CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63946
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:34 am
 


https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... eutrality/

Quote:
Regulations: Verizon started letting people sign up for its new wireless 5G Home high-speed internet service this week. It doesn't just mark the start of the next internet revolution. It obliterates the case for net-neutrality regulations.

On Tuesday, Verizon said that people can start signing up now for its 5G Home, with service starting on Oct. 1 in Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles and Sacramento, Calif. Speeds will, the company says, be as fast as 1 Gbps, which is about as fast as Verizon's FIOS gets. It's more than 10 times faster than what the average home gets today.

What's different about 5G Home is that it doesn't require digging trenches or laying cable to hit those blistering speeds. Instead, it uses new wireless transmission technology. That means Verizon can start offering fiber optic speeds anywhere in the country, simply by installing mini cell towers in a given area.

5G Race Is On

Other carriers are racing to get their own 5G networks deployed. AT&T says it will launch its first mobile 5G network by the end of this year. T-Mobile aims for a nationwide 5G network in less than two years, with speeds up to 4 Gbps.

All of it means more competition for high-speed internet at home.

And that's why the case for "net neutrality" just collapsed — not that there ever was a good case for it to begin with.

Internet giants pushing the courts to reimpose "net neutrality" regulations that the FCC just killed rest their entire argument on the claim that home broadband today is a monopoly.

In their August filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Internet Association — which includes Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Yelp and others — claimed that "market forces cannot effectively discipline ISP conduct because customers cannot readily change providers if they disagree with their ISP's (Internet Service Provider's) practices."

They went on to say that "early 50% of Americans are served by only one or zero wireline broadband service providers meeting the current FCC speed benchmark of 25 megabits-per-second download."

No Competition?

As a result, the filing argues, "it is irrational to think that transparency regarding ISP practices alone can protect net neutrality for the millions of consumers who cannot switch providers; they must either accept their ISPs' disclosed traffic management practices or go without internet access."

So, they said, the only way to prevent ISPs from doing things like throttling certain services, or charging more for access to certain sites, is for the government regulators to stop such practices.

But this argument hinges on the idea that ISPs aren't competitive. If they are, then market competition, not government regulation, will solve the problem.

That's how it works in the mobile world, where wireless companies are constantly trying to woo or keep customers with better offerings and lower prices.

Cable Wires Obsolete?

With 5G, the cost of bringing high-speed internet to everyone, nationwide, plunges. There's no doubt that traditional cable companies will start building out their own networks, for fear of losing all their customers to faster, cheaper 5G services.

In fact, the use of wires to connect homes to the internet could very well become as antiquated as those old dial-up modems.

The idea that internet needed federal "net neutrality" rules to stay free and open was never strong to begin with. The internet grew and thrived without them for all but two years.

"Net neutrality" advocates paint lots of horror stories about life in an unregulated internet. But they've never been able to produce any concrete examples of consumer harm.

Quite the contrary. One of the offerings that zealots said was a clear violation of "net neutrality" rules was an unlimited video streaming plan offered by T-Mobile.

Like a House of Cards

With the advent of 5G home and wireless services, the "net neutrality" argument falls down like a house of cards. If one internet provider does something stupid, like block certain websites, consumers will simply switch providers.

But that's always the way it is with government regulations designed to "protect" consumers. They're always several steps behind the blistering pace of free market innovations.

At best, they're quickly outstripped by free-market innovations. At worst, they inhibit innovations and make consumers' lives worse off.

It was the FCC itself — the agency Google and company say must act as the guardian of internet innovation — that delayed TV for years, tried to strangle cable TV, stymied phone companies from offering competing services, and delayed cell phones by a decade. All in the name of consumer protection.

Why innovators like Google and Facebook can't understand any of this is a complete mystery.


R=UP


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14220
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:00 am
 


What? Im no way does that affect the argument for net neutrality!

So I’m supposed to just keep changing my ISP anytime I want to access a website that they’ve throttled? Sports fans will have to have one ISP with exclusive NHL rights to watch hockey and another to watch NFL football, a third for Netflix?

It’s funny how people can support such a clearly corporate agenda against their own interests. Just shows how tribal identity politics rules the right wing mind.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63946
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:05 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
What? Im no way does that affect the argument for net neutrality!

So I’m supposed to just keep changing my ISP anytime I want to access a website that they’ve throttled? Sports fans will have to have one ISP with exclusive NHL rights to watch hockey and another to watch NFL football, a third for Netflix?

It’s funny how people can support such a clearly corporate agenda against their own interests. Just shows how tribal identity politics rules the right wing mind.


More competition means our local ISP had better not throttle or censor something lest someone else step in to compete.

Also, as I am looking at this 5G technology it's so accessible that setting up a small, local, mom & pop ISP with a modest ~$150,000 investment is quite feasible.

For small towns that currently depend on copper wire Internet this is going to be a huge leap forward.

Likewise, if you want to form a cooperative with your like-minded friends this puts that possibility within reach assuming your nanny-state government won't outlaw it first.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33975
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:22 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
What? Im no way does that affect the argument for net neutrality!

So I’m supposed to just keep changing my ISP anytime I want to access a website that they’ve throttled? Sports fans will have to have one ISP with exclusive NHL rights to watch hockey and another to watch NFL football, a third for Netflix?

It’s funny how people can support such a clearly corporate agenda against their own interests. Just shows how tribal identity politics rules the right wing mind.


More competition means our local ISP had better not throttle or censor something lest someone else step in to compete.

Also, as I am looking at this 5G technology it's so accessible that setting up a small, local, mom & pop ISP with a modest ~$150,000 investment is quite feasible.

For small towns that currently depend on copper wire Internet this is going to be a huge leap forward.

Likewise, if you want to form a cooperative with your like-minded friends this puts that possibility within reach assuming your nanny-state government won't outlaw it first.


There are many small towns that only have one ISP, and sometimes no cell service. What competition?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:27 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
There are many small towns that only have one ISP, and sometimes no cell service. What competition?


Best argument for it then. Set up your own ISP.

Mmm, more microwaves to fry our brains on.. Can't wait.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14220
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:32 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
What? Im no way does that affect the argument for net neutrality!

So I’m supposed to just keep changing my ISP anytime I want to access a website that they’ve throttled? Sports fans will have to have one ISP with exclusive NHL rights to watch hockey and another to watch NFL football, a third for Netflix?

It’s funny how people can support such a clearly corporate agenda against their own interests. Just shows how tribal identity politics rules the right wing mind.


More competition means our local ISP had better not throttle or censor something lest someone else step in to compete.

Also, as I am looking at this 5G technology it's so accessible that setting up a small, local, mom & pop ISP with a modest ~$150,000 investment is quite feasible.

For small towns that currently depend on copper wire Internet this is going to be a huge leap forward.

Likewise, if you want to form a cooperative with your like-minded friends this puts that possibility within reach assuming your nanny-state government won't outlaw it first.


You don’t understand. The. ISPs will sign exclusive deals with the content providers like Netflix so you can’t go elsewhere for that content. One will be the exclusive provider for Netflix, the other for NFL football, you will not have choice.

And ar any rate why on earth would you as a consumer want to give ISPs the right to control your content? There’s nothing but downside you gain nothing from ending Net Neutrality.

Let me put this another way: the net is neutral right now. What is it you want ISPs to take away from you that they’re not currently allowed to?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63946
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:40 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
You don’t understand.


No, you don't understand. You can use this technology to start your own ISP and sign your own contracts to deliver content to your customers.

If the NFL or anyone else refuses to do a deal with you then you can sue the fuckers to the ends of the earth for violating anti-trust laws.

Then you'll have more money to expand your company and I will absolutely cheer you on! [cheer]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28233
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:43 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
More competition means our local ISP had better not throttle or censor something lest someone else step in to compete.


In the US the ISP's will sign exclusivity contracts that protect them from competition. In Canada the providers will collude as they always do, just like they've been doing for twenty years at least with their artificially high service charges for a product that's half the price in other countries. There's your "free market" in action for you right there, the usual game of backroom deals and protection provided to them by the governments to keep their profits as high as possible.

Free market? Competition? Never been any such thing. Just more weasel words from an empty capitalist ideology that always does the exact opposite of what it preaches.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33975
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:49 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
You don’t understand.


No, you don't understand. You can use this technology to start your own ISP and sign your own contracts to deliver content to your customers.

If the NFL or anyone else refuses to do a deal with you then you can sue the fuckers to the ends of the earth for violating anti-trust laws.

Then you'll have more money to expand your company and I will absolutely cheer you on! [cheer]


Or you can have the FCC declare internet providers as 'common carriers' like the phone companies are, and they have to give everyone the same access.

One of these options is cheaper for consumers.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63946
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:52 am
 


The 'common carrier' rule only applies to land-based infrastructure and not wireless or satellite providers.

5G is not impacted by the common carrier rule.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28233
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:53 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
One of these options is cheaper for consumers.


But not good for the short-term profits of shareholders. So who will win out in the end on this one? The world wonders....... :roll:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63946
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:56 am
 


Thanos wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
One of these options is cheaper for consumers.


But not good for the short-term profits of shareholders. So who will win out in the end on this one? The world wonders....... :roll:


If not for investors seeking profits you'd be typing on a typewriter right now.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33975
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:56 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
The 'common carrier' rule only applies to land-based infrastructure and not wireless or satellite providers.

5G is not impacted by the common carrier rule.


Perhaps then it should.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33975
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:58 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Thanos wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
One of these options is cheaper for consumers.


But not good for the short-term profits of shareholders. So who will win out in the end on this one? The world wonders....... :roll:


If not for investors seeking profits you'd be typing on a typewriter right now.


An IBM(tm) Selectric(tm)? ;)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28233
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:59 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Thanos wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
One of these options is cheaper for consumers.


But not good for the short-term profits of shareholders. So who will win out in the end on this one? The world wonders....... :roll:


If not for investors seeking profits you'd be typing on a typewriter right now.


That was back when investors were visionary people trying to build something grand, not the sort of parasites of the "fuck it if ten thousand proles lose their jobs and homes, shut that factory down and sell it off for salvage because I need the cash buy a new yacht" type that are around in such abundance today.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.