Obama wants to make the internet a utility - Page 9
Page 9 of 49 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314151619 ... LastLast
Results 105 to 117 of 629
  1. #105
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,890

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by chanson78 View Post
    I would suggest you look at a Mac. If you are a network engineer/sales as I am assuming you are, all of the good stuff is baked in. You don't have to load a bunch of tools to get a decent terminal, network tracing and analysis, its just baked in. With things like Homebrew, MacPorts, it has all the advantages of a good package manager, with all of the yummy Mac goodness. With regards to the walled garden, some of the very things you praised Google and Apple for are what is actually making the walled gardens so attractive. If I download some package off the internet, with the walled garden I can at least use baked in cert checking in distro packages to determine if it is a legitimate binary. Windows is getting there, and has a lot of it baked in, but its not nearly as unobtrusive, plus not nearly as polished. It is also fairly easy if you need to install non signed, non walled garden apps, I just installed one this AM, took ~30s but I know what I am doing. If my mom had to do it, I would have had to remote in to her machine as I don't let her run on an admin enabled account.

    If you have to have Windows, take a look at virtualbox (free), or VMWare/Parallels (not free), windows is now offering test VM's for free https://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualization-tools which I am using on virtualbox and very happy. VirtualBox and VMWare both work on linux. If you are looking for a very prevalent Linux distro, take a look at Ubuntu. More consumer friendly, building their own walled garden, but probably best for people new to linux (which you may or not be, I haven't gleaned that). Fedora is nice too, and probably one of the bigger more stable distros but they are all good. I do hate dealing with rpm/yum though, and much prefer debians package management.

    I am pretty familiar with all of them if you are interested (Home is dual boot windows 8/hackintosh) we can chat on PM so we quit getting nerd on these fine posters here.
    I'm sales, but in a very technical role at the moment

    also have a Mac Air. Love it for its weight. Think the build quality is excellent and I've never had a better machine for the web but I still hate the office apps particularly excel which I find horrible for Mac so I have to run it in a VMware Fuzion VM. Also need the VM for several other things

  2. #106
    BamaNation All-SEC TheAccountant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    1,399

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    I think Jon alluded to this earlier but I think this is all a Machiavellan move by Obama to ensure 'net neutrality' never happens. It's evident he's close with the telcom industry (particularly Comcast) and he knows that nearly 50% will be against anything that comes out of his mouth.

    So, he says he's in favor of it, Ted Cruz instantly rails against it, the populace follows suit, and we see ignorant arguments like we see here. It's fine if you are against it on the merits but at least have some idea of what it entails instead of just "Obama is for it".
    End result: Obama has tainted the idea for good.

  3. #107
    BamaNation Hall of Fame rizolltizide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    st pete, fl
    Posts
    14,820

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    smh
    RIP Hub

  4. #108
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 2003TIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    6,143

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    I'm sales, but in a very technical role at the moment
    What type of product if you don't mind me asking?

    I've been thinking trying to transition from in house Engineer/Architect to something on the customer side. I'd love to find a SE position. I enjoy the problem solving aspect of the solutions architect side of my current role, but hate the day to day grind of support. I think an SE role would be challenging, provide a lot more variety, and the problem solving I enjoy. I know I'd be working my butt off, but I don't mind as long as I find it interesting work. I'm just not sure the best path or approach to make that move.

    Any advice or pointers?

  5. #109
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,890

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003TIDE View Post
    What type of product if you don't mind me asking?

    I've been thinking trying to transition from in house Engineer/Architect to something on the customer side. I'd love to find a SE position. I enjoy the problem solving aspect of the solutions architect side of my current role, but hate the day to day grind of support. I think an SE role would be challenging, provide a lot more variety, and the problem solving I enjoy. I know I'd be working my butt off, but I don't mind as long as I find it interesting work. I'm just not sure the best path or approach to make that move.

    Any advice or pointers?
    PM me and I'd be happy to point you in some good directions.

  6. #110
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    12,985

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Title II worked so well since 1936 that ATT was a monopoly that innovated almost nothing in 50 years. When the industry was deregulated and the government-instituted monopoly was broken up and competition was allowed we went from barely having touch tone phones to having a variety of choices, including internet based services and multiple cell carriers. So given this solid concrete example of what happens with regulation vs less regulation, which do you want? Regulation is NOT the panacea some make it out to be. It will always bring with it new problems (really a rehash of old ones). I am upset with ATT's CEO's actions, but I hate that company and its spin offs anyway. He does make a valid point that the uncertainty of the regulatory environment is a barrier to growth and innovation as the risks cannot be easily determined.
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  7. #111
    Super Moderator NationalTitles17's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Mountainous Northern California
    Posts
    12,985

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-the-internet/

    Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.

    Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he has preferred a more nuanced solution. That approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.


    “What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”
    Sounds like he favors the hybrid approach.
    Roll Tide Roll!!!

    The TideFan formerly known as NationalTitles16, NationalTitles15, NationalTitles14, NationalTitles13, and NationalTitles12.

  8. #112
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,890

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-the-internet/



    Sounds like he favors the hybrid approach.
    sounds like he favors an approach that would satisfy his masters, Comcast, TWC and AT&T without getting crucified by the general public and the tech press. Yet another big time lobbyist in an administration that promised to change things and be free of this kind of thing. The right thing for the public is title 2 but he is not looking out for us

  9. #113
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Displaced Bama Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Shiner, TX
    Posts
    23,340
    Thread Starter

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    AT&T to halt investment in internet until federal rules on open internet clarified.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...ment/18915917/

  10. #114
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,225

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by NationalTitles15 View Post
    Title II worked so well since 1936 that ATT was a monopoly that innovated almost nothing in 50 years. When the industry was deregulated and the government-instituted monopoly was broken up and competition was allowed we went from barely having touch tone phones to having a variety of choices, including internet based services and multiple cell carriers. So given this solid concrete example of what happens with regulation vs less regulation, which do you want? Regulation is NOT the panacea some make it out to be. It will always bring with it new problems (really a rehash of old ones). I am upset with ATT's CEO's actions, but I hate that company and its spin offs anyway. He does make a valid point that the uncertainty of the regulatory environment is a barrier to growth and innovation as the risks cannot be easily determined.
    I would argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. Many of the things you described didn't necessarily come out of AT&T by themselves, the internet for example, was either Al Gore or DARPA, neither of which worked for AT&T. Technically, the first internet prototype message was sent in the 60's, which was before AT&T had been broken up, during the time of regulation as common carrier, much of which did go away during the breakup as you pointed out. Speaking of the breakup, I could just as easily try and say that it was the breakup of the AT&T into the baby bells, but not deregulation that created innovation, because many of the things you listed happened after the breakup but still took advantage of the common carrier status.

    I would definitely be willing to concede that the regulation helped to create the AT&T monopoly. But won't you at least give a little and admit that since the breakup transferred control of the landlines that were going to everyones house to the smaller Bells, the companies who couldn't compete before were now able to make use of the common carrier rules to begin offering competing services to AT&T long distance? The breakup forced AT&T into being solely a long distance provider, opening up the space for MCI and Sprint to begin competing since AT&T didn't control both the lines and the service. Isn't competition what really drives innovation?

    I don't think we are going to get another shakeup like the AT&T breakup. In fact we are seeing the companies that exist currently attempting to consolidate. AT&T has slowly been buying back up all the competitors(Cingular, DirectTV) and Comcast is doing the same with the TWC merger. Is this possibly because the government hasn't been able to keep up with regards to defining regulation in the switched IP network space? I can't say with any certainty, but I have a feeling that it may have something to do with it. (Edit: It does tend to take away from the belief that regulation is 100% responsible for the monopoly creation, as companies are attempting to consolidate, and generating regional monopolies as a result, all while no regulation as a Title II carrier.)

    Here is a paper about telecommunications policy out of Georgetown that dives into the three markets with enough broadband penetration to provide a good sample size, but also varying regulatory approaches, in an attempt to determine if there really is a better method. (Interestingly it was extremely hard to find someone who approached this issue without an axe to grind one way or the other. I think these guys do a decent job of investigating all sides, and approximating some reasonable presentation of the pros and cons)

    https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu...and-Access.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by Georgetown paper
    This leads to the question of what lessons might be learned from this comparison. First of all, in South Korea, measures on both the supply and the demand-side in combination with an initial hands-off competition regulation in DSL, but open access obligations on cable networks have been very successful in gaining a lead in broadband penetration. However, among other factors, Korean supply-side measures were able to succeed so impressively because of the geographical situation and the housing structure of its population and thus it seems doubtful whether similarly extensive infrastructure plans might produce the same cost-benefit ratio in Europe or the US.

    The passive role of US regulation with regard to supply- and demand-side activities linked with deregulatory efforts in market regulation have furthered massive investments by incumbent operators in NGN, but not yet succeeded in bridging the lack in relation to penetration rates in leading broadband economies.

    Finally, with regard to broadband diffusion, those European Member States with competing cable infrastructure show the highest deployment rates. However, this performance should be interpreted in connection with the rather active role in public good-related issues practised in Europe and the strong-handed market regulation focusing on LLU and wholesale regulation.

    Overall, it can thus be concluded that successful governmental strategies should consider both, public good and competition-related aspects of broadband. While platform competition seems to have much impact on a high deployment rate, especially in metropolitan areas, LLU can contribute to broadband diffusion in regions and countries lacking of alternative infrastructure.
    I really don't think that regulation as a carrier will kill all of the innovation. It will allow for the existing infrastructure to be utilized, for a fair market price, so that other carriers/networks don't have to solve the last mile problem. This may also reduce the incentive for companies to tie up local municipalities, who wish through their own initiative to build out their own network, as those same networks would be available to AT&T, Comcast, et al. Just imagine, your town holds a vote to issue bonds to build out a fiber to the home network for your town. Instead of AT&T tying it up in court, they salivate because now they don't have to build out or maintain that infrastructure, but the town is now required through regulation as a common carrier to provide access to that infrastructure to any company that wishes to offer services. Now AT&T, Comcast, DirectTV, TWC, GoogleFiber, can all use that common pipe to provide services, as well as compete for your business on a level playing field.

    The one drawback, which may be what you meant about innovation, is when the next iteration of transfer medium comes about, say quantum entanglement cabling providing 1Tbps speeds (completely made that up, but it sounds nice), that infrastructure may take awhile to upgrade. As it is now, companies can make a business decision on whether it is worth it to them to put in the investment for rolling out that infrastructure before anyone else. Which results in spotty coverage and market penetration, often because it is done for markets that had either no option, or an extremely old one that needed upgrading.

    What am I missing here?
    Last edited by chanson78; November 13th, 2014 at 08:50 AM.

  11. #115
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Atlanta 'Burbs
    Posts
    10,890

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by chanson78 View Post
    I would argue that correlation doesn't imply causation. Many of the things you described didn't necessarily come out of AT&T by themselves, the internet for example, was either Al Gore or DARPA, neither of which worked for AT&T. Technically, the first internet prototype message was sent in the 60's, which was before AT&T had been broken up, during the time of regulation as common carrier, much of which did go away during the breakup as you pointed out. Speaking of the breakup, I could just as easily try and say that it was the breakup of the AT&T into the baby bells, but not deregulation that created innovation, because many of the things you listed happened after the breakup but still took advantage of the common carrier status.

    I would definitely be willing to concede that the regulation helped to create the AT&T monopoly. But won't you at least give a little and admit that since the breakup transferred control of the landlines that were going to everyones house to the smaller Bells, the companies who couldn't compete before were now able to make use of the common carrier rules to begin offering competing services to AT&T long distance? The breakup forced AT&T into being solely a long distance provider, opening up the space for MCI and Sprint to begin competing since AT&T didn't control both the lines and the service. Isn't competition what really drives innovation?

    I don't think we are going to get another shakeup like the AT&T breakup. In fact we are seeing the companies that exist currently attempting to consolidate. AT&T has slowly been buying back up all the competitors(Cingular, DirectTV) and Comcast is doing the same with the TWC merger. Is this possibly because the government hasn't been able to keep up with regards to defining regulation in the switched IP network space? I can't say with any certainty, but I have a feeling that it may have something to do with it. (Edit: It does tend to take away from the belief that regulation is 100% responsible for the monopoly creation, as companies are attempting to consolidate, and generating regional monopolies as a result, all while no regulation as a Title II carrier.)

    Here is a paper about telecommunications policy out of Georgetown that dives into the three markets with enough broadband penetration to provide a good sample size, but also varying regulatory approaches, in an attempt to determine if there really is a better method. (Interestingly it was extremely hard to find someone who approached this issue without an axe to grind one way or the other. I think these guys do a decent job of investigating all sides, and approximating some reasonable presentation of the pros and cons)

    https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu...and-Access.pdf



    I really don't think that regulation as a carrier will kill all of the innovation. It will allow for the existing infrastructure to be utilized, for a fair market price, so that other carriers/networks don't have to solve the last mile problem. This may also reduce the incentive for companies to tie up local municipalities, who wish through their own initiative to build out their own network, as those same networks would be available to AT&T, Comcast, et al. Just imagine, your town holds a vote to issue bonds to build out a fiber to the home network for your town. Instead of AT&T tying it up in court, they salivate because now they don't have to build out or maintain that infrastructure, but the town is now required through regulation as a common carrier to provide access to that infrastructure to any company that wishes to offer services. Now AT&T, Comcast, DirectTV, TWC, GoogleFiber, can all use that common pipe to provide services, as well as compete for your business on a level playing field.

    The one drawback, which may be what you meant about innovation, is when the next iteration of transfer medium comes about, say quantum entanglement cabling providing 1Tbps speeds (completely made that up, but it sounds nice), that infrastructure may take awhile to upgrade. As it is now, companies can make a business decision on whether it is worth it to them to put in the investment for rolling out that infrastructure before anyone else. Which results in spotty coverage and market penetration, often because it is done for markets that had either no option, or an extremely old one that needed upgrading.

    What am I missing here?
    this whole "we need the status quo to innovate" line is such crap. We have innovated our way to 31st fastest internet speeds behind such notable countries as Latvia, Hungry and Lithuania.

  12. #116
    BamaNation All-American Gr8hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,408

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Will we have to pass the bill to know what's in it?
    "There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment."-Nick Saban

  13. #117
    BamaNation Hall of Fame Displaced Bama Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Shiner, TX
    Posts
    23,340
    Thread Starter

    Re: Obama wants to make the internet a utility

    Quote Originally Posted by Gr8hope View Post
    Will we have to pass the bill to know what's in it?
    Jonathan Gruber approves of this message.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear