Here it is guys, as we should have done a long time ago. I know its come up in several other threads and im kind surprised it doesn't have it own. So here it is. net neutrality. One thing that everyone needs to really grasp is the understanding of how the actual industry works. I've attempted to explain it several times on the other thread; There is only so much SPECTRUM that is available for the use of broadcast television, cell phones and internet. Not to mention radio, ham radio, cb, ect. Imagine a pie okay? what happens is companies are purchasing the right to use a certain BAND within the SPECTRUM. Who are they purchasing this right from?? US. You, me, american citizens, the united states. Without that spectrum, they couldn't operate. We are literally selling them all pieces of the pie, frequencies within the spectrum. And they are turning around and charging astronomical prices, at the same time the big companies are buying up all the small regional ones, creating a literal monopoly, but its only regional because of how the utilities are broken up. My point is, that the government has allowed basic regional monopolies with all utilities. A great example is the number of broadband services available. Time warner and Comcast are literally buying up all the competition. But its okay because they are only "regional". So comcast buys all its competitors in a region, time warner does the same, and boom. What do you got? Fixed prices and fixed access. Even though they are purchasing the pie they use from us, the people. Comcast and Time warner are the ones who essentially control the cable market in america. There may be a few regionals left that are good, but realistically they are all gone now. What I think is, the government needs to change this. They need to break up comcast and time warner, or allow others to access the spectrum at a cheap price to spur competition. They kind of did the same with cell phone access a few years ago, thats why you see so many non-verizon/att/tmobile phone companies. The likes of boost, et all, all access the same pie that verizon and att do, however they are able to charge less because of what the government did, allowed others to gain access to this spectrum, which is our own to begin with, at a cheaper price. It spurred all kinds of competition and now you can easily find a prepaid cell service and most times be paying half of what you would with one of the big 3. So, that all being said, "net neutrality" is really about the ISP's ability to use our information in the same way that google and facebook do. I believe the ISP's should have access to that info, because why the fuck not. Why should google and facebook have a stranglehold on ads on the internet?? They shouldn't. Especially a company like google. Speaking of needing some government intervention lol...another topic though. So do you think that comcast and att should be able to do ads like google does? Or do you think google should just have that ability? This is the TRUE free market question/principal isn't it??
Who do you feel should regulate the internet and keep monopolies from happening? From a business standpoint having a monopoly in your service sector is the ultimate goal
In wireline telecommunications, the amount of available spectrum is nearly infinite, as one cannot know what future innovations will increase capacity. For example, from the start of broadcast television, 1 6MHz NTSC television channel could broadcast 1 TV channel at a time, all the time, no matter if someone was actually using this or not. This remained the standard for decades. The invent of digital video increased that to anywhere from 10-12 channels on 1 6MHz NTSC channel, and could turn this on and off depending on demand (SDV). Look at all the advancements that DOCSIS technology is capable of delivering from 40Mbps to 10Gbps in 20 years.DOCSIS - Wikipedia
The government created this, as only governments can create monopolies. Cable TV companies are granted franchise rights by local and state governments. The government rarely fixes the problems it creates without creating a new problems. Especially the federal government.
listen I get it dude. And I'm seriously totally anti-government in just about everything and every thread on here. But something needs to be done, as there are literal monopolies right now in each area. Its not helping, its hurting. We pay OUT THE ASS for internet access, and its something they are purchasing from us. Its madness. I honestly don't know. This is tough for me, because I'm so anti-government. I don't think that starting a new agency to oversee it is the answer. I think what they did with cell phones and access to the networks is in the correct vein. Something just needs to be done to level the playing field, and break up the monopolies we already have.
no this is great info. They are always innovating ways to splice that slice of the pie into more pieces. But what they are doing is splitting their bands that they purchased, that aren't creating new spectrum, they are just manipulating what we have and using it more efficiently.
Aha-"something needs to be done!" And that is how the government gets its catch I cant answer your question because how can I want my government to do something when I wouldn't say, anti government, but more so a small government, I don't think they should be as involved in our lives. So what you think, a private panel on industry leaders to regulate it?
I dont disagree dude, I'm torn on it. I don't even know if a private panel type thing could even work...and for the following reason....
The solution is to get the government out of the way. If Google or Amazon or Tesla decides it wants to run wires from point A to point B they shouldn't need to get the governments consent. The government created the cable franchise monopoly. Why else do you think that all of the MSO's are so friendly with each other? The cellular internet is a whole different realm that I stay out of. Who owns the airwaves? That's a tough one. Again, it's the government granting these companies their spectrum, and taking above the table bribes to do so.
Well some of y'all can fight all the old money u want. As far as I'm concerned I got better things to do then waste my time with that, like smoking this fat joint So instead of fighting, I'm trying to get a ride on the gravey train
It takes two to tango. The telecoms are just as guilty, if not more so. They did all the lobbying after the telecommunications act of 1996 that would soon be the demise of independent ISP's. The telecoms fucked over independent ISP's when the broadband infrastructure was being installed. They were doing all the illegal shit to screw them over while paying off government regulators. They were the ones consolidating their power over broadband services when it was being installed. Now I got two choices for broadband internet. Cable from Comcast, and DSL (and pretty soon fiber) from Century LInk. That's it. In the nineties, I had over ten to choose from. edit: Shit changed in the nineties when phone companies stopped being just a long distance service provider, and started offering high speed data services. Their position was, we built it, now we sell it.
In the 90's you had to dial into 1 of your 10 ISP's using the telephone network. The ISP was your OSI Layer 3 provider, but your telephone service was still providing the OSI Layer 1 transport for that content. In reality, the cable companies built a better wireline distribution system for packet data in the 70's and 80's when they went to an HFC design, but didn't know it.
Ok, admittedly, I'm ignorant on the osi layer talk. But whatever. Fact is the phone companies realized the revenue potential of high speed data and while they were building it out, left the independent ISP's out in the cold cruel world of dial up internet.
The phone companies had DSL technology back in the 80's but sat on it until the cable companies out-competed them in the early 2000's. Telephone companies stagnated high-speed internet growth by sticking us with crappy dial up 56K internet for at least 15 years.
They may of had the technology, but they didn't have the infrastructure built out. In 2006 I was living in an area that didn't offer DSL. I still had a modem that would scream out satanic verses. And the build out of the broadband infrastructure is really the heart of the matter. I said before over in the MAGA thread, The phone companies built it, now they sell it. Should they have control over bandwidth of certain areas of the internet as well? Hell No!!!!! That is OURS. That's the public utility part. That's Net Neutrality.
Generic terms like broadband infrastructure is hard to define and mean different things when it comes to telephone, cable and wireless internet. Since some companies operate in more than one of these technologies, it muddies things up. I'm mostly discussing cable internet, as that's where my expertise is. The cable companies own 100% of the bandwidth on their wires.
Cable, DSL = broadband. I don't know why the term broadband would muddy things up. That's besides the point. The point is the cable companies own, as you say, 100% of the bandwidth. Ok, I'll give them that. They pulled the wire and maintain the network. I'll pay for that service. Now let's get back to net neutrality, cause you're dodging this point. Should they control the speed of internet traffic for certain areas on the internet on those wires?