Government taking over private property is never the answer

That's what he "says" he wants, but look deeper. Seems to me the Internet is working fine as is. I don't want the government dictating things.

So would it be like in Chatanooga?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a-decade/

I have no problem with it.

quote:

---

"I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services."

---

I am oddly more cynical about Comcast looking out for my best interests than the government.

This might be the only thing he's ever done that I am in favor of...as long as it goes no further than that.

It's the principle. It's not my right to take my neighbors property.

quote:

---

This might be the only thing he's ever done that I am in favor of...as long as it goes no further than that.

---

So it's OK if he promises not to go any further, even if he or any future President can? When will people learn to not trust politicians. I don't want a Republican President having this power, and certainly not this guy.

what power are you talking about? The FCC is independent and he isn't calling to change that.

I understand government skepticism but at least do some research.

Not that I completely agree with everything in this article, but does raise some interesting points.

quote:

---

what power are you talking about? The FCC is independent and he isn't calling to change that.

I understand government skepticism but at least do some research.

---

so is the IRS

quote:

---

quote:

---

This might be the only thing he's ever done that I am in favor of...as long as it goes no further than that.

---

So it's OK if he promises not to go any further, even if he or any future President can? When will people learn to not trust politicians. I don't want a Republican President having this power, and certainly not this guy.

---

Any president can go further than we'd like on anything.

Better stop supporting any politician on any issue.

I'm just in favor of liberty, and liberty doesn't always have to be from a government. It can also be from a private entity that is going to try and hinder the public's access to information by making it more cost-prohibitive. I'm no more in favor of that than I am of the government regulating the private entity doing the hindering.

Isn't Obama the one who put a longtime cable lobbyist in charge of the FCC?

and then Ted Cruz compares it to Obamacare

Lol at people wanting the government to do anything.

The morons over on the politics board are whipping themselves into a frenzy shouting this down.

Meanwhile, anyone who has been paying attention to this and also has more than two brain cells to rub together is happy.

Good stuff.

Let's do this and get municipalities able to create their own networks and things will be gravy.

Anyone opposed to this has lost my respect with regards to technology

I could give a **** about your politics - this is the right thing to do.

This issue is really bringing the useful idiots out of the woodwork. Some folks don't even do themselves the justice of getting paid by the telcos for the amount of shilling they do on their behalf.

Here's a good one to spread around:

6 reasons real conservatives should defy Republicans and support net neutrality

One of the more salient points:

quote:

---

There's just one huge, glaring problem: there's actually no meaningful competition in the broadband market. "None. Zero. Nothing. It is a wasteland." The market is fundamentally broken; people can't make real choices about who to buy internet from. In a lot of places, your only option is Comcast.

---

I go back and forth on Net Neutrality. My biggest problem with it is that it won't create competition for ISP's just regulate how they manage the bandwidth.

To some extent because of video content and torrents there are good reasons for them regulating or charging those websites (youtube, hulu, netflix...) because they are using the most bandwidth. There is the point brought up can they exclude certain news/political websites for bad press or political reasons? It hasn't happened yet so what's the big deal? Net neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I do think ISP's have several local monopolies but introducing regulations generally helps larger companies and hurts smaller ones. Maybe not with bandwidth restrictions but in general it's harder for a start-up to comply with laws and paperwork that AT&T or Comcast who have tons of resources and lawyers for.

The solution is that we should encourage what is done in much of Europe. They force companies or munis who own the fiber/copper to share/lease to other ISPs. Currently AT&T or Comcast pays for the fiber to an entire city so they now have a monopoly on the city. Read this for a better alternative to Net Neutrality:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

klockness, the issue is, I'm paying for at&t's superior fiber network at $80/mo for up to 12mb/s (I'm lucky to get 5, and watching HD videos...). In chicago, I was paying $50/mo for 50 mbs on the inferior coaxial cable, both were just basic cable packages. The Chicago one was better service overall, and I miss it.

In college station I split the $100/mo bill with the roommate for 20mbs along with the basic cable package that came with all channels that weren't movie channels, so the amc's and Fx's and espn's

Google offers fiber optic for $70/mo which gives up to 1gbs averaging 100mbs to 200mbs actual.

I would be estatic to pay what i'm currently paying for guaranteed 100mbs but nope.

I stream a lot of ****, and can't get HD because of "throttling" or just ****ty service. I'm behind turning it into a utility just like electricity/water/gas is already. Or come up with something better.

quote:

---

In a lot of places, your only option is Comcast.

---

Yeah, make lit like a utility; that we we can pay an access fee and a per kb fee. The more you use the more you pay. Is that really what you want?

Anyone who thinks osama is doing something to help America has no clue.

quote:

---

Yeah, make lit like a utility; that we we can pay an access fee and a per kb fee. The more you use the more you pay. Is that really what you want?

---

if it means that content has to be delivered neutrally regardless of where it's from?

absolutely.

quote:

---

This issue is really bringing the useful idiots out of the woodwork.

---

my thoughts exactly. Its sad to see how much party identification has overridden common sense and a willingness to actually educate oneself on an issue.

quote:

---

I go back and forth on Net Neutrality. My biggest problem with it is that it won't create competition for ISP's just regulate how they manage the bandwidth.

To some extent because of video content and torrents there are good reasons for them regulating or charging those websites (youtube, hulu, netflix...) because they are using the most bandwidth.

---

But, the websites that run that content pay top dollar for their own Internet connections. Netflix and Youtube pay Mega$ for very large network connections, and even offer to host on-local-network caching systems the defray the amount of off-network transit traffic.

quote:

---

The solution is that we should encourage what is done in much of Europe. They force companies or munis who own the fiber/copper to share/lease to other ISPs. Currently AT&T or Comcast pays for the fiber to an entire city so they now have a monopoly on the city. Read this for a better alternative to Net Neutrality:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

---

We actually had that kind of setup at one time in the DSL market. Unfortunately, part of the deregulation of that industry resulted in the ILEC/CLEC competition completely drying up.

Sadly, another part of the reason why we don't do this is that America's cities and suburban areas are MUCH more spread out, resulting in a significantly lower population density. The cost of delivering high speed bandwidth to a clustered apartment complex is relatively low, per subscriber (Base cost of delivering main pipe to location, and short, low complexity end-user line runs). Delivering the same service to the same number of suburban houses is significantly more expensive. Even Google Fiber realizes this and helps to defray the cost by doing an entire neighborhood at a time (you miss out on it, you're out) and has code inspectors with a guaranteed delivery time as part of the city/Google contract to maximize the efficiency.

howitzercannon I fail to see how net neutrality fixes your issue. The problem is a catch 22. You and everyone else want to watch HD movies. The cable providers only provide backbone for so much bandwidth because of cost and the fact that you don't have anywhere else to go. So either they throttle certain high bandwidth websites or they allow the entire network to get slowed down. Net neutrality in the scenario your talking about could actually make the problem worse. I think it's 5% of users use 70% of the bandwidth. Net neutrality in no way shape or form forces competition among ISPs nor does it force monopoly ISPs to upgrade their backbone. It doesn't even force ISPs to provide advertised bandwidth rates 247.

By allowing more ISPs to compete if forces people to give the bandwidth they advertise. If you find out one ISP is throttling your HD movies you would have a choice to go to another. Now you don't.

quote:

---

That's what he "says" he wants, but look deeper. Seems to me the Internet is working fine as is. I don't want the government dictating things.

---

If you like how the internet works now, you should be supporting this. This isn't about changing the way you view the internet. It's about keeping it the same by preempting providers from moving to a model where they provide content-specific packages that will drastically limit the amount of information you can access, or at least that you can access for a reasonable cost.

nwspmp the fact the the folks like Netflix pay for huge bandwidth is irrelevant if the bottleneck is your ISP which it almost always is. They have competition so they do everything possible to make sure they provide a better service than the competition. So they all pay for the best service to make sure they aren't the bottleneck.

I think what Engadget proposes gets us back to the DSL scenario. You don't need a fiber/cable for every ISP just one to each house which already exists. The fact that we are spread out is just a scapegoat for AT&T and Comcast. If every ISP had to run it's own fiber to a house then no one would ever take on the cost. That is why you make them share that infrastructure then compete for the actual service.

klock,

then a mix of net neutrality, and competition then?

I fail to see how places such as the DFW area, Houston, New York, Chicago, LA and such can't have high speed internet. Cities in Japan, South Korea, and places in Europe seem to do alright. Canada is suffering what the US is suffering and the common denominator between all of them is the government, either making it easy or not easy for high speed to gain traction.

I don't believe it is a bandwidth issue. Billions of pictures are being uploaded daily. Emails being sent all over the place. The only throttling I see is Youtube and Netflix. Internet gaming doesn't have an issue...

How is that Google can provide a connection advertising 1 gbs and average 100 mbs with their fiber, which I thought fiber is only limited by the its end point equipment (lo and behold, I can't use anything but AT&T's equipment har har) due to it transimitting light...How is it that a company using coaxial is able to provide a faster cheaper service than AT&T? These are the things I don't understand, and why I may have my faith misplaced in net neutrality rather than something else.

quote:

---

I don't believe it is a bandwidth issue. Billions of pictures are being uploaded daily. Emails being sent all over the place. The only throttling I see is Youtube and Netflix. Internet gaming doesn't have an issue...

---

Because on a bps level, gaming and email doesn't use that much.

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-youtube-bandwidth-usage-1201179643

quote:

---

The No. 1 subscription VOD service accounted for 34.2% of all downstream usage during primetime hours, up from 31.6% in the second half of 2013, according to network-equipment vendor Sandvine. Peak period is defined as 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Sandvine's reports.

---

quote:

---

YouTube dropped to 13.2% of total peak downstream usage in March from 18.6% in the second half of 2013, according to the report. Amazon Instant Video continues to gain, but still accounts for only 1.9% of downstream traffic vs. 1.6% last fall, while Hulu usage increased slightly from 1.4% to 1.7% share.

---

Youtube and Netflix take up almost half of the bandwidth usage of the entire country during peak hours.

Ask any company what they would do to a single user who is taking up almost 50% of the pipe during peak hours.

quote:

---

I fail to see how places such as the DFW area, Houston, New York, Chicago, LA and such can't have high speed internet. Cities in Japan, South Korea, and places in Europe seem to do alright. Canada is suffering what the US is suffering and the common denominator between all of them is the government, either making it easy or not easy for high speed to gain traction.

---

Geographic distribution would be the common element. Laying fiber isn't cheap.

Then my next question is, how much bandwidth is available?

The stats provided sound like out of all the internet usage, this is how much such and such used.

Downstreams, what makes HD TV different? Still on Coaxial, and/or Fiber too...(I understand the difference that internet is two ways, but if HDTV is on Fiber/Coaxial too, and aren't they downstreaming HD TV?)

How did we get HDTV quickly enough, but (what i'm going to call HD internet) ain't happening if it is expensive to lay down these wires?

Google seems just fine laying down fiber in smaller cities such as Austin and St. Louis. Again, RCN was $50/mo for $50mbs with no issues during peak time in Chicago...on a coaxial. How is it, that AT&T is unable to provide a superior service with better wire (Fiber)?

quote:

---

Then my next question is, how much bandwidth is available?

---

Depends on where you want to look. Do you mean the US backbone? If so, which tier 1 provider? At your local ISP? At the point where your ISP begins to split the bandwidth between your neighbors and you? Is your ISP multi-homed to different providers?

quote:

---

Downstreams, what makes HD TV different?

---

Size of the stream. A single HD stream can measure between 3-5 Mbps per stream. Also depends on compression. While files can be big, they aren't constant. Let's go with a 3Mbps stream for a 2 hour movie. That's a 2.7GB file you just downloaded.

quote:

---

That's Still on Coaxial, and/or Fiber too...(I understand the difference that internet is two ways, but if HDTV is on Fiber/Coaxial too, and aren't they downstreaming HD TV?)

---

Fiber/Coax is just a media, and HD is just a categorization for an RTP stream. All that matters is bps. The content is meaningless.

quote:

---

How did we get HDTV quickly enough, but (what i'm going to call HD internet) ain't happening if it is expensive to lay down these wires?

---

They were planning to expand capacity. If there's capacity, people will fill it. The key is to try to outpace it. Most of the problems aren't at the backbone side, they're at your local ISP. They've got the pipe agreement with the tier 1 provider. You can't throttle inbound bandwidth, only outbound. Once it's reached your interface, you'd tapped. They request the peer throttle traffic. Otherwise, your ISP would be overloaded, and everyone loses.

quote:

---

Google seems just fine laying down fiber in smaller cities such as Austin and St. Louis. Again, RCN was $50/mo for $50mbs with no issues during peak time in Chicago...on a coaxial. How is it, that AT&T is unable to provide a superior service with better wire (Fiber)?

---

I'd like to see Google's profitability as well on that one. Fiber/Coax/Copper is just media. It's about how the infrastructure is built out that matters. For example: I run 10G capable fiber to every user, except there are 10,000 users and they're actually only sharing a single 1G uplink to the Tier 1 provider. Or, I run 1G capable fiber to every user, for 5K users, and they share a 2G uplink. Which is actually better for the user?

Howitzer the problem isn't the connection to your house it's on the backbone of the isp. Even though you have fiber or something capable of 100mps or whatever the bottle neck is on the ISPs backbone during peak hours. If Google had 100 users connected with fiber capable of 1gps but only a 10 gps backbone not every user can get 1gps at the same time. When everyone gets home and turns on Netflix at the same time that backbone will be maxed out.