only have one gas and one electric company that service me. with that being said, that's why the government regulates the utilities as to avoid monopolies. we have several options to choose from to get our internet, so why should it be regulated? doesnt competition drive self regulation? on the other hand, if these billion dollar companies take subsidies, shouldn't we have a say or at least some sort of discounted rate?
December 14th, 2017 at 12:01 PM ^
The problem here is with your assumption that we have several options to choose from to get our internet - most homes have two or fewer options. The huge infratstructure costs for multiple networks and the diminishing returns for each additional network make it difficult to get enough competitors for a thriving market that self regulates. Since letting the market regulate itself isn't an option, it's important for the FCC to step in and make sure the existing ISPs operate fairly.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:15 PM ^
If cable lines are not a utility than they should not be allowed an easement to run through my property.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^
I don't have several options. I can Xfinity for cable internet, or Frontier for DSL.
December 15th, 2017 at 12:59 AM ^
No we fucking don't. There is one realistic option just about everywhere in this country.
Internet providers are monopolies which is why this is such a disaster.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
Hatter, I normally appreciate your posts, but I disagree strongly with this one. I'm wondering if it's a troll or serious. But I'll bite...
Your blanket statement about the internet being slower and more expensive here than anywhere else is just silly.
Your argument that because the government funded the infrastructure, it can dictate rules for the infrastructure doesn't hold up. The government funds the food for almost 50% of the kids in my school. Does that mean the government can dictate to the kids what they can do with the calories from that food?
December 14th, 2017 at 12:25 PM ^
think about how you feel about government. Pulse going up? Face getting a little flushed?
That's exactly how I feel about major corporations.
I could have been more clear with my opinion and examples.
The internet has become a necessity in our daily lives, almost on par with water, gas, and electrical services. Now where I live the water is safe to drink (so not Flint), the electricity is reliable and affordable, and I never even think about the gas service because it is so good and inexpensive.
Meanwhile, I can choose from 3 ISP's. All of them offer essentially the same product for the same price (seriously, the differences are insignificant after the promotional rate periods expire).
I'd prefer to have one ISP that offers faster service at a lower price. Other counties can do it, we should be able to as well.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:34 PM ^
We do look at things differently. You'd 'prefer' to have one ISP that offers faster service at a lower price. Ok - what gives you the right to enforce that preference by law on other people?
Nothing, Hatter. Nothing gives you that right.
December 15th, 2017 at 7:55 AM ^
we do exactly that for gas, water, and electrical service. Internet access should be treated the same way.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:00 PM ^
You have consistently bad takes, on pretty much everything. Your understanding of the world around you is apalling, and you're a god damned teacher? SMH
December 14th, 2017 at 3:09 PM ^
My wife is a teacher - and she gets all this, in part because she has very strong reason to believe that it will sooner or later affect public education (yet another way to undermine it.)
December 14th, 2017 at 10:38 PM ^
If you're wife's a public school teacher, she should know better than anyone - not that it takes any special knowledge - that public education desperately needs to be undermined.
December 14th, 2017 at 3:09 PM ^
My wife is a teacher - and she gets all this, in part because she has very strong reason to believe that it will sooner or later affect public education (yet another way to undermine it.)
December 14th, 2017 at 10:42 PM ^
Timmmaay, I wish your kids could be in my class. I'm not just a god damned teacher, I'm a damn good teacher, and it sounds like they could use one. ;)
December 15th, 2017 at 9:27 AM ^
You're a stain on the profession, is what you are. Every time you talk about something controversial, you show your extreme ignorance of how things actually work. If you were teaching my kid, we would have words.
Let's take your last comment as an example;
We do look at things differently. You'd 'prefer' to have one ISP that offers faster service at a lower price. Ok - what gives you the right to enforce that preference by law on other people?
Nothing, Hatter. Nothing gives you that right.
This right here is case in point. You say that he'd "prefer" that we have one ISP that's faster and cheaper. What you fail to understand, and keep digging deeper in that failing of understanding, is that most people already have just one ISP to "choose" from. And we already pay more for that privilege than most of the developed world, and pay more for the pleasure. By gutting NN laws, we just handed those handful of giants a license to charge more, slow it down further, and generally control the content that we can receive.
"Competition" will not make it work, as people like you love to say. Because there is no competition. So, please enlighten me as to exactly how this is a good thing. Please. I'm waiting with bated breath.
December 15th, 2017 at 12:55 AM ^
If the government (aka the public) funds the food for 50% of the kids in your example, it can (& prolly should) have a say in what that food is. As in, high protein, low sugar, & "ketchup" doesn't count as fruit & veggies, etc....
Congressional oversight of ISP's or 'dictating' rules for the *infrastructure* of the internet is distinct from guvmint declaring "you can't write about teaching controversies on your blog" or "no sports comments on a politics site!". Which no one is really debating.
Now, by providing crappy nutrition, your hypothetical government may all but guarantee the kids won't be able to do much with their calories...
... *that* would be analogies to concerns about choking off robust, free-flowing online discussion.
Kinda.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^
This isn't about throttling individual people. It's about throttling and/or packaging websites so that the internet is not free and open. Don't try to confuse people.
December 14th, 2017 at 2:57 PM ^
Who downvoted this?
December 14th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
What if I told you multi-ton vehicles hurdling down a physical road has almost no similarities to 1s and 0s in a wire/fiber optic?
Trucks are charged because they tear up the roads more and they aren't allowed into the left lane because they're slow. A byte is a byte is a byte.
It's more like charging a car more because it pulled out of a Walmart parking lot instead of a Target one.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:59 AM ^
"I work in Telecom". Nice appeal to authority, but your analogies are terrible and I don't think you know anything about the issue. The internet today is a telecommunication service and should be regulated as such. The end.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:31 PM ^
As telcos only charge for QoS and CoS on their private IP (eg MPLS) networks (not on the publice Internet as that capability does not exist in practice).
December 14th, 2017 at 8:13 PM ^
CoS over the Internet as long and the traffic stays on the carriers backbone. The carrier honors the tagging end to end. If the traffic crosses over to another carrier's back bone, the tagging is not honored.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:56 PM ^
edge routers. If that were the case, everyone would tag all their packets for prioritization.
And nobody charges for CoS on the public Internet (primarilly because it wouldn't work).
Nonsense.
December 15th, 2017 at 12:58 AM ^
schill.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^
Bad for consumers - bad for innovation - bad for competition - anyone here commenting that this is somehow good either profits from it ( works for a telecom ) or is being duped by wherever they get their news. The later will find out soon enough if NN is repealed.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:32 PM ^
>> or is being duped by wherever they get their news.
Gee, I wonder where THAT could possibly be?
December 14th, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^
CNN and MSNBC, I guess..or Fox? Journalism is dead and all that exists is commentators living in echo chambers, regardless of ones political leanings. Everyone watchs what they agree with and parrots the arguments they hear. Just look at these comments.
December 15th, 2017 at 1:26 AM ^
at least you will get great analysis and thought. Also a lot of news ( international ) you will not hear on the networks.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:53 AM ^
Wouldn't the gasoline tax be something like road netrality? The more you have to gas up the more you pay in gasoline taxes at the pump.