OT: net neutrality vote today.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:26 PM ^
You hate 2.5 GHz due to "attenuation" but at the same time say most 5G will be rolled out over mmW? mmW is in the 30-300 GHz range which won't propagate through human flesh.
You make no sense at all.
5G will be built out over 2.5-3.5 GHz for the most part, Sprint has the beachfront property for 5G. What they don't have is $ to build it out.
December 15th, 2017 at 1:13 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
They don't have a network.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:28 AM ^
Agreed that it's mostly bad.
Although, is it possible that there's a silver lining? Maybe the trolls on this board will better allocate their bandwidth and go elsewhere?
December 14th, 2017 at 8:30 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 3:41 PM ^
But then, wouldn't the "Cable Neutrality" equivalent mean cable companies have to give customers access to all channels in 1 cable package, with the only tiers being speed levels?
Pay $100 / month for standard def cable, pay $300 / month for high def cable.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:35 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:16 AM ^
Exactly who I'd trust on this one, no dog in the fight.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:23 AM ^
That doesn't include by far the largest traffic hogs: ISPs cable divisions. They don't include the massive ammounts of bandwidth their full channel list of broadband broadcasts take up. For instance, cable companies are literally sending hundreds of HD streams to every customer 24/7.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:37 AM ^
You mean they utilize their own infrastructure to deliver a service while footing the bill for it and aren't reliant on the framework of another service while utilizing half of its resources? You don't say.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
They only send HD streams currently in use -- it's dynamic.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:37 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:11 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:24 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 11:52 AM ^
You seem to think that repealing net neutrality woud only impact some ad servers and not others, but I can't for the life of me figure out how you reached that conclusion. When net neutrality goes, it will effect the entire industry.
December 14th, 2017 at 12:01 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 8:44 AM ^
is that we will get to see if (or more likely, how much) this sucks in the next few years, and then begin the much harder push to fix it with laws (instead of hoping for a friendly FCC).
December 15th, 2017 at 4:12 AM ^
we aren't getting?
If we pay more for netflix we buy less porn. Sure that's good. But we don't spend those dollars on someone elses potentially better netflckian app/content either
There is danger here.
It's not going to end the world (we are doing that in other ways) but it will change the way we see that end.
Granted it won't prevent the argument, that is your point - right? I agree. If you are saying we will be able to reverse a bad decision if it's bad? Well .. maybe. The stakes are not trivial... even if it is just lost time. The loss of information is real for every dollar squeezed from the end user, content provider and low ball innovator.
There is a call to action here. But that's just my opinion man.
December 14th, 2017 at 8:48 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 8:57 AM ^
That's a BS argument. Any changes to the regulatory framework would require an FCC rule making procedure. As part of that rule making procedure, the FCC could reclassify to whatever they wanted aka redefining to Title I does nothing to prevent your doomsday scenario. NN, and the OIO upon which it is based, has literally nothing to do with any of that BS. It has to do purely with repealing NN and handing the ISPs free reign.
And the FCC didn't make a regulatory decision to define the internet within the 1934 act. As confirmed by courts AND congress AND the executive branch (LITERALLY EVERY PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!), the internet was by definition under the FCC's authority.
There is no talking past each other going on, there is just a BS argument with literally no legal merit from the anti-NN side.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:00 AM ^
Guess this is the cable company's response to all the cord cutters out there. Hope to god that this fails miserably.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:06 AM ^
It would be okay (or at least not nearly as bad) if there was actually a market for internet, but in most areas there are only one or two providers (which is an effective monopoly). It's not good for us end users.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:11 AM ^
Will we survive? We are playing another bowl game in Florida.
*It's also just a vote on whether or not the internet is a public utility, not net neutrality. If the doom scenarios come to pass we can easily pass net neutrality laws.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:12 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^
RE:5
That's likely because no one believes that any of the R committee members are anything but purely bought and paid for. Wheeler was much more of an unknown. Pai has literally been a puppet for ISPs since day 1 with no chance of anything people would do changing his policies. Instead, protests are focusing on making sure Trump/Republicans own the repeal and trying to influence members of congress to over rule the FCC as well as funding the various lawsuits based on incorrect procedures, lack of evidence for the change, and the capricious nature of the change.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:11 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:24 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:32 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:04 AM ^
Thats not true at all. Have you read the bill in its entirety?? There are still regulations put forth that will require companies to withstand certain speeds. Besides, think about what youre saying. Youre UPS, you halt your delivery speeds for shoes because you dont likes shoes, I go to Fedex and get my shoes the next day. This will cause big companies to be held accountable. It will open the market for the little guy to come in and create a new form of internet, ones thats not based on wires being dug into the ground....
December 14th, 2017 at 10:30 AM ^
They are literally unenforcable under Title I as demonstrated in Verizon vs FCC. And wires are about the only viable method of high speed broadband networking service except P2P wireless which is as expensive if not more and has many complications.
December 14th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
on the Internet backbone and last mile being as accessible as are public roads which is definitely not the case.
Communications business has always either been or wanted to be monopolies due to the high capital costs. The FCC broke up ATT's long distance monopoly and voice rates dropped from dollars per minute to basically free. They later unbundled access to the tisted pairs via UNEL/P.
Giving providers with end-to-end control of networks oligopoly powers is not good for consumers or the economy in general. Maintaining NN is one way to help ensure they don't abuse their nearly monopoly powers.
December 14th, 2017 at 1:44 PM ^
BL, you live a fantasy world. It sounds nice though.
December 15th, 2017 at 8:47 AM ^
December 15th, 2017 at 9:49 AM ^
So you made it to the end of this, with people very clearly explaining the issue, yet you still don't get it. Does it hurt?
His "point" is fucking stupid, and isn't based in reality. Competition in this sector doesn't exist, or all intents and purposes, outside of very few, very narrow markets. The vast majority of the population will benefit in no way whatsoever. In fact, you're very likely to get less, and pay more than you have been. Cable companies now, they'll do really well.
I don't even know why I'm responding to you at this point. People are fucking stupid. Fucking. Stupid.
December 15th, 2017 at 9:55 AM ^
I agree that competition does not exist in the sector now. And that's the real problem here, not net neutrality. This is the point I've been making all along, TIMMMAAY. There's many causes for competition not existing - some are logistical challenges, and some are due to government cronyism and protection of monopolies/oligopolies. These are the facts, and it's a complicated issue.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^
But you'll have to pay per pull.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:50 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:31 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:46 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 1:45 PM ^
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
December 14th, 2017 at 5:30 PM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 10:00 AM ^
Except they wont do that. No private company is going to turn customer away. Your scenario is dumbfounded. They are running a business, this whole fear of corporations taking over the world is so stupid...
December 14th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^
Except they have ALREADY LITERALLY DONE THAT.
December 14th, 2017 at 4:48 PM ^
There is literally a case in front of the Supreme Court right now about a private company turning a customer away because they were gay. Are you living under a rock?
December 16th, 2017 at 1:36 AM ^
The Ben Thompson article at Stratechery posted elsewhere in this thread: <https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/>
brought up a 2005 case involving Madison River Communication. The idea is that "foreclosing a service that competes with an ISP’s own service is a clear antitrust violation" and the FCC can therefore fine and order a cease and desist to said company, which is what happened in that case.
So if I understand that right, it seems like regulations against anti-competitive procedures already exist and would proclude Comcast limiting your access to NetFlix to force you to use Hulu instead (since Hulu and Netflix are competing services).
Edit: Reading more in the thread I see that a possible issue with this is that someone would still need lawyers to file the anti-trust case or complain to the FCC and that in general is probably not trivial or cheap. Only those with sufficient resources are able to follow through with the possible legal recourse.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:31 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
December 14th, 2017 at 9:47 AM ^
Yeah, they totally failed at that whole not having rivers catch fire thing. Those river fires were so awesome, we should still have them but that damn government regulation prevents them.
December 14th, 2017 at 9:54 AM ^