|
Aeka 2.0 posted:They knew, and were given federal money for massive upgrades. They pocketed it instead. They didn't pocket it, they mostly spent it on building out cell phone infrastructure that was sold off to cell companies or used by their own wireless divisions, and much of the rest went into basic infrastructure upgrades that they simply sat on actually using for a long time even though they'd built it.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:They didn't pocket it, they mostly spent it on building out cell phone infrastructure that was sold off to cell companies or used by their own wireless divisions, and much of the rest went into basic infrastructure upgrades that they simply sat on actually using for a long time even though they'd built it. Don't like 98% of people actually have the level of broadband specified in the act by now anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Doesn't this mean that ISPs are now responsible for child porn going over their wires? While I agree with your frustration about the end of the common carrier bargain, I'm quite confident that the rules will be written in such a way that the cable companies will continue not to be responsible for content.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Don't like 98% of people actually have the level of broadband specified in the act by now anyway? According to the FCC's latest data at least, it's 99.9% of census-Urban residents (80% of the population) and about 90% of the census-Rural residents (which are 20% of the population) for a total around 98%. With much of the remaining 2% having severe location issues leadign to things like satellite being the only "viable" option.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Don't like 98% of people actually have the level of broadband specified in the act by now anyway? http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html quote:Over the decade from 1994-2004 the major telephone companies profited from higher phone rates paid by all of us, accelerated depreciation on their networks, and direct tax credits an average of $2,000 per subscriber for which the companies delivered precisely nothing in terms of service to customers. That's $200 billion with nothing to be shown for it. quote:The FCC was (and probably still is) managed for the benefit of the companies and their lobbyists, not for you and me. And the upshot is that I could move to Japan and pay $14 per month for 100-megabit-per-second Internet service but I can't do that here and will probably never be able to.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:According to the FCC's latest data at least, it's 99.9% of census-Urban residents (80% of the population) and about 90% of the census-Rural residents (which are 20% of the population) for a total around 98%. With much of the remaining 2% having severe location issues leadign to things like satellite being the only "viable" option.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Where in Japan do you get 100mbit internet service for 2000 JPY or whatever a month? My company paid more than that for 20/10 or so in Kawasaki and it was similar in Yokohama. I somehow doubt its significantly different between the 23 wards and Kanagawa or Yokohama? edit: Also, all links off Honshu seemed extraordinarily slow. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 14:53 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Where in Japan do you get 100mbit internet service for 2000 JPY or whatever a month? My company paid more than that for 20/10 or so in Kawasaki and it was similar in Yokohama. I somehow doubt its significantly different between the 23 wards and Kanagawa or Yokohama? This says it was a thing too: http://boingboing.net/2009/02/17/japan-internet-connection.html http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost-to-offer-the-worlds-fastest-broadband-20-per-home/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Article was from 2007. If only J:Com had a website in English where you can check the prices. http://www.jcom.co.jp/english/services/net.html
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If you looked (or read the posted links) you would know that this was not the case. I'm not finding anything outside of that article which says that 20-45Mbit service is what the companies were promising. edit: Actually, according to that article the definition of "broadband" in the actual law was what we stated - 1.5 mbps downstream and 128 kbps upstream. I don't really care about what people were promising 20 years ago, I care whether they actually followed the law or not, and it sounds like they did. computer parts fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:If only J:Com had a website in English where you can check the prices. Thats more what I was remembering being described. They charge more for businesses of course. So for what I pay in the US for 20mbit cable plus a DVR gets you 160mbit down internet, a DVR and about half the channels we get in the states.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So for what I pay in the US for 20mbit cable plus a DVR gets you 160mbit down internet, a DVR and about half the channels we get in the states. It's pretty depressing. The regulators, legislators and lobbyists, much like in the healthcare industry, think that if they repeat "ours is the best" over and over again we will believe it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:As posted above this is utter bullshit. They redefined the word "broadband" to make the PR claims become true. No actual deployment was a part of the process. They redefined broadband from the original 256 kilobit symmetrical definition of the 90s to 1.5 megabit down / 768k up, yes. If you use the old definition of broadband from the original 90s laws, then broadband availability is close to 100% without counting satellite (which you shouldn't anyway). The primary areas that still don't meet that are places that don't have fixed link access to anything. FRINGE posted:If you looked (or read the posted links) you would know that this was not the case. Hey, cool article from 2007! That sure is relevant to what service is available 7 years later. PS that article repeats the lie of "redefining broadband" - 200 kilobits was in fact broadband in a world where not even 56k was quite there yet, i.e. when the first laws were written. Here's some info from last year: http://www.fcc.gov/measuring-broadband-america/2013/February http://www.broadbandmap.gov/download/Broadband%20Availability%20in%20Rural%20vs%20Urban%20Areas.pdf Cool bonus: in that PDF, broadband is defined as 3 megabits down and 768 kilobits up! That's a lot different from 200 kilobits I'm pretty sure. hobbesmaster posted:Thats more what I was remembering being described. They charge more for businesses of course. I do hope you realize that that top tier is nowhere near available everywhere in Japan! Meanwhile, you can get similar services in many places in the US from your standard providers. computer parts posted:I care whether they actually followed the law or not, and it sounds like they did. They did violate the spirit of the law, by putting funds into what became broadband by cell phone where it was supposed to be about broadband by wireline, and by spending most of the wireline funds on beefing up backbone connections rather than customer last mile connections. But both of those things led to much better services today. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:53 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I do hope you realize that that top tier is nowhere near available everywhere in Japan! Nobody cares about anything outside of Kanto. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thats more what I was remembering being described. They charge more for businesses of course. Not that it accounts for that drastic a disparity but Japan doesn't have the problems the US does with people hating other people so much that they will literally move dozens of miles away from anything resembling civilization and demand those of us without the strange amalgam of agoraphobia and psychopathy that is colloquially known as "white flight" to subsidize modern living for their worthless asses.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Not that it accounts for that drastic a disparity but Japan doesn't have the problems the US does with people hating other people so much that they will literally move dozens of miles away from anything resembling civilization and demand those of us without the strange amalgam of agoraphobia and psychopathy that is colloquially known as "white flight" to subsidize modern living for their worthless asses. Even with that in mind a lot of the internet development is paid for by private companies who aren't inherently racist (as least not in the way you're thinking of). If anything companies love inner city areas, because it's cheap to build their internet service and they can service millions of people in a small area. The main issue with propagation of high speed internet compared with Japan is the fairly low population density of the US, and the relatively large (if rather quickly shrinking) amount of the rural population (80.1% urbanized population vs 91%).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Not that it accounts for that drastic a disparity but Japan doesn't have the problems the US does with people hating other people so much that they will literally move dozens of miles away from anything resembling civilization and demand those of us without the strange amalgam of agoraphobia and psychopathy that is colloquially known as "white flight" to subsidize modern living for their worthless asses. But the funny thing is that these days over 90% of the rural population has > 6 megabit downlink and > 1.5 megabit uplink service available to them, and this does not count satellite. This of course isn't the same thing as them all actually paying for it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Literally nobody who doesn't remember it from when it happened believes me when I bring this up. They're incredulous that this could've been allowed to happen. It's such a huge-scale crime. I'm not in a location where I can read all the URLs, but are we talking about actual crimes, or things which were legal and some feel the actions shouldn't have been?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not in a location where I can read all the URLs, but are we talking about actual crimes, or things which were legal and some feel the actions shouldn't have been? ISPs took money intended to build out customer broadband access in the late 90s and early 2000s, and instead spent it to improve their internal networks and cell phone service. This was against the spirit of the law but not against the letter, and both of those things they did spend it on were useful as all hell. And every so often someone's who's angry that their internet is slow brings it up as if the actual implementation of exactly what the original intention was would have helped them - early 2000s broadband standards being what most people consider slow today.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even with that in mind a lot of the internet development is paid for by private companies who aren't inherently racist (as least not in the way you're thinking of). If anything companies love inner city areas, because it's cheap to build their internet service and they can service millions of people in a small area. Now can you imagine how it is for Canada? Larger AND less dense pop. I don't understand how people can compare the 2 giant country from north america to Japan or Western Europe. The situation is vastly different yet they seem to think it makes no difference.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:CTIA is also a lobbying gimmick. Most CTIA-The Wireless Association members weren't subject to net neutrality anyway because the Open Internet Order didn't apply in the same way to wireless companies as it did to wireline. Also, after CTIA ended for him in 2004 he worked as a tech VC. Do you think his most recent experience of small companies that benefit from net neutrality might inform his views at all, or is it only his lobbying history that could possibly affect things? As to the deregulation point - cable in the 70s and 80s was a completely different regulatory structure given that the 1984 cable act didn't exist yet. Prior to the 1984 act, one big lobbying priority for cable operators was forcing telcos to give them access to their telephone poles so they could lay cable. So, actually, Wheeler was lobbying for net neutrality back then, too.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not in a location where I can read all the URLs, but are we talking about actual crimes, or things which were legal and some feel the actions shouldn't have been? http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm http://www.muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal-aka-wheres-the-45mb-s-i-already-paid-for/ quote:By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions. -- read the promises. quote:Broadband Scandals is a well-documented expose, 406 pages and 528 footnotes. Using the phone companies’ own words (and well as other sources), the book outlines a massive nationwide scandal that affects every aspect of state of the Internet. Not only the web but broadband, municipalities laying fiber or building wifi networks, not to mention related issues such as such as VOIP, cable services, the cost of local phone service, net neutrality, the new digital divide, and even America’s economic growth. It doesnt matter what happens, there are always profit-apologists. "History" has an expiration date you see, and if its more than a couple years old it didnt happen. Anyone that has worked for an ISP and isnt just talking out of their rear end has seen old DSLAMS still pushing those awesome 1/1 and 1.5/256k connections over copper, even today. Theres still CE150s servicing customers in 2014. The money was pocketed. It is an after the fact PR spin to say it was spent on other things. Profist rose, rose some more, and continue to rise. Still no door to door fiber. Still no 45M connections.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
This is about the 10th time over the last 3 years that Net Neutrality has been declared dead. So is it really this time?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Still no 45M connections. Yeah I've only got this 60 meg connection in the middle of the Appalachians. It's real horrible I tells ya. Anyway 45 megabit connections to everyone in the country is impossible now and was impossible then. No one with any sense believed that it was going to happen, and it's not even possible in the countries with the best internet service today. Shimrra Jamaane posted:This is about the 10th time over the last 3 years that Net Neutrality has been declared dead. So is it really this time? No, of course not. "Neutrality" is and always will be way more profitable for enough big companies to keep true interference away. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:05 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Yeah I've only got this 60 meg connection in the middle of the Appalachians. It's real horrible I tells ya.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Your anecdote totally makes everything different! Well your posts so far have been to whine about how the hyperbolic promise of a CEO in the height of the dot com bubble didn't come true so forgive me for being snarky.  Why, this 8 core CPU doesn't go the full 12 ghz I was promised in 2003 either....
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Anyway 45 megabit connections to everyone in the country is impossible now and was impossible then. No one with any sense believed that it was going to happen, and it's not even possible in the countries with the best internet service today. They could build it (or something more like it) if they wanted to. (Or if the government seized their fraudulent asses and made it happen.) There is no reason that people are still being serviced over 1M DSLAMS on the same mid 1900s copper that the first modern phone lines were put on. No reason except for greed and deluded consumers guzzling the PR. Even if they wanted to be cheap they could have rolled out the now 15 year old VDSL equipment on the same lovely copper, and then it would have just meant upgrades (mostly) to the base stations and repeaters etc. http://bgr.com/2014/01/28/att-earnings-q4-2013/ quote:AT&T rakes in $5.2 billion Q4 profit https://venturebeat.com/2014/01/21/verizon-q4-2013-earnings/ quote:Verizon profits surged to $7.9B last quarter on strong customer growth Between 1990-whatever and 2014 this could have been easily done. Instead they lied to everyone and counted on their vocal suckups and political plants to defend them. Install Windows posted:Well your posts so far have been to whine about how the hyperbolic promise of a CEO Your posts so far have been desperate defense of criminal behavior because you think the companies are neat-o.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They could build it (or something more like it) if they wanted to. No you couldn't, it's impractical to do it to everyone. We don't even have the electrical grid out to everyone yet, nor land phone service. FRINGE posted:It was not an advertisement. They made a promise in exchange for fleecing the public. When the fraud was exposed nothing was done. The politicians were not as stupid as you, they did not believe it was going to be that to everyone in the country. You did not vote on it either. Keep freaking out about how you'd totally have slightly faster downloads today though, I'm sure that'll help. Not to mention: the ISPs would have gouged out the rear end for your hypothetical 45 megabit connections back then. Hope you would have liked $1000 a month bills.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Actually after reading that 400 page e-book I noticed after the 1996 Act passed the telco's claim became "we will offer a 45 Mbit option", not "we will get 45 Mbit to everyone". And they do that, it's called a T3 line.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually after reading that 400 page e-book I noticed after the 1996 Act passed the telco's claim became "we will offer a 45 Mbit option", not "we will get 45 Mbit to everyone". Yep, that's the kind of stuff they actually talked about. Meanwhile promises to provide broadband were under the terms of the day, where ISDN was already considered blazing fast and just at the edge of being broadband.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually after reading that 400 page e-book I noticed after the 1996 Act passed the telco's claim became "we will offer a 45 Mbit option", not "we will get 45 Mbit to everyone". And the cable companies have a 50mbit option available for much of the country. Hell if you're a business normal cable stuff goes up to 100mbit down (but only 5 Mbit up - want a service you can actually serve on you pay $$$).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-what-happened-to-obamas-promised-net-neutrality/quote:Bill Moyers Essay: What Happened to Obama’s Promised Net Neutrality? http://time.com/82409/wheeler-net-neutrality/ quote:Wheeler, a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist, strongly disputed the notion that his proposed Internet rules would imperil "net neutrality" [TO HIS BUDDIES IN THE INDUSTRY, NOT THE PUBLIC] Wheeler: Dont worry bros! I definitely will not make this a Utility, and you definitely can charge extra money for last-mile penetration! *high-five* *does keg stand*
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
So you're just bolding random sentences at this point and hoping it will convince people of something or what?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:So you're just bolding random sentences at this point and hoping it will convince people of something or what?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:So you're just hoping that a weakly planned Socratic dialogue will make you seem intelligent or what? A socratic dialogue implies that both parties are actually talking instead of one googling random articles, highlighting a sentence every few paragraphs and then posting smug one liners.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:A socratic dialogue implies that both parties are actually talking instead of one googling random articles, highlighting a sentence every few paragraphs and then posting smug one liners. Articles about Wheelers response (to his buddies) is relevant to the thread. Your smug meta questions are off topic.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:A socratic dialogue implies that the person attacking a topic by attacking the speaker is smart enough to lay consequential traps. Yes you aren't smart enough to do that and I'm calling you out on just highlighting random text and then adding a line of fanfic. Edit: the articles you chose to quote don't even lead to your hackneyed premise, despite your cavalier cutting out of blocks of text. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Wheeler has lots of freinds. http://www.vice.com/read/former-comcast-and-verizon-attorneys-now-manage-the-fcc-and-are-about-to-kill-the-internet quote:The backgrounds of the new FCC staff have not been reported until now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Lawyers always personally believe everything they argue. I mean, defense lawyers believe their clients are great people, right? (Also, Willkie Farr is one of the better communications law groups out there - there's a reason Willkie attorney's transit back and forth from the FCC, they're exactly the people you'd want arguing on behalf of net neutrality - or against it.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Lawyers always personally believe everything they argue. I mean, defense lawyers believe their clients are great people, right? Bernie Sanders made a direct statement: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/net-neutrality quote:Tell the FCC: Protect the Open Internet
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:37
|
|