So...Net Neutrality

[Admiral Yi]

For your reading pleasure, Yi, I present the saga of Netflix, Level 3 Communications, and Comcast:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112907024.html

TL;DR- Comcast was charging fees to Level 3, Level 3 said it was charging extra for switching video traffic coming from Netflix, Comcast swore up and down it charged every CDN (content delivery network) the same fees.

Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality.  I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.

[frunk]

Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality.  I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.

At the time there was concern over the issue, but other than Comcast trying to kill BitTorrent there wasn't much action.  Part of that was because although there was still internet activity (and plenty of downloads) there was little realtime or streaming going on.  Now that there are many more companies that rely on net neutrality for their business it's easier to find reasons to make them pay.

[DontSayBanana]

Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality.  I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.

It was a long-festering issue that ended up blowing up as the poster child once NN was established as an avenue to attack the policy.  Before that, it was pretty opaque, since NN mostly affects vendor contracts to which end users are not privy.

[Valmy]

it's more important to discuss (1) how obama didn't get rid of net neutrality; (2) how I'm a liar; and (3) whether I'm one of many white dudes (because all white men look alike I guess?)

This is an amazing display of despicable behavoir.

1. The asshole trolls us all as terrible hypocrits because of something he oh-so-conveniently "mis-remembered". If he had shown any kind of integrity I suppose I might buy it but these kinds of "errors" are incredibly common on his part. Then he trolls us for discussing the very concept he introduced.

2. Acts like we are all singling him out as being a liar despite the fact he lies all the time and did so again.

3. Weirdly calls Spicey a racist for confusing him with another poster.

The guy has no integrity nor take any responsibility for his statements. It is a complete waste of space. he can stay banned forever as far as I am concerned.

Can we get a pro-Trump poster who actually honestly wants to discuss issues and is not just a two-faced troll asshole? That would be great. Of course I guess I shouldn't tarnish pro-Trump people with LaCroix idiocy and two-facedness. He voted for Hillary. My apologies to Trump supporters.

[Valmy]

Did all the horrible things y'all mentioned come to pass when Bush unneutralized the net?

Good question. Obviously Bush neutralized it again later so obviously he had a reason to do it? What might that be?

[11B4V]

it's more important to discuss (1) how obama didn't get rid of net neutrality; (2) how I'm a liar; and (3) whether I'm one of many white dudes (because all white men look alike I guess?)

This is an amazing display of despicable behavoir.

1. The asshole trolls us all as terrible hypocrits because of something he oh-so-conveniently "mis-remembered". If he had shown any kind of integrity I suppose I might buy it but these kinds of "errors" are incredibly common on his part. Then he trolls us for discussing the very concept he introduced.

2. Acts like we are all singling him out as being a liar despite the fact he lies all the time and did so again.

3. Weirdly calls Spicey a racist for confusing him with another poster.

The guy has no integrity nor take any responsibility for his statements. It is a complete waste of space. he can stay banned forever as far as I am concerned.

Can we get a pro-Trump poster who actually honestly wants to discuss issues and is not just a two-faced troll asshole? That would be great. Of course I guess I shouldn't tarnish pro-Trump people with LaCroix idiocy and two-facedness. He voted for Hillary. My apologies to Trump supporters.

He's fake.

[11B4V]

He's the cheap Chinese copy of Kellyanne Conway.

[grumbler]

He's the cheap Chinese copy of Kellyanne Conway.

[Eddie Teach]

Isn't Lacroix the old Count?

There are similarities.

After Alfred turned out to be Dorsey, who knows.

[Syt]

http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-commissioner-says-fast-broadband-is-a-novelty/

FCC Commissioner says fast broadband is a novelty

Don't expect the FCC to push for faster broadband service in residential homes.

For the most part, 1Gbps Internet service is a pipe dream for any U.S. resident who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area. If you were hoping that might change at the urging of a new FCC commissioner, don't hold your breath. FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly hasn't been one to push for faster broadband, and he's certainly not a champion of expanding 1Gbps to more areas. Instead, he views ultra-fast broadband as a "novelty" for consumers who already have access.

"The outcry for things like ultra high-speed service in certain areas means longer waits for those who have no access or still rely on dial-up service, as providers rush to serve the denser and more profitable areas that seek upgrades to this level," O'Rielly said, according to Fierce Telecom. "Today, ultra-fast residential service is a novelty and good for marketing, but the tiny percentage of people using it cannot drive our policy decisions."

O'Rielly is assuming that expanding ultra-fast broadband and striving for ubiquitous broadband coverage can't occur at the same time. Some may agree with him, but what's concerning is that he doesn't seem to place any kind of urgency on faster connections. As TechDirt points out, when the FCC proposed increasing the standard definition of broadband from 4Mbps up and 1Mbps down to 25Mbps up and 3Mbps down, he voted against it.

"To justify setting the new benchmark at 25/3, as opposed to the current 4/1 or even 10/1 as several commenters suggested, the report notes that 4K TV requires 25Mbps. But 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come," O'Rielly wrote in his dissent (PDF). "While the statute directs us to look at 'advanced' telecommunications capability, this stretches the concept to an untenable extreme. Some people, for example, believe, probably incorrectly, that we are on the path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"

Yes, O'Rielly put the need for faster broadband to support 4K streaming on the same level what would be required for interplanetary teleportation. Both are an "untenable extreme" in his eyes.

What brought all this into view is a $20 billion proposal by a group of Democrats to expand "high speed and affordable broadband" in underserved areas. It was proposed as an alternative to U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure initiative.

"While sound telecom policy provisions that promote infrastructure build out could make sense, I would argue that policymakers should be leery of new communications infrastructure spending, as the last thing consumers or businesses need is an encore of the market distortions caused by the last Federal government economic stimulus efforts," O'Rielly said. "For the sake of efficiency and soundness, if new government money has to be included for broadband, it should be done in a way that does not harm competition in the marketplace, prevents bureaucrats from picking winners and losers, is technology agnostic, distributes resources in an effective and efficient manner, and does not undermine the FCC's universal service high-cost program."

According to Akamai (PDF), the average Internet speed in the U.S. is 16.3Mbps.

[LaCroix]

if he's defining ultra-fast residential service as "1gbps," then I agree. that is a novelty 99.99% residential consumers won't need

[Grey Fox]

until we do.

[LaCroix]

1gbps won't be needed for residential consumers for at least a decade. my (sole) local provider offers up to 200mbps, and that's far more than necessary

[viper37]

1gbps won't be needed for residential consumers for at least a decade. my (sole) local provider offers up to 200mbps, and that's far more than necessary

stupid forecast.  That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future.  "640kb is all we'll ever need".

If you need it in a decade, you have to start implementing it now.  Otherwise in a decade, you'll have 56kbps speed in the countryside and 10gbs in the city.

Plan ahead, for once.

4k tvs are being sold right now.  They are the majority of the HD tv sales.  By next year, 1080p will be the very low ed models.  4k content is available on streaming, from Netflix and other providers.  It's already hard to stream 1080p content, I often have to wait 20 minutes or more before I start watching a movie.  If I were to require 4k content with HDR, I'd have to start the movie a day before.

[Admiral Yi]

stupid forecast.  That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future.  "640kb is all we'll ever need".

If you need it in a decade, you have to start implementing it now.  Otherwise in a decade, you'll have 56kbps speed in the countryside and 10gbs in the city.

Plan ahead, for once.

The issue raised in the article is not whether to implement it, but whether to publicly subsidize it in certain "underserved" communities.