|
down with slavery posted:How about recorded history? Since when have what politicians said lined up with their actions? Do you know what politics is? Often, when it's in their power to do so. So it's a good thing it's the Chairman of the FCC saying something ought to be done about it, after having been on record repeatedly that muni broadband is a good thing that should be emulated. He's also on record (and this was before he was the FCC chair) in favor of imposing significant conditions in telco mergers. But again, he was a lobbyist (a decade ago) so we cannot trust a single word he says.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
down with slavery posted:Since when have what politicians said lined up with their actions? When the one is the plausible explanation for the other. The fact that motives inside the beltway are suspect doesn't suddenly mean that words have no meaning. If Wheeler really doesn't want to care about this, he's got much easier ways to go about not giving a poo poo than picking a fight with his oversight committee. I'm a lot more sympathetic to arguments about regulatory capture than Kalman, but you'll have to give me something more to go on than just calling everyone in DC a lying bastard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Right because the modem dialed in over magik air and connected to unicorn veins Who do I contact to upgrade my phpjbbbbb forums software and modem? I ask because this is infrastructure now. Thanks in advance from the internets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Who do I contact to upgrade my phpjbbbbb forums software and modem? I ask because this is infrastructure now. radium
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:When the one is the plausible explanation for the other. The fact that motives inside the beltway are suspect doesn't suddenly mean that words have no meaning. If Wheeler really doesn't want to care about this, he's got much easier ways to go about not giving a poo poo than picking a fight with his oversight committee. I mean, just map out possibilities here. Wheeler could have said something or not said something. He could mean it or not mean it. Option 1. He said something because he meant it. Option 2. He said something but didn't mean it. This is unlikely because if he didn't mean it, there was no reason for him to push on muni broadband. There's limited political pressure in favor and a decent amount of pressure against it so it's not pressure induced. If he didn't want to act, he could have just as easily picked... Option 3. Don't say anything because you don't believe in the idea. No one (with power) would be mad at you. Easiest option with zero negatives - assuming Wheeler doesn't want to do something. Based on this, it seems pretty obvious that he probably does want to do something about it, and chose to use this as basically an open invitation to muni systems to complain to the FCC in order to make starting a proceeding easier. (I am sympathetic to regulatory capture arguments, for what it's worth, but not in the way people like down by slavery tend to present them, as purchased entities. Regulatory capture has a lot more to do with regular engagement by industry compared to non engagement or ineffective engagement by the public leading insiders to only be familiar with industry approved arguments. Combine that with the simple fact that the people with experience in <industry> regulation typically got that experience by working for <industry> and aren't going to be competent if they go do something else and you get the revolving door and sympathy to business interests, i.e., capture.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Has anybody posted maps in this thread showing overlaps in coverage by different ISPs in the USA? Isn't it the case that many areas only have access to one cable provider and one normal ISP? Meaning that there's little competition. I played around with this website but I couldn't get the answer to the question- what percentage of Americans have access to multiple ISPs using the same technology (cable, fibre, DSL)? Sri.Theo fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:Has anybody posted maps in this thread showing overlaps in coverage by different ISPs in the USA? Isn't it the case that many areas only have access to one cable provider and one normal ISP? Meaning that there's little competition. Competition doesn't create better service unless you actually believe in the free market. You're probably not even aware of it, but at almost any location in the US where DSL is available there will be multiple ISPs available offering DSL, and they'll all offer very close to the same prices and speeds as the incumbent landline provider does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
eviltastic posted:When the one is the plausible explanation for the other. The fact that motives inside the beltway are suspect doesn't suddenly mean that words have no meaning. If Wheeler really doesn't want to care about this, he's got much easier ways to go about not giving a poo poo than picking a fight with his oversight committee. Hes' getting a ton of pressure from the public and from internet firms right now on these issues. He's doing what I like to call "throwing a bone". Why is it so unacceptable to wait for action and be skeptical of the words of a man who is a product of the revolving door we've all come to know and love. Nintendo Kid posted:Lying's easy? Well of course, that's why you do it so often. I was referring to just posting simple one lines as just so statements with no support. Look, I'm not saying the US has internet hell, I've read http://www.itif.org/publications/whole-picture-where-america-s-broadband-networks-really-stand and understand that we aren't in the dark ages. What I don't agree with is statements like this (in that report) quote:Likewise, some critics point to gigabit rollouts in some cities and nations (e.g., Korea) as evidence of U.S. broadband failure. But this critique misses two key factors. First, virtually all of these projects involve public subsidies or are private test bed facilities, not wide scale deployments. Second, while gigabit test bed projects (like America’s Gig. U ) are important, the idea that most U.S. broadband users currently need networks this fast is simply wrong. Virtually all existing broadband applications run quite well on the average broadband network in most U.S. cities. This does not mean that higher speeds may not or will not be needed as new applications emerge, but the notion that nations should massively overbuild most of its networks far ahead of real consumer demand is not wise economics or broadband policy. I call bullshit 1000 times on that, we are living in a world that is dominated by technology, it is incredibly wise to attempt to stay in front of these and make future technologies available as soon as possible if we want to keep our edge as a country. It would be CHEAP to provide these services to every American, especially when you consider our absurd wealth. So yeah, maybe Kalman needs his boss to keep getting his sick paycheck and we'll be ok either way, but we could do a lot better and the way forward is increased regulation and nationalization of our communications infrastructure, not defending the ISPs in a D&D thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
The ISPs are already upgrading their networks, Down With Reading Comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:19
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The ISPs are already upgrading their networks, Down With Reading Comprehension. Not as quickly as we can if we stop allowing the build-out of our communications networks to continue to be beholden to the almighty profit (ps they'll never have enough) How do you feel about labeling ISPs common carriers?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Not as quickly as we can if we stop allowing the build-out of our communications networks to continue to be beholden to the almighty profit (ps they'll never have enough) But all the ISPs in countries you praise as having "great internet" are even more beholden to profit? Labeling ISPs common carriers isn't going to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:24
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But all the countries you praise as having "great internet" are even more beholden to profit? Which countries have I praised in this thread? I would point to a few places public investment in their networks as good things, but I'm not sure there's a country to point out with a shining example of quality communications infrastructure. The US should be a leader in removing profit from public goods if for no other reason than we have the wealth available to do it. quote:Labeling ISPs common carriers isn't going to do anything. Probably why they are fighting so aggressively against it
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Which countries have I praised in this thread? I would point to a few places public investment in their networks as good things, but I'm not sure there's a country to point out with a shining example of quality communications infrastructure. For one you tried to claim Seoul had really great service compared to "our cities", that sure sounds like praising Korean ISPs. They aren't. Why don't you explain what you think common carrier status would do to ISPs, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:26
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:For one you tried to claim Seoul had really great service compared to "our cities", that sure sounds like praising Korean ISPs. No it's praising the Korean government for investing into Seoul's network, because the ISPs there didn't fund that. You know if you read the paper I linked you'd know that  quote:They aren't. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/05/top-isps-threaten-to-be-less-innovative-and-spend-less-on-network-upgrades/ Try again shill
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:For one you tried to claim Seoul had really great service compared to "our cities", that sure sounds like praising Korean ISPs. Make it easier for the FBI to collect our data?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:29
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Make it easier for the FBI to collect our data? quote:"Even the potential threat” of common carrier rules resulted in a 10 percent market cap decrease for “some ISPs” when the FCC considered Title II previously in 2009 and 2010, the ISPs' letter to the FCC claimed. “Today, Title II backers fail to explain where the next hundreds of billions of dollars of risk capital will come from to improve and expand today’s networks under a Title II regime,” the ISPs wrote. “They too soon forget that a decade ago we saw billions newly invested in the latest broadband networks and advancements once the Commission affirmed that Title II does not apply to broadband networks.” The reason the ISPs aren't common carriers is because they, like all other huge corporate machines, defend their market positions and profit margins tooth and nail. You're just an idiot if you believe anything else.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No it's praising the Korean government for investing into Seoul's network, because the ISPs there didn't fund that. You know if you read the paper I linked you'd know that America invested in our networks years ago too, though? Of course you've claimed without evidence that the investment didn't happen because they didn't build exactly what you wanted. Funny how when you're disproved you just go back to shrieking about shills. Adjust your tinfoil hat again, down with reality! Your article does not say what you claim it says, but that's typical for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:30
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:America invested in our networks years ago too, though? How is this relevant to what we do today and how we move forward? Like I said, the article is quite clear, the Korean government is the reason Seoul has the internet it does, not the private investment of the all holy ISP which you can not stop defending. (ie shilling) Time for the smoke and mirrors now that you've got nothing to say? Why don't you address that cute "they aren't" which I immediately disproved. shrieking? ahh it's great, let the sexism flow forth
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:How is this relevant to what we do today and how we move forward? And you're not aware that a lot of Seoul has internet access merely on par with your average US city or worse, which is what you aren't getting. Yet again, down with sanity starts ranting about those darn shills when facts get in his way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:33
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And you're not aware that a lot of Seoul has internet access merely on par with your average US city or worse, which is what you aren't getting. Seoul as a city has much better internet than most American cities. Get over it. And even if it didn't, it doesn't mean we can't do better, which is my only point you dense idiot. You haven't posted a fact, you've just posted "no" "you're lying" "they aren't" and then when provided direct evidence that they are? Well we just ignore that and move right along. I've been consistent in this thread, why is it that you can't stop dancing around?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Seoul as a city has much better internet than most American cities. Get over it. No it does not. You're ignorant of internet in Seoul. We do do better than most of Seoul most of the time, your own supposed goal is already achieved. So your point is bullshit, once again. down with slavery posted:You haven't posted a fact, you've just posted "no" "you're lying" "they aren't" and then when provided direct evidence that they are? Well we just ignore that and move right along. I've linked actual stuff repeatedly. down with slavery posted:I've been consistent in this thread, why is it that you can't stop dancing around? Yes you've been consistently wrong, that's no great achievement, down with facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The reason the ISPs aren't common carriers is because they, like all other huge corporate machines, defend their market positions and profit margins tooth and nail. Haha are you for real?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:The reason the ISPs aren't common carriers is because they, like all other huge corporate machines, defend their market positions and profit margins tooth and nail. I mean, other than the part where Title II ISP services are subject to CALEA in ways they aren't right now. That's definitely me being an idiot, not me being aware of the law. (My paycheck has nothing to do with Wheeler, FYI. I don't post on any issue I work on, none of which is lobbying anyway. Ethical responsibilities and all that.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:36
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No it does not. You're ignorant of internet in Seoul. So you've got some data to support this? Let's start by defining what "better internet" means so I can be sure to give you the metrics that you want to hear. quote:We do do better than most of Seoul most of the time, your own supposed goal is already achieved. So your point is bullshit, once again. My goal isn't to do better than Seoul, try again. Slanderer posted:Haha are you for real? Are you not? Do you not understand how lobbying works in this country? Serious question, why should ISPs NOT be considered common carriers? What do we lose by doing this? Why are these firms so opposed?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:So you've got some data to support this? Let's start by defining what "better internet" means so I can be sure to give you the metrics that you want to hear. Yes, the paper you linked about Seoul pointed out that most of Seoul's internet service is at the same level as your average US city. So your goal is to do worse than Seoul? That's a weird goal!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:37
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, the paper you linked about Seoul pointed out that most of Seoul's internet service is at the same level as your average US city. No my goal is to continue to invest into our infrastructure and stay ahead of the "requirements" of our networks in the name of pushing innovation. If the US is the only one who wants to take that step I'm fine with that. There are other organizations taking those steps (not so many national governments, but tons of municipalities and such around the world) and there's no reason that the US can't be a leader there (other than those pesky profits that the cable companies love) Also, you know I actually READ THAT PAPER. It doesn't even talk about Seoul's internet service compared to the "average" us city. You're just making poo poo up. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:No my goal is to continue to invest into our infrastructure and stay ahead of the "requirements" of our networks in the name of pushing innovation. We are already doing this. down with slavery posted:If the US is the only one who wants to take that step I'm fine with that. There are other organizations taking those steps (not so many national governments, but tons of municipalities and such around the world) and there's no reason that the US can't be a leader there (other than those pesky profits that the cable companies love) The US is again already doing this. down with slavery posted:Also, you know I actually READ THAT PAPER. It doesn't even talk about Seoul's internet service compared to the "average" us city. You're just making poo poo up. The paper mentions that select segments of Seoul have additional gigiabit fiber services starting to be deployed compared to the normal service offered in the rest of the city. They explicitly don't say it's available all over Seoul. Now, since people already know that urban South Koreans have typical cable connections and speeds, this tells us that Seoul's normal internet connections are on par with normal cities in the US (among other things, Korean cable ISPs started deploying DOCSIS3 technology a bit earlier than the US and rest of the world; but those jurisidictions have caught up). But you're not capable of actually paying attention to anything, so it's no wonder you don't know that the report's statements lead to this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:44
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We are already doing this. Could be doing more. Like imagine all those profits that we pay to these companies that we wouldn't have to if we started regulating them better! Do you think you're some kind of genius for recognizing that US ISPs actually do invest in infrastructure? Because I've never disputed that. quote:The paper mentions that select segments of Seoul have additional gigiabit fiber services starting to be deployed compared to the normal service offered in the rest of the city. They explicitly don't say it's available all over Seoul. Now, since people already know that urban South Koreans have typical cable connections and speeds, this tells us that Seoul's normal internet connections are on par with normal cities in the US (among other things, Korean cable ISPs started deploying DOCSIS3 technology a bit earlier than the US and rest of the world; but those jurisidictions have caught up). Again, the average US city (as a whole) has much worse internet service than Seoul(as a whole). That's all I actually said, and it remains true even if their "normal" (lol, now the government subsidized ones don't count?) connections are similar to ours. If you want to point at data that shows otherwise, feel free(you can look all you want in that paper, it's not there, regardless of what you think). Otherwise why not just ignore it instead of being a contrarian idiot and just arguing with literally anything I post. How many times are you going to have to be demonstrably wrong in this thread before you'll stop?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I need to backtrack a bit to call him a moron:down with slavery posted:I call bullshit 1000 times on that, we are living in a world that is dominated by technology, it is incredibly wise to attempt to stay in front of these and make future technologies available as soon as possible if we want to keep our edge as a country. It would be CHEAP to provide these services to every American, especially when you consider our absurd wealth. You're a moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:49
|
|
Slanderer posted:You're a moron. Sorry, it's true. Take a peek at the government budget some time, you'll be shocked! Oh and for the record "every American" was clearly a figure of speech and I realize that there are extreme edge scenarios (~5-10% of the population) where it wouldn't make sense, but New York, Chicago, LA, Denver, San Fran, <insert major metropolitan area>? Every man woman and child should have a gigabit connection at worst. And no, I'd rather just go ahead and do it ourselves as a country (JOB CREATION) as opposed to waiting for the ISPs to get around to it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Serious question, why should ISPs NOT be considered common carriers? What do we lose by doing this? Why are these firms so opposed? One reason - because they don't want to have to submit service changes (including adding service lines) for approval by the FCC ahead of time, like they would if Title II applied. Second reason - unlike most companies, common carriers have to pay attorneys fees whenever they're found in violation of title II. Third reason - common carriers have to file all their charges/fees with the commission four months prior to changing those fees. The FCC can approve or reject those charges. If anyone complains, the FCC can suspend the change until they finish a hearing. (FCC hearings are not fast.) The whole "regulatory burden" argument you hear from Republicans is usually bullshit - but common carriers actually do operate under significant regulatory burdens that do affect their ability to offer competitive services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Could be doing more. Like imagine all those profits that we pay to these companies that we wouldn't have to if we started regulating them better! Do you think you're some kind of genius for recognizing that US ISPs actually do invest in infrastructure? Because I've never disputed that. You could always be "doing more", but we're already doing enough. down with slavery posted:Again, the average US city (as a whole) has much worse internet service than Seoul(as a whole). That's all I actually said, and it remains true even if their "normal" (lol, now the government subsidized ones don't count?) connections are similar to ours. That doesn't remain true because it isn't true. down with slavery posted:If you want to point at data that shows otherwise, feel free(you can look all you want in that paper, it's not there, regardless of what you think). Otherwise why not just ignore it instead of being a contrarian idiot and just arguing with literally anything I post. How many times are you going to have to be demonstrably wrong in this thread before you'll stop? The paper shows a vast lack of data to support your view, and generally available data shows what Koreans actually have. You're the one who has lied repeatedly in this thread, not me. down with slavery posted:Every man woman and child should have a gigabit connection at worst. Of course a good 20% of the population actively refuses to have internet service at all, so that would be a bit short sighted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:51
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The paper shows a vast lack of data to support your view, and generally available data shows what Koreans actually have. You're the one who has lied repeatedly in this thread, not me. And yet my paper says that Seouls great network is the responsibility of their public investment and your <crickets> has demonstrated otherwise. Haha I'm the one who's lied. Yes mr. "they aren't fighting against being classified as common carriers" Kalman posted:One reason - because they don't want to have to submit service changes (including adding service lines) for approval by the FCC ahead of time, like they would if Title II applied. Something tells me they are more concerned about the service changes that make things get worse, not the ones that include adding lines quote:Second reason - unlike most companies, common carriers have to pay attorneys fees whenever they're found in violation of title II. They can afford it quote:Third reason - common carriers have to file all their charges/fees with the commission four months prior to changing those fees. The FCC can approve or reject those charges. If anyone complains, the FCC can suspend the change until they finish a hearing. (FCC hearings are not fast.) As the FCC should be able to. quote:The whole "regulatory burden" argument you hear from Republicans is usually bullshit - but common carriers actually do operate under significant regulatory burdens that do affect their ability to offer competitive services. Competitive with who exaclty? All of the ISPs are hugely profitable megacorporations, god drat you're such a transparent shill.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Sorry, it's true. Take a peek at the government budget some time, you'll be shocked! So, how much would it cost then, since it's so cheap? Please include the costs of the necessary backbone overhaul needed to support this as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:So, how much would it cost then, since it's so cheap? Please include the costs of the necessary backbone overhaul needed to support this as well. We don't really need social security anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:And yet my paper says that Seouls great network is the responsibility of their public investment and your <crickets> has demonstrated otherwise. Haha I'm the one who's lied. Yes mr. "they aren't fighting against being classified as common carriers" And America's great network is also a responsibility of massive public investment. You're just plain stupid of course. What ISP changes make things worse? And once again, every time someone disagrees with your lies you call them a shill. Because you're a loon. Slanderer posted:So, how much would it cost then, since it's so cheap? Please include the costs of the necessary backbone overhaul needed to support this as well. We can totally bring gigabit access to everyone living 50 miles away from the nearest village over rough terrain because:
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Hes' getting a ton of pressure from the public and from internet firms right now on these issues. He's doing what I like to call "throwing a bone". Why is it so unacceptable to wait for action and be skeptical of the words of a man who is a product of the revolving door we've all come to know and love. His arm must be getting pretty tired, what with throwing that bone around since at least February. There's nothing wrong with taking a wait and see attitude or being skeptical of a regulator. I'm not in the guy's head, I don't know for sure if he's acting out of genuine belief, industry or public pressure, boredom, or whatever. But going "lol how adorably naive" is an asinine response when someone notes that an agency head is making the noises you'd expect if it was going to act, and correctly surmises that it's a positive sign the agency will address an issue. Jumping to tell everyone how sure you are nothing will happen isn't a neutral stance, and in this case it's not well justified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Competitive with who exaclty? All of the ISPs are hugely profitable megacorporations, god drat you're such a transparent shill. I was talking about actual common carriers, not the existing ISPs. Tell me again how well the non-cellular portions of the ILECs are doing? Oh, wait, they're doing so poorly that their patent companies are petitioning the FCC for permission to stop operating them. God drat you're such an illiterate moron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Funnily enough, a lot of the ILEC easy money up and vanished when those evil cable companies upgraded to be able to sell landline service. Or when other non-affiliated cell companies upgraded their networks to be suitable replacements. It's almost like there was massive investments in networks of all sorts or something!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:21 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And America's great network is also a responsibility of massive public investment. You're just plain stupid of course. quote:What ISP changes make things worse? Setting up a really good network in the rich neighborhood and giving the lower income kids down the street poo poo service because "it doesn't make sense to invest" in poorer areas. quote:And once again, every time someone disagrees with your lies you call them a shill. Because you're a loon. No, I call anyone who just blindly defends the ISPs (like you mr "they aren't fighting against becoming common carriers") a shill quote:We can totally bring gigabit access to everyone living 50 miles away from the nearest village over rough terrain because: I specifically said large cities, but yes continue to mischaracterize what I'm trying to say, seems to be about all you can do Kalman posted:I was talking about actual common carriers, not the existing ISPs. I'm aware, and again, I asked why the ISPs shouldn't be common carriers. "Because common carriers aren't as competitive" isn't a reason.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 00:10
|
|