Obama wants to make the internet a utility

Status
Not open for further replies.

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,644
1,007
173
43
Huntsville, AL
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.
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.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,642
3,786
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
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
 

TheAccountant

All-SEC
Mar 22, 2011
1,399
0
0
Birmingham
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.
 

2003TIDE

Hall of Fame
Jul 10, 2007
6,701
1,143
178
ATL
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?
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,642
3,786
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
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.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,747
7,945
253
Mountainous Northern California
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.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,747
7,945
253
Mountainous Northern California
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-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.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,642
3,786
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
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
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,644
1,007
173
43
Huntsville, AL
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/cctp-732-fall2009/files/More-on-the-Role-of-Government-and-Broadband-Access.pdf

Georgetown paper said:
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:

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,642
3,786
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
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/cctp-732-fall2009/files/More-on-the-Role-of-Government-and-Broadband-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.
 

NationalTitles17

Super Moderator
May 25, 2003
17,747
7,945
253
Mountainous Northern California
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/cctp-732-fall2009/files/More-on-the-Role-of-Government-and-Broadband-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?
Let me better explain. I don't think regulation, the lack thereof, or the breakup of AT&T were solely responsible to the proliferation of choice and innovation. There is no arguing if government created the monopoly. It did. It's also true that some companies have achieved near monopolies. Thus, the Sherman Act. Until recently Microsoft enjoyed what many called a de facto monopoly and stifled innovation through squashing and acquisition - the same tired tactics. Intel had a similar story. Then ARM cpu's offered a niche product and alternate OS's with new ways of doing things offered another way and suddenly we have many more choices for computing that ever before. Government did have to make the big boys behave as they abused their positions to unfairly stifle competition and innovation to line their own pockets at the expense of the consumer. So, unlike the extreme libertarian who mistakes anarchy for libertarianism, I do believe a minimum amount of government regulation is needed. I also generally support the 4 goals outlined by Obama in his statements on net neutrality (despite generally despising the man). I do think we should carefully consider our steps. I also share some of your concern regarding the FCC chairman, who was also a huge Obama supporter, thus making me think that his kind of innovation could turn out to be even more draconian than anyone expects.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,644
1,007
173
43
Huntsville, AL
Let me better explain. I don't think regulation, the lack thereof, or the breakup of AT&T were solely responsible to the proliferation of choice and innovation. There is no arguing if government created the monopoly. It did. It's also true that some companies have achieved near monopolies. Thus, the Sherman Act. Until recently Microsoft enjoyed what many called a de facto monopoly and stifled innovation through squashing and acquisition - the same tired tactics. Intel had a similar story. Then ARM cpu's offered a niche product and alternate OS's with new ways of doing things offered another way and suddenly we have many more choices for computing that ever before. Government did have to make the big boys behave as they abused their positions to unfairly stifle competition and innovation to line their own pockets at the expense of the consumer. So, unlike the extreme libertarian who mistakes anarchy for libertarianism, I do believe a minimum amount of government regulation is needed. I also generally support the 4 goals outlined by Obama in his statements on net neutrality (despite generally despising the man). I do think we should carefully consider our steps. I also share some of your concern regarding the FCC chairman, who was also a huge Obama supporter, thus making me think that his kind of innovation could turn out to be even more draconian than anyone expects.
In your examples, the two companies that eventually got punished, were Microsoft and Intel. For the most part, they really were the only players in their field. The telecom companies, either through happenstance, or collusion, have managed to make it difficult for the government to ever step in again. If there are 4 cell service carriers, how can there be a monopoly? If there are 6 or 7 cable/internet companies, how can there be a monopoly? The issue is that in certain markets, there really is no competition. The companies don't even try to compete due to the barrier to entry from an infrastructure standpoint. It is much easier to buy the local provider in an area, than to try and move in and out compete. So to think that the government will be able to use the same arguments as they did in Microsoft and Intel seems a bit of a stretch.

I guess my point is this, the FCC has already tried to use 706 to stop the companies from doing what I feel most fear, which is the fast lanes concept becoming common place. There really isn't another alternative that I am aware of, that would not require legislation which I think we both realize would likely make it worse, other than common carrier status. I am open for alternatives, but the first one (using 706) you argued quite succinctly upon, seems to have already been tried and discounted in the courts. What are the other, non legislative alternatives? My main worry is that if it doesn't get done in the next two years, and the Republicans get control of the WH, it will never get done, at which point it will be too late as the entrenched ways of doing business will be too hard to remove. That coupled with this is all kind of a moot point because if the Republicans do get the WH, and an even bigger lobbyist gets put in charge of the FCC, who is to say that they won't just switch it back?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - up to 65% off!

TideFansStore.com Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.