Net Neutrality

[Speaker to Animals]

Are hard lines necessary to provide internet access?

No. But for broadband, currently, yeah. You could sort of do it with something like the Canopy system developed by Motorola in the early 2000s for municipal governments. We were going to deploy these things across the country and run by local townships and city governments. It's basically like a WiFi over a wide area. Towns would have been able to provide broadband to all their citizens at a fraction of what people pay the current monopolies for the same thing. Guess what happened? Comcast and others bribed state legislators across America to literally make it illegal.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Are hard lines necessary to provide internet access?

Using current technology, yes.

I could see a new bandwidth or something in the future, being able to penetrate the atmosphere reliably, and get higher speeds from satellites, but it's not happening any time soon.

Microwave towers are good for mid-range sight-line connection, but to get the capacity of an internet trunk would be ludicrously expensive. There's a string of them being put up between NYC and Chicago, to facilitate HFT trading, but not for public use.

[Speaker to Animals]

When companies exercise monopolistic powers, it's the role of government to step in to curb those practices through regulation or simply breaking up the monopoly if possible. In the cases of utilities like power and broadband, that's not really possible, so regulations are necessary. If you remove regulations from a monopolistic market, consumers are going to suffer. Badly. This is not hypothetical and it shouldn't even be controversial. We are dealing with deluded ideologues who can't bring themselves to believe their ideologies are not always right.

[Fife]

[Speaker to Animals]

You need to come back with some arguments, Fife. This isn't cutting it. It's obvious what deregulating the backbone and the broadband access to the Internet is going to cause. This isn't even a debate at this point. We are just dealing with you trying to come to grips with reality now.

[Fife]

When companies exercise monopolistic powers, it's the role of government to step in to curb those practices through regulation or simply breaking up the monopoly if possible. In the cases of utilities like power and broadband, that's not really possible, so regulations are necessary. If you remove regulations from a monopolistic market, consumers are going to suffer. Badly. This is not hypothetical and it shouldn't even be controversial. We are dealing with deluded ideologues who can't bring themselves to believe their ideologies are not always right.

Too bad you refuse to listen to the FCC chair's statement on the role he sees for the FTC, but not for the FCC.

I understand, though, that your programming is so strong that you don't need to hear anything from the Non-Soros side of the universe. :goteam: :drunk:

[Fife]

You need to come back with some arguments, Fife. This isn't cutting it. It's obvious what deregulating the backbone and the broadband access to the Internet is going to cause. This isn't even a debate at this point. We are just dealing with you trying to come to grips with reality now.

I've adopted a very simple and straight-forward argument.

The internet is not a public utility. The FCC is illegitimate at its core, but at any rate it has no legitimate jurisdiction over the internet. Pretty simple, eh? I'll defer to the expertise of President Trump's FCC chairman on the specific technical issues. He seems to do a pretty good job speaking for himself.

You are the one with no argument; other than bald-faced shilling for the Obama Administration and federal takeover of the internet. At least you have catass cheerleading for you on this one.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Thought you might get the point from this. This is what comes up on my screen at work, trying to view your image of Soros.
Standard Fortigate settings.

Capture.PNG

Capture2.PNG

[Zlaxer]

You're in the middle of fucking New England. Jesus H, do I even have to explain this to you? LOL

EDIT: I have no idea what RCN is, but I'm guessing cable company. So, when you sign up for them, do they re-run a coax line to your house? Are there duplicate coax cables on every power pole? Seriously, look around.
Verizon doesn't do coax, so I have no idea what you're on about there.

Here in The Rest of America, you have one of the local cable companies, or fuck-off. One may take this side of town, and the other takes the other side. But you will never EVER have a choice between them.

We have a choice between 3 ISPs....verizon (Shitty DSL), Comcast, and Frontier....and yeah, I think Comcast and Frontier do run parallel networks....Coaxial / fiber is not like gas, water, and/or high voltage power......it's easy to have a bundle of 200 lines run down a large conduit...thus, its easy to have 200 competing ISPs in the same region....

Ok.
1 - DSL is a different network, using the PTSN, and is long-obsolete anyway. Not part of the “competition”.

2 - you will never, and I mean never, see the owner of a trunk line sharing their conduit with another network. Let alone digging it up, and installing more lines, to hurt their own monopoly.

3 - yeah, Frontier is a conglomerate buying up old landlines from Verizon and ATT. They aren’t laying a new network. Reading the historical section here is actually a little scary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Communications

You're pretty certain of so many things.....lolz....Frontier is laying new fiber, and Quest and Charter are now moving into my region.....Wikipedia has never been known to be wrong.....


If government does away with net neutrality, then they need to make sure ISPs have equal access to the conduits to lay fiber...

It seems like you want net neutrality simply to put the government in control because you don't trust evil corporations....but what you continue to fail to realize is that a central all powerful government is easy for a few elite corporations to bend to their will...

[SuburbanFarmer]

We have a choice between 3 ISPs....verizon (Shitty DSL), Comcast, and Frontier....and yeah, I think Comcast and Frontier do run parallel networks....Coaxial / fiber is not like gas, water, and/or high voltage power......it's easy to have a bundle of 200 lines run down a large conduit...thus, its easy to have 200 competing ISPs in the same region....

Ok.
1 - DSL is a different network, using the PTSN, and is long-obsolete anyway. Not part of the “competition”.

2 - you will never, and I mean never, see the owner of a trunk line sharing their conduit with another network. Let alone digging it up, and installing more lines, to hurt their own monopoly.

3 - yeah, Frontier is a conglomerate buying up old landlines from Verizon and ATT. They aren’t laying a new network. Reading the historical section here is actually a little scary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Communications

You're pretty certain of so many things.....lolz....Frontier is laying new fiber, and Quest and Charter are now moving into my region.....Wikipedia has never been known to be wrong.....


If government does away with net neutrality, then they need to make sure ISPs have equal access to the conduits to lay fiber...

It seems like you want net neutrality simply to put the government in control because you don't trust evil corporations....but what you continue to fail to realize is that a central all powerful government is easy for a few elite corporations to bend to their will...

Qwest merged with CenturyLink - a dying DSL company.
Charter = Spectrum = Time Warner.

Like I said, you might see some new connections to the local IEX, with a hip new company name, but you will never see competition.

And no, I'm no statist. But there is a role for the state here. The lines should be public, and services should compete on them. There's no sense at all in wasting resources to re-lay the same routes with identical cables.