Killing Net Neutrality has brought a new call for Public Broadband

a reply to: ADSE255

Most countries don't have net neutrality laws and they are doing just fine and dandy.

a reply to: FHomerK

I'm glad you get it. Now you can stop channelling people who aren't dead yet.

a reply to: amfirst1

That won't last.

Ever heard of the NWO?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Supposedly so.
And who sends the internet into the cell system?

Couldn’t you just tell me?

I did.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Byrd

Each was actually more regulated than the Internet we see today.

Internally, yes.

Each used telephone lines which were (and are) regulated as common carriers. Phone companies had no say in what those information services did, under Title II.

But now the FCC has proclaimed that, even though the large ISPs create and maintain their own infrastructure (like telephone companies do), they are actually "information services" and can operate under Title I.

AOL was an information service. Compuserve was an information service. AT&T is not an information service. Time Warner is not an information service.

And so that everyone is aware, while those services like Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, and so on were the most popular ways of accessing the internet, there were dozens to hundreds of local ISP's available in every town with access mostly being limited to what would and wouldn't cause you to be charged long distance to establish a connection over dial up. There was a lot of competition in those days.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Understand but you're missing the point. There must be alternatives. Don't give up just because the one idea I threw out won't do the job.

That's the whole issue. There aren't alternatives. Wireless networks cannot substitute or wired networks, it's a physical impossibility due to the differences between transmitting information over electrical pulses vs the EM spectrum. Wireless carriers can in theory spring up, but wireless isn't capable of meeting our needs... it has to be wired networks, and that means we have to change how we treat wired networks.

a reply to: Aazadan

They were also in business before they provided internet access. They were self contained information services.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
5g is expected to be faster than broadband. A little innovation will make cables a thing of the past.

5g specs as I understand them are 20 gbits per cell tower, which then gets split between the hundreds of connections to that cell tower. Wired networks already offer gigabit service to the home, one of my friends lives in a wired internet test area and has speeds right now of over a gigabit for just his house.

In practice, wired speeds are still going to be between 10 and 100 times faster than wireless. The gap between them is only growing over time.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Phage

I get cell speeds faster than about half of the offered packages through a traditional provider, in my area.

LTE speed in my area is about 65Mbps

And that's part of why there's a serious problem with wired network providers. In exchange for managing the network, and having control over it, they were supposed to upgrade it over time. Those upgrades have largely not happened in part due to the ISP's having local monopoly status, and as such your connection is much slower than it should be.

But that's not an issue that Net Neutrality or Paid Prioritization directly addresses, it's a separate issue that has to do with the entire business model of service providers rather than content providers. It does however matter indirectly, as this whole thing is about discouraging streaming video and getting content through TV again, as a way to limit the necessity of network capacity/speed upgrades.

originally posted by: stormcell
The only alternative to the telephone companies, mobile phone operators, satellite TV operators are mesh networks of wi-fi stations much like HAM radio.

Mesh networks are not a solution, they have an exponential scalability issue which makes them impractical beyond about 100 users.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: ADSE255

Most countries don't have net neutrality laws and they are doing just fine and dandy.

Actually, most developed countries do have Net Neutrality laws. New Zealand is the one big exception.

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: Rockdisjoint

Have you chosen your prison yet? Big house. Wifi. Television. No control over your personal comings and goings? That kinda stuff?

You should.

What?! You make 0 sense.

Stay mad about nothing if you want.

a reply to: Phage

Cables that they installed and paid for.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: ADSE255

Most countries don't have net neutrality laws and they are doing just fine and dandy.

Actually, most developed countries do have Net Neutrality laws. New Zealand is the one big exception.

Not only that, but their prices are cheaper and their speed is is a lot faster.
That is what happens with Monopolies that have the government cater to them and punish consumers.

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
a reply to: Phage

Cables that they installed and paid for.

A lot of the infrastructure was put in place by tax payers.
Also, a lot of the ISPs were shoveled boatloads of money to bring our infrastructure up to modern standards.
Instead, they pocketed the money. The ISPs have been a failure and show they are not up to the task.

a reply to: ADSE255

The NWO wants net neutrality laws that way they can control internet content by monopolizing it all and have the bureaucrats decide the outcome. New ISP providers can always be created to compete with others, but no one can compete with the government.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
How about people who want it public crowd source it and build their own socialized network?

No competing ISP's, municipal broadband or not can be brought in to compete due to the legal monopoly status granted to ISP's. Until that's overturned, nothing can be done.

Even if you do that though, it costs $10,000 per person to run a last mile connection by building competing infrastructure. So that's not a solution. One company needs to own the lines, and everyone needs to be able to pay for access to them.

In the UK, they passed a law that established ISPs had to rent out these lines at cost to newer ISPs, which brought competition and lowered prices.

There is NOT competition right now when it comes to ISPs, which is why they can do whatever they like without consequence now that net neutrality has been redacted. If there was a way to bring competition, I would definitely see that as helpful.

Rural places will suffer if there's no fully implemented plans to run these cables to their neighborhoods. That is as the companies who monopolize areas aren't going to allow access to those, unless otherwise can be done about it. States will be challenging the repeal but there's said to be a hard road ahead.

We are lucky in Czech rep. big telecoms failed to deliver any meaningful services at 90' + we are big geeks. Some guys even used something what is now called LiFi when WiFi was not yet ready. What happened? In every county (average 66K inhabitants) emerged 1 - 3 local for profit provider + community networks.

Soon some of them were strong enough to take over local cable networks and some of them were able to upgrade from coax to optics and Layer2 1Gbps as terminal in customer router. If you are lucky and you live in such area we - as one of those - ISPs offer unlimited 1Gbps for $15/month.

But that is all what we, as small ISPs can do and here is needed some out of market support. One project which is closely related is building of collectors in cities. We are talking about central Europe townships with tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands inhabitants with historical core undermined by 2 - 3 stories of 900 - 200 years old and usually not properly maintained cellars, not to mention other strata important for archeology. It is huge, expansive and after 30 years of public funding almost finished project but it has already payed itself up

Collectors are in city ownership and are constructed to hold everything from water/gas/electricity/data.

Now I'll do a detour. In 90' there was a neoliberal frenzy and some 85% cities privatized its water infrastructure. This resulted in many fold price increase and degradation of (in real socialism built) infrastructure. This can be manifested by significantly lower prices and less infrastructure failures in cities with communally owned and run water infrastructure.

There are good reasons to follow this model in case of Internet at least if we want it as free as we know it now. Spending money on infrastructure instead of wars is rational way ...

To complete the picture: Last large telecom project before reign of free markets (1989) was complete upgrade from aluminum wires to copper. Ten years later, with 5 years lag now corporate owners were able to bring DSL technology to reality so thanks to socialist planning we have had option at least of some DSL service at every household (well, 95% households). But since we are country with lot of small hills and lot of small villages it is possible to build WiFi networks which are able to compete with DSL in rural areas.

And here is again place for some public funding - it is enough to connect every 5th village with optics and every user at any village will be on symmetrical 50Mbps WiFi link. Now we are able to offer them 10Mbps because long distance wireless is expensive and in fact impossible for desired throughput.

We do not see it as one purpose subsidy, in fact it is important to bring families from large cities, back to country. Earlier people moved to cities because of better standard of living ... running water, electricity, communal heating. Many families would be happy and are able to move back to country if they could use reasonable connection there. For example I was not in office half a year. It is 30 Km away and servers which I administer are in other places ... There is no reason to go there as I prefer written communication. Just imagine diesel I earlier used to travel daily to office.

I'm pretty lucky I'm Linux admin so everything what I need is low latency as all my communication is "word" based. But world is moving and future communication with application is "image" based. Modern applications are running on far away server clusters and what you got are images with abstract sauce all around. This needs low latencies and quite high bandwidth. May I demand it from private multinational with higher turnaround then my own country? Haha. I'll build it myself and may be later I'll offer my infrastructure to private leach as temporal lease.