Net neutrality ends June 11, Senate Democrats force last-minute vote

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 76
    hagarhagar Posts: 113member
    Ending Net neutrality opens the door for censorship. Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech? Before Net Neutrality was enacted, here's what was happening:
    2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

    2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

    2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

    2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the ok time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.

    2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from IqSPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

    2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

    2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube. 

    2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.

    2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

    2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

    2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

    2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

    2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 42 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    hagar said:
    Ending Net neutrality opens the door for censorship. Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech? Before Net Neutrality was enacted, here's what was happening:
    2005 – North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

    2005 – Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

    2007 – AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

    2007 to 2009 – AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the ok time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.

    2009 – Google Voice app faced similar issues from IqSPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

    2010 – Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

    2011 – MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube. 

    2011 to 2013 – AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.

    2012 – AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

    2012 – Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

    2014 – AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

    2014 – Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

    2014 – T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition.
    So, you just plagiarized this text without crediting your source. Bad move.

    https://wccftech.com/net-neutrality-abuses-timeline/
  • Reply 43 of 76
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,225member
    I know, let's call it 'Net Neutrality' that way they won't notice that we want to create a less neutral internet.
    SpamSandwichtallest skil
  • Reply 44 of 76
    minisu1980minisu1980 Posts: 131member
    Looks like a city of 150k doesn’t fit the rural people are responsible for their own poor decisions narrative.  My parents lived in a rural area where maybe 500ft meant the different between dial up or fiber. Even though they live in the township that had the fiber through a privately owned telco, because of the regional map AT&T drew up they could not use the other company or rather the other company could not provide to them even thought the infrastructure was in place. After years of dealing with this, I bought them an $5k cellular booster for their property and we got them home service through Verizon 4G and they got to pay $180 a month for like 8GB of data but at least they had a usable form of high speed internet. Point here is that living where they did was their choice, the regional monopolies stifling competition were not.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 45 of 76
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 5,001administrator
    bluefire1 said:
    We're keeping this conversation open -- for now. Before you delve, read the commenting guidelines, conveniently linked below.

    Be civil, don't instigate, and don't escalate.
    Mike— why not have a little more faith in us and consider leaving all threads initially open. 
     A few bad apples (pun intended) shouldn’t  prevent the rest of us from having a civil discussion, political or otherwise. 
    We have sufficient proof that this is a bad idea. 

    That said, every time we tighten the restrictions, we gradually loosen them, until things go sideways again.
  • Reply 46 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,285member
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    The way to prevent monopolies is to make sure local markets aren't protected from competition. All monopolies in US history came about because they were protected FROM competition.

    Also, "Net Neutrality" is a fake solution. It was enacted very late in the second half of the previous administration as a bone tossed to special interests. Things were fine before it was enacted and they'll be better after it's gone.
    If a company as deep-pocketed as Google can be prevented by regulations and rules from competing with the Comcasts and Verizon's how would you suggest a startup with a great product and idea and willing to even break-even for awhile do so? They cannot. 10 years from now when a satellite system is in place to feed 5G (or 6G by then)  it might become more realistic.  Dumping NN now is getting far ahead of itself, wrong time even IF the idea may be right. It's an anti-consumer move against what is today an essential service that will not result in better pricing, service or competition IMHO.
  • Reply 47 of 76
    frankiefrankie Posts: 373member
    Hurray, its time to go back to the way it was which resulted in the typical person seeing their internet speed increased by 1000X over the last 20 years while the price remained about the same.  NN was "solving" a problem that never existed so the govt could have more control over us.  The less Gov't interference in our lives the better. 

    Do not let them scare you into thinking this will make things worse since it didn't happen before NN was passed and will not happen once its finally gone - free markets rule. 
    You think there is a 'free market'?  How cute.  
  • Reply 48 of 76
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 358member
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
  • Reply 49 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    gatorguy said:
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    The way to prevent monopolies is to make sure local markets aren't protected from competition. All monopolies in US history came about because they were protected FROM competition.

    Also, "Net Neutrality" is a fake solution. It was enacted very late in the second half of the previous administration as a bone tossed to special interests. Things were fine before it was enacted and they'll be better after it's gone.
    If a company as deep-pocketed as Google can be prevented by regulations and rules from competing with the Comcasts and Verizon's how would you suggest a startup with a great product and idea and willing to even break-even for awhile do so? They cannot. 10 years from now when a satellite system is in place to feed 5G (or 6G by then)  it might become more realistic.  Dumping NN now is getting far ahead of itself, wrong time even IF the idea may be right. It's an anti-consumer move against what is today an essential service that will not result in better pricing, service or competition IMHO.
    Know which search engine “David” competes with the Google “Goliath”? DuckDuckGo. 

    Wherever competition exists, there will always be alternatives and no monopolies.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 50 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,285member
    gatorguy said:
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    The way to prevent monopolies is to make sure local markets aren't protected from competition. All monopolies in US history came about because they were protected FROM competition.

    Also, "Net Neutrality" is a fake solution. It was enacted very late in the second half of the previous administration as a bone tossed to special interests. Things were fine before it was enacted and they'll be better after it's gone.
    If a company as deep-pocketed as Google can be prevented by regulations and rules from competing with the Comcasts and Verizon's how would you suggest a startup with a great product and idea and willing to even break-even for awhile do so? They cannot. 10 years from now when a satellite system is in place to feed 5G (or 6G by then)  it might become more realistic.  Dumping NN now is getting far ahead of itself, wrong time even IF the idea may be right. It's an anti-consumer move against what is today an essential service that will not result in better pricing, service or competition IMHO.
    Know which search engine “David” competes with the Google “Goliath”? DuckDuckGo. 

    Wherever competition exists, there will always be alternatives and no monopolies.
    Spam, those are hardly equivalent as both Google and DDG can use the same pipeline making competition more viable. Are you proposing that new internet service providers be granted access to the fiber/copper pipelines already in place to allow them to compete?
    If not do you expect more providers to be available to you personally in the very near future because NN is ending?
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 51 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    badmonk said:
    Personally, if NN rules are repealed than my hope is that Apple, Google and Amazon will pool their resourses and build out true high speed internet services without throttling of any service throughout the country and the world.

    Most of us would jump on it and abandon the price gouging ISPs like Comcast etc.

    With NN out of the way, we will pay more and get less no matter what the free market zealots say...

    I just moved to an urban adjacent neighborhood and I enquired about fiberoptic internet.  None was available.  I only had the choice of an adequate internet service with Comcast or shitty DSL with AT&T.  To get adequate speed on Comcast, they forced me to accept a bundle I did not want or need.

    For those of you that oppose NN for your idealism of true markets, come down to the real world.
    Agreed, those companies were free to do that before net neutrality, and Google even tried to do it, however the regional monopolies that have been given to the encumbants (for political donations?) made entering the market not profitable for competitors even one with pockets as deep as Google’s. Truthfully, I can only lay part of the blame on the broken ISP market place, Goggle has a almost uncanny knack for just giving up on all their “change the world ideas” and a pretty poor track record of be able to run a profitable business outside of search.
    You're on the right track. The companies most dependent on high-speed or widespread Internet services, such as Facebook, Netflix, Google, etc. could very easily start buying up cable or fiber systems in cooperation or in competition.
    That is probably the only way to accomplish this in the current legal/political environment, buy up monopolies so you can have your own. I doubt the big providers who own the vast majority of the market would take even a premium buyout price. There is far more money to be made by suppressing free speech and competing services which the current administration has no issue with, ala the end of net neutrality which was put in place to prevent this very thing.
    The way to prevent monopolies is to make sure local markets aren't protected from competition. All monopolies in US history came about because they were protected FROM competition.

    Also, "Net Neutrality" is a fake solution. It was enacted very late in the second half of the previous administration as a bone tossed to special interests. Things were fine before it was enacted and they'll be better after it's gone.
    If a company as deep-pocketed as Google can be prevented by regulations and rules from competing with the Comcasts and Verizon's how would you suggest a startup with a great product and idea and willing to even break-even for awhile do so? They cannot. 10 years from now when a satellite system is in place to feed 5G (or 6G by then)  it might become more realistic.  Dumping NN now is getting far ahead of itself, wrong time even IF the idea may be right. It's an anti-consumer move against what is today an essential service that will not result in better pricing, service or competition IMHO.
    Know which search engine “David” competes with the Google “Goliath”? DuckDuckGo. 

    Wherever competition exists, there will always be alternatives and no monopolies.
    Spam, those are hardly equivalent as both Google and DDG can use the same pipeline making competition more viable. Are you proposing that new internet service providers be granted access to the fiber/copper pipelines already in place to allow them to compete?
    If not do you expect more providers to be available to you personally in the very near future because NN is ending?
    I’m saying that assuming that whatever imagined “ills” or shortcomings there are today will never be addressed is not the way to look at this. As long as competition is not suppressed via laws or regulations there will be alternatives. People think the only way to access the Internet is over a cable or fiber optic? There’s satellite. There’s mesh networks. There will soon be even better low latency satellite-based service. There may be other means coming that I’m not aware of yet. Competition doesn’t mean that the alternatives will be instantly available.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 52 of 76
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 5,001administrator
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.
  • Reply 53 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

  • Reply 54 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,285member
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 55 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    gatorguy said:
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    Satellite Internet will happen unless Musk runs out of money and good will from his investors. However, as I say, as long as existing players are not protected from competition there will be alternatives. It's entirely possible that people who choose to live in remote areas, or in areas which do not have close proximity to the Internet backbone may not see what they view as competitively priced competition for years. It is what it is.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 56 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,285member
    gatorguy said:
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    Satellite Internet will happen unless Musk runs out of money and good will from his investors. However, as I say, as long as existing players are not protected from competition there will be alternatives. It's entirely possible that people who choose to live in remote areas, or in areas which do not have close proximity to the Internet backbone may not see what they view as competitively priced competition for years. It is what it is.
    So what would be the argument for discontinuing NN now? To what end? Those same big providers are also petitioning the FCC now to allow them to raise their pricing for those up and coming smaller ISP's to use even that surplus and unneeded copper bandwidth that they need access to in order to even try to compete. 

    So discontinue NN and at the same time raise prices to small locally competing ISP's. Great plan eh? 
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/customers-of-small-isps-could-pay-more-if-attverizon-lobby-gets-its-way/
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 57 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    Satellite Internet will happen unless Musk runs out of money and good will from his investors. However, as I say, as long as existing players are not protected from competition there will be alternatives. It's entirely possible that people who choose to live in remote areas, or in areas which do not have close proximity to the Internet backbone may not see what they view as competitively priced competition for years. It is what it is.
    So what would be the argument for discontinuing NN now? To what end? Those same big providers are also petitioning the FCC now to allow them to raise their pricing for those up and coming smaller ISP's to use even that surplus and unneeded copper bandwidth that they need access to in order to even try to compete. 

    So discontinue NN and at the same time raise prices to small locally competing ISP's. Great plan eh? 
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/customers-of-small-isps-could-pay-more-if-attverizon-lobby-gets-its-way/
    What is the real reason to discontinue "NN"? It's not the place of the Federal government to subsidize Internet service. Full stop. If the taxpayers in the states determine they want to vote to raise their own taxes to subsidize such things, that's up to them.

    Subsidies are bad economics and they're bad policy. They cause price distortions, encourage the misallocation of tax dollars and decisions are made for political reasons. Never a good combination.
    edited May 2018
  • Reply 58 of 76
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,285member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    Satellite Internet will happen unless Musk runs out of money and good will from his investors. However, as I say, as long as existing players are not protected from competition there will be alternatives. It's entirely possible that people who choose to live in remote areas, or in areas which do not have close proximity to the Internet backbone may not see what they view as competitively priced competition for years. It is what it is.
    So what would be the argument for discontinuing NN now? To what end? Those same big providers are also petitioning the FCC now to allow them to raise their pricing for those up and coming smaller ISP's to use even that surplus and unneeded copper bandwidth that they need access to in order to even try to compete. 

    So discontinue NN and at the same time raise prices to small locally competing ISP's. Great plan eh? 
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/customers-of-small-isps-could-pay-more-if-attverizon-lobby-gets-its-way/
    What is the real reason to discontinue "NN"? It's not the place of the Federal government to subsidize Internet service. Full stop. If the taxpayers in the states determine they want to vote to raise their own taxes to subsidize such things, that's up to them.

    Subsidies are bad economics and they're bad policy. They cause price distortions, encourage the misallocation of tax dollars and decisions are made for political reasons. Never a good combination.
    Subsidizing? 
    Soli
  • Reply 59 of 76
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,499member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    jdgaz said:
    Once 5G comes around I would guess a lot of folks will abandon typical ISP's. Lets let the market run things.
    Doubt it, as long as there are mobile-style caps. That and the latency is still pretty bad.

    Elon Musk's satellite Internet service will reportedly feature latency similar to wired:
    SpaceX’s plan for low orbits would greatly reduce latency. As we’ve previously written, current satellite Internet systems suffer from high latency, meaning that data packets must travel great distances between Earth and satellites, resulting in noticeable delays for Internet users.
    SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/


    5G promises latency of about 9ms:

    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/atts-5g-trials-produce-gigabit-speeds-and-9ms-latency/


    So, satellite-based Internet would be slower than cable or 5G, however we're talking about milliseconds here, not seconds.

    Since there's only been two test sats approved so far we're talking years out to get to the 4000+ needed, and that's assuming everything works as designed. Just as I said earlier Mr Pai is getting ahead of himself. It will be some time before viable competitors are able to come to market, years and not months.

    Dumping NN now is really bad timing and only serves to enable a period of greed for the entrenched providers while consumer market options are still in testing for quite a while longer. There's no competition right around the corner.
    Satellite Internet will happen unless Musk runs out of money and good will from his investors. However, as I say, as long as existing players are not protected from competition there will be alternatives. It's entirely possible that people who choose to live in remote areas, or in areas which do not have close proximity to the Internet backbone may not see what they view as competitively priced competition for years. It is what it is.
    So what would be the argument for discontinuing NN now? To what end? Those same big providers are also petitioning the FCC now to allow them to raise their pricing for those up and coming smaller ISP's to use even that surplus and unneeded copper bandwidth that they need access to in order to even try to compete. 

    So discontinue NN and at the same time raise prices to small locally competing ISP's. Great plan eh? 
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/customers-of-small-isps-could-pay-more-if-attverizon-lobby-gets-its-way/
    What is the real reason to discontinue "NN"? It's not the place of the Federal government to subsidize Internet service. Full stop. If the taxpayers in the states determine they want to vote to raise their own taxes to subsidize such things, that's up to them.

    Subsidies are bad economics and they're bad policy. They cause price distortions, encourage the misallocation of tax dollars and decisions are made for political reasons. Never a good combination.
    Subsidizing? 
    Yes. Subsidizing.

    "It is amazing how many people still fall for the argument that, if life is unfair, the answer is to turn more money and power over to politicians. Since life has always been unfair, for thousands of years and in countries around the world, where does that lead us?"  —Thomas Sowell
  • Reply 60 of 76
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    ceek74 said:
    I literally have a choice of one ISP.  Great choices.
    The “net neutrality” “law” did nothing to change that.
    jd_in_sb said:
    Was there an actual problem that caused Net Neutraliy to be enacted or was it enacted because of fears of a potential problem?
    It was expressly enacted as a means to censor the entire Internet and monitor and control any future speech spread thereon. It’s a statement of truth. It’s what the bill itself says. It had nothing at all to do with “net neutrality” as a concept. I’m probably the only one here who had the time to read the damn thing, of course; people have too much of import in their lives to flip through the multi-thousand page “laws” that get forced on us at gunpoint these days.
    Funny, true freedom is the free market. 
    So how’s about the government actually start enforcing real freedom? How about they stop the collusion (both between ISPs and with local governments) and FORCE a free market to exist? The “net neutrality” bill did NOTHING about that. It being gone is a godsend to the tattered remnants of America. One fewer illegal law to get rid of in the future. That’s one of the few tasks the federal government is supposed to be doing–protecting the American people from all threats, foreign and domestic.
    Not to mention when you create more rules, you then have to hire more useless tax draining buerocrats to enforce those rules. 

    Ah, but that’s the goal.

    volcan said:
    Yeah, but, cable offers unlimited data…
    In what world (country) do you live? Not in the US. Monthly caps range from 100 GB to 250 or so. That’s just “high enough that most people won’t notice” and “you’re unfairly hurting everyone else if you use more.”
    hagar said:
    Ending Net neutrality opens the door for censorship.
    The “law” you’re whining about was nothing but censorship. It wasn’t “net neutrality.” And don’t get me fucking started on censorship on the Internet, with or without the topic.
    Why would anyone support an attack on freedom of speech?
    Ask Google. And the ISPs. And the domain name registrars. Et. al.
    I know, let's call it 'Net Neutrality' that way they won't notice that we want to create a less neutral internet.
    Standard commie tactic. “If the name has bad connotations, change it to words with good connotations. It doesn’t matter that the good words now have no real definition because we’ve poisoned them, because we’re building a new social order in the first place and killing anyone who resists.” War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
    edited May 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.