Net Neutrality

[Ben]

I thought this was a good executive summary on net neutrality. This is only one aspect of it, but it's one the "social fairness" people ignore. It's especially significant to me, because as I keep (possibly annoyingly by now) mentioning around here, the Googles and Facebooks are getting a little scary to me.

On Futurama, Mom's Friendly Robots Company was supposed to be a dig at Apple, but really, they were in many ways showing us Google and Facebook (and I guess Netflix and Amazon as well) regarding the face of a company being "socially aware", while in the back rooms, they look at how they can solidify their empires and kill competition.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian

[230RN]

Going-in Premise One:

(1) They're all friggin' evil anyhow.

There is no Premise Two.

[Hawkmoon]

Going-in Premise One:

(1) They're all friggin' evil anyhow.

There is no Premise Two.

Agreed.

[charby]

I'm kind of torn, what is going to keep a Tier 3 cable provider that offers Internet, from dicking around with prices of streaming companies. Especially when they are the sole provider in communities of high speed internet.

For example Mediacom has a lot of communities tied up in Iowa for cable/HS Internet, what is to keep them from throttling Sling or Hulu unless they pay more for the speed streaming requires? Mediacom has done a good job of preventing competition through municipal contracts, pole leasing, etc.

[MechAg94]

But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out.  Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it. 

[charby]

Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it. 

I agree but it takes a lot of money to set up an HS ISP.

[MikeB]

I'm kind of torn, what is going to keep a Tier 3 cable provider that offers Internet, from dicking around with prices of streaming companies. Especially when they are the sole provider in communities of high speed internet.

For example Mediacom has a lot of communities tied up in Iowa for cable/HS Internet, what is to keep them from throttling Sling or Hulu unless they pay more for the speed streaming requires? Mediacom has done a good job of preventing competition through municipal contracts, pole leasing, etc.

There is your answer. That stuff shouldn’t be legal. Local municipalities shouldn’t be able to dictate monopolies on services.

[charby]

There is your answer. That stuff shouldn’t be legal. Local municipalities shouldn’t be able to dictate monopolies on services.

Shouldn't be but it is. I think it goes back to the early days of Community Antenna Television (CATV).

[MechAg94]

Shouldn't be but it is. I think it goes back to the early days of Community Antenna Television (CATV).

Yep.  And until someone comes in with wireless or satellite becomes better, there may not be a good answer.  I still think adding more regulation/monopoly on top of that is not a good answer.

[charby]

Yep.  And until someone comes in with wireless or satellite becomes better, there may not be a good answer.  I still think adding more regulation/monopoly on top of that is not a good answer.

We got an independent guy where I live that is doing wireless and expanding. I use him for my house, 10 mbs with no data caps for $50 a month. He is slowly expanding in town and really taken off in the small towns 20-30 miles from town.

He also made a public statement he will not restrict anyone's traffic.

He would be in more parts of town, but some of the older neighborhoods have some big tree issues that block the signals without going to a really tall antennas on the houses.

[RoadKingLarry]

My electric Co-Op has a subsidiary that is running fiber to the home. High speed internet, phone and TV. Since they already own the right of way and poles that isn't an issue.
I've got rock solid (so far)100Mb fiber to the home for $48 a month. I can get up to 1Gb but I have no need for that much bandwidth.
As a comparison, my previous DSL was a sketchy 3Mb through "the phone company" for $39 a month (which included my employee discount).

[230RN]

My electric Co-Op has a subsidiary that is running fiber to the home. High speed internet, phone and TV. Since they already own the right of way and poles that isn't an issue.
I've got rock solid (so far)100Mb fiber to the home for $48 a month. I can get up to 1Gb but I have no need for that much bandwidth.
As a comparison, my previous DSL was a sketchy 3Mb through "the phone company" for $39 a month (which included my employee discount).

I believe the City of Longmont Colorado just got done with that all over town.  Son2 seemed to be pretty impressed with it when it got to his house.

The cable providers had conniption fits over it according to what I heard and tried every bick in the trook to prevent it.

[RoadKingLarry]

I believe the City of Longmont Colorado just got done with that all over town.  Son2 seemed to be pretty impressed with it when it got to his house.

The cable providers had conniption fits over it according to what I heard and tried every bick in the trook to prevent it.

If it is the city as provider I'm dead set against it.

[charby]

If it is the city as provider I'm dead set against it.

I used to live in a town where the utility company was owned by the city. It was awesome, rates were cheaper than the private industry side, employees were paid more, and mediacom pitched a fit when they got into the cable/internet business because they had to lower their rates and pay the workers more.

[Scout26]

But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out.  Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


The problem is not Mediacom, but the local .gov's that grant them a monopoly....

[Fitz]

I love how the situation we're in is because of local government subsidized and encouraged monopolies, FCC regulation and overregulation... and people want to chuck more government on a government created problem

[BlueStarLizzard]

I love how the situation we're in is because of local government subsidized and encouraged monopolies, FCC regulation and overregulation... and people want to chuck more government on a government created problem

Isn't that how we've always done things?

[RevDisk]

But creating another highly regulated environment on top of another does not cancel them out.  Better to eliminate the local monopoly or figure out how to bypass it. 

It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G35g5HQVjpU&feature=push-u&attr_tag=AIZa6kTN7b9VVf6F-6
Crowder had a discussion on this.  

IMO, all the newer technology is moving toward making it easier to bypass these monopolies.  I agree that it will be difficult to get rid of them.  However, very few people like them which is demonstrated when alternatives are made available and the monopoly loses customers.  

[MechAg94]

It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.

Water is an entirely different animal with different regulations.  No point in even bringing that into the discussion, IMO. 

My state already has a mostly free market on electricity (in most areas).  For cable TV, satellite options have been available for quite some time and internet options are getting better.  What I see for internet is wireless and other alternatives are becoming more available with better speeds and I hear satellite may be a better option in the near future.  Yes, there may not be much option in your area right now, but give it time. 

[Scout26]

It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.

They didn't have a problem allowing them to run cables for cable TV in the 1980's and 1990's, when there were already phone lines going to every house.   There's plenty of space on utility poles* for fiber and/or newer tech to go into houses that choose them over Phone/Cable providers.




* - or via satellite or cell towers which would bypasses the entire need for .gov created monopolies.  Even Charby mentioned a company doing the cellular thing for intewebz access....

[dogmush]

It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house. It's not feasible. You're going to have a local monopoly. Though the process there could be significantly more transparent. Good luck getting legislatures to ban ISPs bribing politicians and municipal governments.

I live on the edge of a major city.  Not the sticks, but not "in town".  I have my choice of 4 High-speed ISP's depending on what I want to pay and get.  At least three of them are using different infrastructure.  Closer to town, there's a couple more.

At least in FL, even in the sticks, you can usually get at least one land-based broadband, and satellite.  There's also 4g cellular data in much of the state.

We'd be better served busting the infrastructure monopolies than trying to pretend the .gov can do a good job picking ISP winners and losers.

[230RN]

I've always had fantasies about running a system of repeaters based on infra-red.  Line of sight, but so are µwaves, pretty much.

Maybe I should, nowadays.

Just a fantasy, never really worked out the technical aspects of it.

Terry, 230RN
 

[charby]

They didn't have a problem allowing them to run cables for cable TV in the 1980's and 1990's, when there were already phone lines going to every house.   There's plenty of space on utility poles* for fiber and/or newer tech to go into houses that choose them over Phone/Cable providers.




* - or via satellite or cell towers which would bypasses the entire need for .gov created monopolies.  Even Charby mentioned a company doing the cellular thing for intewebz access....

The way I understood it was so it would be worth their while to invest in the infrastructure into those communities. Also if competition came into some of those smaller communities, the Tier 3 might also be the Tier 2 provider.

The option I use is not cellular, the Tier 3 puts up towers in town and you have a 6" addressable dish on your house to receive the signal. Range is pretty limited and you have to have a clear line of site to the tower. I almost couldn't do it because of a tree in my backyard, but the owner was able to get the dish up high enough on my 30' TV aerial to receive it. Side note: A storm last spring took care of the tree.

[charby]

Probably should of put a 30 year sunset on the catv monopolies.