Obama wants to make the internet a utility

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Yeah, your situation pretty much sucks. I'm sorry about that.
What are the barriers to entry (besides legal challenges which can be dealt with via legislation) for other ISPs to get into that market, which would seem to be ripe for competition?
Is it just laying the cables? Would "utiliziting" the cables solve that problem and leave ISPs to compete?
I am not trying to be a smart aleck here. You obviously have more expertise in the technology than I do.
remember back on page 1 where I referenced a "last mile" problem? That's the barrier. The last mile, is the stretch however long, that makes it physically to your house. Right now Comcast is the only one with a pipe large enough with current technology. Wireless, DSL, AT&T "fiber" (in quote because it isn't really fiber) are all options, and all classified as "broadband" legally but none are enough.

The funny thing here is that although I am an outlier in 2014, the rest of you are catching up, whether you realize it or not you will be using my amounts of data soon enough (and I'll likely double that :) ) All that means is that this problem I am having, you will too it's just a matter of time.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
remember back on page 1 where I referenced a "last mile" problem? That's the barrier. The last mile, is the stretch however long, that makes it physically to your house. Right now Comcast is the only one with a pipe large enough with current technology. Wireless, DSL, AT&T "fiber" (in quote because it isn't really fiber) are all options, and all classified as "broadband" legally but none are enough.
Gotcha. My house is about 1.6 miles from nTelos (my ISP). So, you're saying that nTelos owns the pipe that connects my house to their hub? Also, if some other ISP wants to compete for my business, that ISP must lay its own pipe from their hub to my house? I can see how this would get expensive for someone in the country. Comcast was an option (but I opted to go with a cheaper ISP, just on principle). Does that mean Comcast has a parallel cable leading to my house? My old boss lived way out in the county, and the only option he had was Hughes Net (via satellite). Connection speed was slow and it was expensive.
The funny thing here is that although I am an outlier in 2014, the rest of you are catching up, whether you realize it or not you will be using my amounts of data soon enough (and I'll likely double that :) ) All that means is that this problem I am having, you will too it's just a matter of time.
I'm not sure if I will ever get to the point you now occupy, but point taken.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
The funny thing here is that although I am an outlier in 2014, the rest of you are catching up, whether you realize it or not you will be using my amounts of data soon enough (and I'll likely double that :) ) All that means is that this problem I am having, you will too it's just a matter of time.
So, the infrastructure has remained substantially unchanged since the inception of the Internet?
 

TideMom2Boys

Hall of Fame
Nov 17, 2010
20,214
398
102
Alabama
No, if Internet were to be classified as a utility, you would have more options as to who you could pick as your ISP. Okay so as it is now, Comcast has their infrastructure in place in town A, Cox has town b 400 miles away. If Cox wanted to serve the people of town A, they would need to install their own infrastructure, wires, cables etc side by side with Comcast. Which is incredibly expensive and inefficient. Were internet become a utility, Cox could operate within comcast's infrastructure. And so could Time Warner, or AttUverse, or whoever. They would simply pay a fee to whomever had ownership of said infrastructure. So what this does is gives consumers more options in who they want for their ISP, which will create price wars and companies will start offering higher speeds for cheaper rates. Hopefully. That's the idea anyways, it may work out like a gentlemen's agreement where they all keep their packages around he same price, but that remains to be seen. It also prevents the FCC from creating the fast lanes. Which Jon does a great job of explaining on the last page.

all that said, I believe we will start to see the beginning of a technological growth spurt if they allowed us consumers true high speed data transfers like South Korea just started doing. I believe they are getting ready to allow 10Gb/s broadband. You guys have no idea the advancement capabilities we could be looking at if we had that kind of speed without limits.

Believe it or not, hollywood has a lot to do with this too. They don't want their movies and music being pirated, and if we had GB/s broadband, you could download a whole movie in a blink of an eye.


Ok, thanks for the explanation.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
So, the infrastructure has remained substantially unchanged since the inception of the Internet?
For the most part yes. Companies have an issue with trying to push more and more data over cables that can't support it. Coax and twisted pair have been in the ground at most houses that can get phone or cable for some time. ISPs will lay new cable to the neighborhood, often fiber, then use the existing cabling to cover that last mile.

Technologies such as DSL variants were able to make use of the phone wiring through digital and the cable companies have managed to cram more data down coax.

That isn't to say that the parts getting the signal to your neighborhood or general area haven't changed, just that that last mile has remained relatively stagnant.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Have you seen the Bill that will be signed into Law by the POTUS? Is it going to be like the Affordable Care Act where you will need to read it after it's signed into law to find out what's in it. Hopefully, nothing will happen before January 3, 2015.
If I am not mistaken there is no law being introduced. He made it known that he prefers reclassification and the FCC chairman has the last say.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Gotcha. My house is about 1.6 miles from nTelos (my ISP). So, you're saying that nTelos owns the pipe that connects my house to their hub? Also, if some other ISP wants to compete for my business, that ISP must lay its own pipe from their hub to my house? I can see how this would get expensive for someone in the country. Comcast was an option (but I opted to go with a cheaper ISP, just on principle). Does that mean Comcast has a parallel cable leading to my house? My old boss lived way out in the county, and the only option he had was Hughes Net (via satellite). Connection speed was slow and it was expensive.

I'm not sure if I will ever get to the point you now occupy, but point taken.
not familiar with nTelos, google only gets me to nTelos wireless, wikipedia makes some reference to wired plans that appear to be DSL in really limited markets

DSL uses your existing telephone lines to deliver digital bits over the existing old copper telephone network. DSL can be great if all the stars are aligned (you are close to the provider, your home phone system is in good repair and the local network has been well maintained)

Wireless uses the PCM Cell Phone network to do the same and is typically really expensive and very limited. Plans start at 10GB a month! they often proclaim, I'd burn through that in a day.

Comcast likely already has a line run to your house, in fact I am certain they do since you had their service at one point. They use the existing cable network often run by someone else who no longer exists that installed it in the late 70's to the 80's. My junction box has a MediaOne sticker on it, that was apparently a division of US West that through a series of acquisitions and bankruptcies came to be owned by Comcast.

You could also do hughes or dishnet. I had dishnet years ago and it was awful. It has become better (I have a buddy in the country with it) but it's far too laggy for ip phones or video calls

Long way to answer your question, but yes as it stands right now the way to get a new provider is to run a new physical line (as google is doing with fiber in some very lucky markets) or do some wireless or satellite based service.
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
http://fedscoop.com/fcc-net-neutrality-title-ii-section-706/

doesnt go go into details but there are 3 basic schools of thought: title II, section 706, or a hybrid regulation model. Each has strengths and weaknesses. To me, 706 seems the lesser of the evils
I see how 706 could be flexed to make the FCC have the power. It seems that it would take some regulatory/linguistic gymnastics though. However I am willing to acquiesce that if the FCC was willing to try 706 with the express declaration that they will revert to title II if it doesn't work might be a good way. I'm a bit concerned though that the following administration/chairman might not be willing to listen to the publics desires and not follow through with the nuclear option.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
If I am not mistaken there is no law being introduced. He made it known that he prefers reclassification and the FCC chairman has the last say.
correct

the FCC has basically already said "we'll add his comments to the pile" making the president exactly like the rest of us that signed the petition
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
For the most part yes. Companies have an issue with trying to push more and more data over cables that can't support it. Coax and twisted pair have been in the ground at most houses that can get phone or cable for some time. ISPs will lay new cable to the neighborhood, often fiber, then use the existing cabling to cover that last mile.

Technologies such as DSL variants were able to make use of the phone wiring through digital and the cable companies have managed to cram more data down coax.

That isn't to say that the parts getting the signal to your neighborhood or general area haven't changed, just that that last mile has remained relatively stagnant.
Yet those twisted pair cables have gone from carrying 10mbps to 10gbps inside homes and businesses. Twisted pairs to phone/ADSL have gone from really dial-up speed slower than 56kbps to as high as 24mbps with speeds exceeding 100mbps being developed. Uverse claims up to 45mbps, though I hate Uverse for its poor service andnot living up to its promises. Cable has gone from no internet available to 100mbps+ in many areas.
As demand has grown the supply of speed/bandwidth hasn't lagged far behind. There is still some room theoretically for growth in existing infrastructures as newer methods of using them are developed.
While fiber is great, it is currently impractical from a cost standpoint, at least in the boonies where I live. I would be happy with reliable service higher than the 12mbps I can get now. When the kids are gaming watching netflix and surfing can get a little dicey at times, so the extra cushion would be appreciated (and was when it worked, which it did not half the time, thus the fall back to 12).
I'd like more choice as I hate Uverse and would leave them in a heartbeat. I do not think reclassification will make 1 iota of difference in speed or choice and may actually hamper it. With 4k broadcasting possibly gaining steam over the next few years that increased bandwidth/speed will be even more important.
I'd like to know that when I pay for internet access that I have equal access to any content provider a that is what I intend to pay for, as do most Americans. I want someone to tell the ISP's "you can't short-change your customer by limiting the internet they pay for to those content providers you favor", but I don't want government screwing things up like the development and implementation of faster services.
 

dWarriors88

All-American
Jan 4, 2009
4,236
879
137
Tulsa, OK
Jon, this seems to be an area of expertise for you. How do you see the future of the web?

I get the feeling that the internet as we knew it for. 1995-2004ish will be looked at as sort of the 'wild wild west'. With P2P sharing, FTP Sharing, and sites like the Warez, and Mega going away, it seems like internet as we know it will be much more straight forward and with limited options and less operable features and uses. Sure websites will get more fancy and advanced, but I feel like Operating Systems in general are being programmed and built to 'do less'. Perhaps as an effort to curb novice hacking? any thoughts, or is this nonsensical?

I say novice hackers because there will always be some smart guys out thee that can make a computer do whatever they want. But obviously that would require a higher skill, thus no longer being a novice.
 
Last edited:

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
Jon, this seems to be an area of expertise for you. How do you see the future of the web?

I get the feeling that the internet as we knew it for. 1995-2004ish will be looked at as sort of the 'wild wild west'. With P2P sharing, FTP Sharing, and sites like the Warez, and Mega going away, it seems like internet as we know it will be much more straight forward and with limited options and less operable features and uses. Sure websites will get more fancy and advanced, but I feel like Operating Systems in General are being programmed and built to 'do less'. Perhaps as an effort to curb novice hacking? any thoughts, or is this nonsensical?
I'm not Jon and even less likely to be mistaken for an expert, but in a number of ways you are right. OS's and even hardware are being built to protect IP (intellectual property) and even though open source OS's like Linux bring more openness to the ecosystem even they will be limited by both some hardware tricks and limited adoption by consumers. Innovation seems to be stifled at times and yet devices like Chrome Cast are opening new doors. The wild west days are long gone and legitimate services have and will continue to replace them. Netflix is producing "TV" shows that are high quality. The "cloud" is replacing much of what has been done locally on your own computer/device. We are seeing a lot of change. Some is good. Some is not as good. Few true innovations are mixed with a lot of poor and stale attempts to offer new advancements. Same as it ever was.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Yet those twisted pair cables have gone from carrying 10mbps to 10gbps inside homes and businesses. Twisted pairs to phone/ADSL have gone from really dial-up speed slower than 56kbps to as high as 24mbps with speeds exceeding 100mbps being developed. Uverse claims up to 45mbps, though I hate Uverse for its poor service andnot living up to its promises. Cable has gone from no internet available to 100mbps+ in many areas.
As demand has grown the supply of speed/bandwidth hasn't lagged far behind. There is still some room theoretically for growth in existing infrastructures as newer methods of using them are developed.
While fiber is great, it is currently impractical from a cost standpoint, at least in the boonies where I live. I would be happy with reliable service higher than the 12mbps I can get now. When the kids are gaming watching netflix and surfing can get a little dicey at times, so the extra cushion would be appreciated (and was when it worked, which it did not half the time, thus the fall back to 12).
I'd like more choice as I hate Uverse and would leave them in a heartbeat. I do not think reclassification will make 1 iota of difference in speed or choice and may actually hamper it. With 4k broadcasting possibly gaining steam over the next few years that increased bandwidth/speed will be even more important.
I'd like to know that when I pay for internet access that I have equal access to any content provider a that is what I intend to pay for, as do most Americans. I want someone to tell the ISP's "you can't short-change your customer by limiting the internet they pay for to those content providers you favor", but I don't want government screwing things up like the development and implementation of faster services.
More information on 706 vs reclassification. http://arstechnica.com/business/201...rality-plan-except-for-that-title-ii-part/#p3

Ars Technica Article said:
"This is not game playing or sophistry on our part. We believe in having strong and enforceable Open Internet rules. We just believe that the courts have laid out a clear legal path to accomplishing that result under Section 706 which will enable the country to avoid the adverse investment and innovation impacts of Title II," Cohen wrote. "Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent. People can be for net neutrality and against Title II—that simply represents agreement on the why, but not the how."

That isn't exactly how the courts saw it when Verizon sued over the FCC's previous net neutrality rules, though. A federal appeals court opinion agreed that Section 706 lets the FCC "promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic." But there's only so far the FCC can go without reclassifying broadband as a Title II or "common carrier" service. The court struck down the FCC's prohibitions on blocking and discrimination by Internet service providers because they amount to utility or common carrier rules being imposed upon companies that haven't been classified as common carriers.

To impose such rules, the FCC has to either use Title II or prove that the rules are not common carrier obligations. In the Verizon case, the FCC "failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations," the court said.

So while Comcast argues that Section 706 provides the FCC all the authority it needs, the court decision gives the FCC and Obama reason to believe that Title II is what's really necessary.
So they have already attempted to use 706 to keep cable companies from blocking or discriminating, essentially the fast lanes you hear about, and the courts blocked it saying that 706 doesn't give that power without the internet being classified as a common carrier. So if you don't want fast lanes, the only way to guarantee that the FCC at least has the power to say "No you can't do fast lanes" and for it to be enforced, is to grant common carrier status. I am back in the boat of reclassification as they have already tried to use 706 and were knocked down.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Sure websites will get more fancy and advanced, but I feel like Operating Systems in general are being programmed and built to 'do less'. Perhaps as an effort to curb novice hacking? any thoughts, or is this nonsensical?
I think you are seeing a shift towards more consumer centric variants on cheaper hardware. Tablets, netbooks, etc are all putting enough computing power for the average user in consumers hands for much cheaper. Need to browse the web, look at pictures, and do the occasional tax/spreadsheet software? Tablet or low cost/low power netbook will do all of that, and is attractive for teh consumer at a cheap price point. There will always be the need for the computers and operating systems that can make those types of systems, so they will always be available, but are just becoming more expensive relative to the standard consumer capable devices. Take a mac for example. Lots of polish, extremely useful device that any grandmother can use. It also just happens to be the exact OS that I use for development, but its all about the application.

So do I think that OSes are becoming less capable? Yes and no. iOS/Android, definitely not something you would want to use for development. Mac OSX, Windows 8, Linux? All available and still very powerful. But all of them, except for linux, are moving to a walled garden approach. Getting Kazaa or some other software on your computer is more difficult than it used to be. Not impossible, but to do it, you are having to step outside of the walled garden that Apple and Microsoft are setting up to deliver a unified and happier consumer experience.
 

bama_wayne1

All-American
Jun 15, 2007
2,700
16
57
An ISP is paying for the transmission signals (data). If you leave it as a private enterprise they will charge what the market will allow. If someone deems it too high he starts his own ISP company and cuts the price and takes all of the other guy's customers. So there will not be any nickel and diming nor withholding from a viable user and everyone is happy. CAPITALISM works we should try it!!
 

2003TIDE

Hall of Fame
Jul 10, 2007
8,576
4,849
187
ATL
An ISP is paying for the transmission signals (data). If you leave it as a private enterprise they will charge what the market will allow. If someone deems it too high he starts his own ISP company and cuts the price and takes all of the other guy's customers. So there will not be any nickel and diming nor withholding from a viable user and everyone is happy. CAPITALISM works we should try it!!
No offense, but you don't know what you are talking about.
 

2003TIDE

Hall of Fame
Jul 10, 2007
8,576
4,849
187
ATL
Nerds. Can we just get back to blastin Obama??!!
LOL.

This is all about transit costs, peering points, and last mile provider's (ie Comcast) monopolies over customers. That's what started us down this road. And a lot of people don't understand what any of that means (both on here and in Washington.)

Here an interesting blog from an exec of Level 3. http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/

And here is one where he points to the last mile providers http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/observations-internet-middleman/
 
Last edited:

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
I think you are seeing a shift towards more consumer centric variants on cheaper hardware. Tablets, netbooks, etc are all putting enough computing power for the average user in consumers hands for much cheaper. Need to browse the web, look at pictures, and do the occasional tax/spreadsheet software? Tablet or low cost/low power netbook will do all of that, and is attractive for teh consumer at a cheap price point. There will always be the need for the computers and operating systems that can make those types of systems, so they will always be available, but are just becoming more expensive relative to the standard consumer capable devices. Take a mac for example. Lots of polish, extremely useful device that any grandmother can use. It also just happens to be the exact OS that I use for development, but its all about the application.

So do I think that OSes are becoming less capable? Yes and no. iOS/Android, definitely not something you would want to use for development. Mac OSX, Windows 8, Linux? All available and still very powerful. But all of them, except for linux, are moving to a walled garden approach. Getting Kazaa or some other software on your computer is more difficult than it used to be. Not impossible, but to do it, you are having to step outside of the walled garden that Apple and Microsoft are setting up to deliver a unified and happier consumer experience.
I was thinking about replying to DW88 but it looks like you nailed most of what I would say

I agree with all of this but will add that I am both very encouraged by the direction google, apple and others are taking to ensure security by encrypting all of their communications by default and at the same time sadly discouraged by the collective "meh" response from the public to their moves.

I agree with your comments on windows/mac and it is sad to see to me frankly. What I have always preferred about windows was it's relative openness. I've played with Fedora and the others for a while and will probably move to a linux/gnu distro when this old windows machine finally kicks the bucket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.