• San Luis Obispo,
  • California,
  • United States

Top Contributors

Net Neutrality

With the vote to regulate the internet supposedly happening today, I'm curious on other experts opinion on the matter. On paper, it sounds like a logical thing to do, and make sure ISP's don't prioritize web traffic; it's all equal. But looking a bit deeper, it basically entitles the gov to make decisions about the internet and it could possibly burn us in the future...

So what do you all think?
View Previous CommentsLoad All Comments (50)
Rank: Genius

Author Comment

Big Monty2015-03-03 07:13 AMID: 147225
@serial - could you provide some links to the whole comcast vs netflix battle? I don't doubt you, I'm just curious to read up more on it

@cyclops -I heard the same thing with google adjusting their search results based on "facts". scares the hell out of me to think that they could/would deem themselves the authority on what is right vs what is wrong,

perhaps that subject would be best in it's own thread.... :)
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

serialband2015-03-03 09:59 AMID: 147234
I'm under no illusion that the feds will gain power with every law that's passed.  Except, look at who wants that law passed.  It's the major Content providers.  They're the ones pushing for net neutrality.  If you don't want the law to be passed, you should want Comcast to be broken up.  Consumers will benefit with competition.

Utilities actually depend on fossil fuels, a limited resource and prices change based on that.  There's a limit to energy generation.  It's not the same as internet speeds.  We can get faster internet.  The tech is out there.  We've had 10 Gbps switches running the backbones for over a decade.  100 Gbps switches do exist and they run our backbones and have been around for a few years.  http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/100Gbps-Ethernet-is-it-time-to-move  The tech can improve and we will have Petabit switches someday.  I'm even preparing to upgrade to 10 Gbps switches in a small local office.  Those have become cheap enough that small companies can afford them.  Most larger organizations should have gigabit switches by now.

Internet speeds and data capacity can only improve and get cheaper each year.  Comcast and the Telcos are limiting our tech advancement.  There are other countries that have had 100 mb connections for nearly a decade.  The USA is only just catching up.  They're only even pretending to compete because Google started going into towns to provide gigabit fiber links to the home.  Rather than compete, they greased the hands of local politicians to block all municipal broadband.

Sure, not all traffic is equal, but we've always had the capability to adapt, but the telcos want to make money by not having to compete.  Short term it makes them a profit.  Long term, they've lost the edge to compete and eventually everyone else will pass us by.

There's a virtual monopoly or duopoly in many municipalities.  We should have had gigabit internet 10 years ago, but they took the tax breaks in the 90s and kept them as pure profit. They got more than enough money to have implemented fiber in localized markets, but they didn't even try.  Then they've asked for more money around 2006-2007 and do a half-assed job of implementing it.  http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-100-Million-in-DSL-Subsidies-125474  They even did marketing and didn't implement it.  They're using it as leverage to prevent real competition from entering the marketplace. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATTs-Expansion-of-1-Gbps-to-100-Cities-is-a-Big-Fat-Bluff-128628

I think you're confused about google's terms of "factual" results.  They're trying to block SEOs that are polluting the search pool.  I'm finding it harder and harder to find results that aren't just blogs with half-assed information and sometimes incorrect information because all the "popular" sites are pointed to.  I see it happen here too, with "experts" running searches and linking the blogs and download aggregators instead of linking the original authors' sites.  They're getting pushed down in search rankings as more people do that.  When google started, there original page ranking worked well, that's why people switched, but now, SEOs are polluting it.  Popular blogs are polluting it.  Factual to me, means correct information backed by real research, not commercial interests.  I doubt they'll change it too much, because in this industry, any competitor can easily take over.

When I say break up cable I mean I want competition.  It should be broken up like ma bell was broken up.  I want to prevent Cable companies from getting monopoly status in any municipality.  There should be competition.  You seem to have a different idea of what competition is.  There are areas in the US where the local city politicians did not allow cable monopolies to happen.  They get better service quality and lower prices because they do have choices.  You've probably been stuck with a local cable monopoly for so long that you can't picture cable competition.  There can have competitive cable markets.

That's actually romneycare and No child left behind came is modeled after Texas.  Stop reading just the PR.  Obamacare started out as Romneycare and when the Democrats embraced it the Republicans derided it.  It's political preening.  I'm independent and I know who to actually blame for that crap.  Both parties need to be kicked to the curb.  They've both been bought.

If you're in NY the demacrats are going to win anyway, you should just vote for a 3rd party.  If you're in Texas, the republicans are going to win anyway, you should just vote for a 3rd party there too.  It's only the swing states that need people to stay on party lines.  Both of those parties are owned by some industry.  It's time to weaken their clout.  Stop voting for the 2 corrupt parties if you're in one of the states that definitely swing to one side.  It sends them a message that people are dissatisfied.  It's time to do a Brewster's Millions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster%27s_Millions_%281985_film%29

(Sorry.  Normally, I spend some time editing, but I rushed this one because I had other things to do.)
Rank: Savant

Expert Comment

>> It should be broken up like ma bell was broken up.

And cost for local service went up.  Granted long distance came down but I really don't care.  I didn't call long distance that much back then and don't even today.

Fun fact:
When you order service from the 'competitors', like Sprint or MCI do you really think it is their own 'special' service they are selling you?  In many instances they are reselling service from another.

I used to work at AT&T and remember who some of their 'largest' customers were.  At least they used to be but that was MANY MANY years ago...

Split up Comcast and 'Speedy Cable' pops up.  All they will do is contract with Comcast for bandwidth, repackage it to resell to you.  The only way costs go down is if Comcast offers 'Speedy' volume discounts large enough to undersell Comcast directly.

It boils down to who owns the infrastructure and/or right-of-ways.
Rank: Genius

Expert Comment

Cyclops35902015-03-03 11:49 AMID: 147244
Slightwv. Exactly. And part of the reason long distance went down was due to regulations controlling how much for access per call one could charge. Dump on top USF for those smaller companies and big ATT pays out a lot.

Serial. Saying because you can put a 10g switch in a small office means that we should have fast internet. Well sorry but very naive. Do you have any idea how expensive the equipment is to support 10g internet for everyone is?  It is astronomical.   you'd have to put a petabit network in place.  Ive worked for an ISP and they do have incredible waste. However it's not a drop in the bucket compared to the hardware cost to do those upgrades.
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

serialband2015-03-03 11:54 AMID: 147245
Overall costs went down tremendously for business and many others.  New businesses came about because of the breakup.  Just because you didn't happen to benefit directly on your own personal home line, doesn't mean there wasn't a net real benefit.  There are always some give and take.

I remember when Long distance was $1 or more per minute, but after the breakup, it dropped quickly down to be cheaper than local calls.  It's too bad your circle of calls was only to within zone 3 and you had no business or friends beyond that range.  The rest of us benefited tremendously.  The economy benefited from the savings.  It help spur some of the economic growth in the 90s.  I also remember that customer service improved during that period until they started merging again.

Even with the repackaging, they made money selling them at discounts.  The lower pricing generated greater demand and they all made more money than they would have prior to the overpriced offerings of their monopoly.
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

serialband2015-03-03 01:02 PMID: 147252
It's not astronomical.  You're thinking too small.  I think you're the one that's naive about the cost structure.  They already have 10 GB links in the backend to support corporations 1 GB links.

I understand costs and I understand supply and demand.  The prices drop as they adopt them.  They're well within range of the telcos.  They've had the 10 Gig equipment for well over a decade.  They're moving onto 100 Gig now.  I also remember seeing $100k for 128kbps modems in the backs of computer mags during the 1980s.  Somebody bought those back before 9600 bps modems appeared in the consumer market.  Large companies that rely on moving data fast will purchase that equipment.  They've made their profit/loss determination.  They're not run by stupid people.  If that equipment will get them more profitability, they will buy them.

24 port 10 Gig fiber switches are now in the $7k-$10k range.  That's hardly astronomical.  This is what people once paid for fiber Gig Switches well over a decade ago.  You can get 24 port switches with 2 10 Gig for less than $2k for small office use, or less than $1k for copper.  Prices have dropped and Telcos will pay $10k for 24 port or $20k 48 port blades.  It carries their data.  Back when 1 Gig switches were first reaching the masses, they would pay $50k - $100k for 10 Gig switches.  Someone did or they wouldn't have been offered at those prices.   They would be first adopted at certain critical locations and as prices drop, they would get implemented in more areas and they would continue to aggregate links between critical backbone nodes as they've always done.  I understand it wouldn't be immediate.  No company can afford that much equipment all at once, but they certainly have 10 Gig switches in much of their backbone infrastructure now.  They likely have some 100 Gig switches in place too.  http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/03/26/costs-come-equinix-weaves-100gbe-switches-datacenters/  http://investor.extremenetworks.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=720909  It wouldn't make any sense not to.  Someone's buying them or they wouldn't be dropping in price.

They likely already have petabit links with multiple fiber connections between certain major hubs.  How else do you think they can even handle all those netflix packets during prime time hours?  Only small companies have a single link.  I know that big corporations have multiple links in and out of their main headquarters already.  Mid sized offices of 100-200 people will often have more than 1 Gig link into the office, assuming they have access to fiber.  You get what you need based on pricing and productivity of your employees companies are increasingly getting faster connections.  Large corporations have multiple gigabit links, so it makes sense that the Telcos would have multiple 10 Gig links between major sites.  I understand the costs.  I also know that they already have dark fiber in the ground.  They just need to activate them by putting in more switches.  10 Gig switches are nothing to the Telcos when they've sold so much bandwidth.  They've made plenty of profits and can afford to upgrade.  They just don't have incentive to upgrade when there's no real competition.  They have that waste because of the lack of any real competition.  Competition would force them to shed that waste.