It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We’re About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

SasquatchHunter

RedShirt73
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
 


One of my previous jobs was setting up these networks. I know the costs involved and all the processes needed to even begin to setup a fibre-optic network nation-wide. You wouldn't be able to run a DS3 cable from Calgary to Edmonton for $500,000.00. I've seen estimates for running cable that cost roughly $1.2 million for a DS3 from Calgary to Winnipeg (one cable).


That sounds way more accurate and I didn't know the actual cost of cables. That alone puts this debate to rest not a chance anyone can compete at that level without massive funding.


And that's not even fiber-optic cable, that's copper. It gets even more expensive when you want to run an OC3 or an OC12.




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I think we've seen this coming for a long time. The only thing that has stopped it up to now is that people join together and raise hell.
Up to now... those we elected have listened. How long that will continue, is questionable at best.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


Do you have any estimates on the return of an investment like that? I don't know how Canada works but the permits and zoning restrictions alone here in America would be a nightmare.
Not even considering the fact that the big players will tie up the competition in legals battles atevery turn.e



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


If something like this does pass, then it would it offer a tremendous opportunity for other companies to offer or develop "net neutral" internet service. Which may eventually render the un-neutral service providers economically unviable. If this is about money, why not give the end users the Choice between a slightly higher priced neutral internet service and a slightly lower priced un-neutral service?
edit on 5-11-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


Do you have any estimates on the return of an investment like that? I don't know how Canada works but the permits and zoning restrictions alone here in America would be a nightmare.
Not even considering the fact that the big players will tie up the competition in legals battles atevery turn.e


It depends on the business that is requesting a new line be run between point A to point B. Normally the requesting business pays the lions share for the initial install of the fibre-optic cable but the telco stays as the owner of said line, forever. As for return on investment, depends on your business, how much business you intend on doing and how much that company makes to justify running a new line.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   

deloprator20000
reply to post by onequestion
 


If something like this does pass, then it would it offer a tremendous opportunity for other companies to offer or develop "net neutral" internet service. Which may eventually render the un-neutral service providers economically unviable. If this is about money, why not give the end users the Choice between a slightly higher priced neutral internet service and a slightly lower priced un-neutral service?
edit on 5-11-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)


Because that's not actually neutral if you're also offering a non neutral service. You just have one service that gets priority and one that doesn't. Essentially you're dividing your customers into saying, those who purchase service A get fast speeds on websites (insert list) and slow speed on everything else. Those who purchase service B get medium speeds on everything.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:39 AM
link   

RedShirt73
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
 


One of my previous jobs was setting up these networks. I know the costs involved and all the processes needed to even begin to setup a fibre-optic network nation-wide. You wouldn't be able to run a DS3 cable from Calgary to Edmonton for $500,000.00. I've seen estimates for running cable that cost roughly $1.2 million for a DS3 from Calgary to Winnipeg (one cable).


The business case for actually laying cables yourself is non valid because of the huge costs involved.

But the good news is, you don't have to... there is enough Dark Fibre out there to supply the country 10 times over... you find the owner of the dark fibre then you buy the capacity or rent the lines.

Then it's simply a case of setting up points of Interconnect at the datacentre....

If you really have set up networks then you should have known this.

I was once a consultant to a tier one carrier over here in the UK called Kingston Communications... They were thinking of rolling out new network to extend their reach. I advised against as the process for local loop unbundling LLU was well underway at that point.

They ignored my advice and spent £30 million laying copper....

6 months later they were in competition with all the independents that had bought capacity or had offered in effect BT service all for the last mile.

These services could charge £12 per month for their service and were making a killing, whereas Kingston had to charge £23 for their service and breakeven was not for another 5 years.

You see It's all about Business.... In the business of making a profit.

Setting up points of interconnect is a simple process and costs next to nothing.... a 10 meter fiber and a line in a contract.

No need to roll out massive new network infrastructure... the infrastructure is mostly there.... it's just whom has the right to use it and to what extent.

See where I am coming from?

Korg.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


They'd be cutting their own financial throats if they do this.

Hundreds of Billions worth of business and e-commerce is conducted online.

It's overshadowing high street retail operations, and the trend is continuing.

Take away the freedom of the net, and people, ordinary people, not big business, not mega communications corporations, but the people themselves will take the innovations required to circumvent such a move, and install an online infrastructure fashioned on how WE want it, not how THEY decide we ought to have it.

It will be the begiunning of the end all right, but for communications corporations NOT internet freedom.

Go ahead tptb...we dare you.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by onequestion
 


They'd be cutting their own financial throats if they do this.


100% correct!

That is not speculation, that is a previously proven fact.

It's the golden rule of diminishing marginal returns.... Business speak for you can't squeeze blood out of a stone... There is a point where you have saturated the profit point where no further profit can be made... Often this figure moves to a negative...

An example....

It costs a company £10 to make product A
Consumer buys product A at £15 the company makes a profit of £5

Company then Increases quality of Product A and it costs them £15
Consumer buys the increased quality product at £25
Company makes £10 per unit....

When analyzing the profit it was found that 10 times more people purchased the product at £15 than did at £25

So although the margin was higher on the quality product it was less profitable....

Hope this helps,

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


It certainly does help Korg, thanks.

It's handy to have someone with your background 'on the team' as it were, i've a feeling you are going to be up to your neck in business if or when they decide to try and restrict the net.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Korg Trinity
The business case for actually laying cables yourself is non valid because of the huge costs involved.

But the good news is, you don't have to... there is enough Dark Fibre out there to supply the country 10 times over... you find the owner of the dark fibre then you buy the capacity or rent the lines.


Not so in the US. There's 3 lines going into my town, one of them is dark. One belongs to the two colleges. One belongs to the only ISP in the area. One was set to go on sale but the government changed its mind and is holding it back for whitefi.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Aazadan

Korg Trinity
The business case for actually laying cables yourself is non valid because of the huge costs involved.

But the good news is, you don't have to... there is enough Dark Fibre out there to supply the country 10 times over... you find the owner of the dark fibre then you buy the capacity or rent the lines.


Not so in the US. There's 3 lines going into my town, one of them is dark. One belongs to the two colleges. One belongs to the only ISP in the area. One was set to go on sale but the government changed its mind and is holding it back for whitefi.


Where ever there is an obstacle there is always a way around it.

In this case you are talking the last mile. This can easily be taken care of though IP over Microwave or 4G. It's more than possible to trunk your backbone network and break out over 4G. Heck I was doing this back in the days of GSM gateways in the early Noughties.

Stop thinking so negatively and you might see there is always a way if people can be bothered to go out there and do something.

I once set up a housing estate with internet access using grid computing because only a limited few could get broadband. Following my project the entire neighborhood could receive internet... the cost of the project 250 homes supplied with internet off the back of 60 homes network connections.... £6000....

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Korg Trinity
Where ever there is an obstacle there is always a way around it.

In this case you are talking the last mile. This can easily be taken care of though IP over Microwave or 4G. It's more than possible to trunk your backbone network and break out over 4G. Heck I was doing this back in the days of GSM gateways in the early Noughties.

Stop thinking so negatively and you might see there is always a way if people can be bothered to go out there and do something.

I once set up a housing estate with internet access using grid computing because only a limited few could get broadband. Following my project the entire neighborhood could receive internet... the cost of the project 250 homes supplied with internet off the back of 60 homes network connections.... £6000...


No, the last mile is running cables all around town which whitefi is designed to stop. The network itself still connects to fiber cable to send signals all over the place. There's no public access to those cables. One is dark and belongs to the government (or may have been given to a private company at this point), one belongs to the cable company, and one is owned by Ornet which leases it to the two colleges in town.

As for the 4g idea, that's great except we don't have 4g, we didn't even have 3g until 2.5 years ago. And these networks still need to connect to fiber so we're back to the same bottleneck.

Just setting up the last mile is easy, I've done it for people. Actually connecting to a network is a good deal more difficult.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Aazadan

Korg Trinity
Where ever there is an obstacle there is always a way around it.

In this case you are talking the last mile. This can easily be taken care of though IP over Microwave or 4G. It's more than possible to trunk your backbone network and break out over 4G. Heck I was doing this back in the days of GSM gateways in the early Noughties.

Stop thinking so negatively and you might see there is always a way if people can be bothered to go out there and do something.

I once set up a housing estate with internet access using grid computing because only a limited few could get broadband. Following my project the entire neighborhood could receive internet... the cost of the project 250 homes supplied with internet off the back of 60 homes network connections.... £6000...


No, the last mile is running cables all around town which whitefi is designed to stop. The network itself still connects to fiber cable to send signals all over the place. There's no public access to those cables. One is dark and belongs to the government (or may have been given to a private company at this point), one belongs to the cable company, and one is owned by Ornet which leases it to the two colleges in town.

As for the 4g idea, that's great except we don't have 4g, we didn't even have 3g until 2.5 years ago. And these networks still need to connect to fiber so we're back to the same bottleneck.

Just setting up the last mile is easy, I've done it for people. Actually connecting to a network is a good deal more difficult.


I appreciate what you are saying.... but where you don't have and know you need, go out and make happen for you.

Why not create a syndicate to raise funds for the necessary infrastructure and broadcasting licence.

You can bounce your own 4G signal for miles and miles and miles. The idea should be to find a location where there is a second tier carrier willing to do business and set up a point of interconnect between them and your newly formed 4G network. This would require only a multiplex and you can find them online with cards still installed for about £15K or so.... You would also need to pay for the hosting.

Then bounce line of sight to the desired location, to do this you need only rent space on various masts and install your own wide-band microwave transceiver antenna....

I bet after around 5 hops you will be there....

Do you follow me?

No one need be without high speed internet wherever there is sufficient custom to cover the upkeep.

Korg.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Korg Trinity
I appreciate what you are saying.... but where you don't have and know you need, go out and make happen for you.

Why not create a syndicate to raise funds for the necessary infrastructure and broadcasting licence.

You can bounce your own 4G signal for miles and miles and miles. The idea should be to find a location where there is a second tier carrier willing to do business and set up a point of interconnect between them and your newly formed 4G network. This would require only a multiplex and you can find them online with cards still installed for about £15K or so.... You would also need to pay for the hosting.

Then bounce line of sight to the desired location, to do this you need only rent space on various masts and install your own wide-band microwave transceiver antenna....

I bet after around 5 hops you will be there....

Do you follow me?

No one need be without high speed internet wherever there is sufficient custom to cover the upkeep.

Korg.



I understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand how it is in the US. I can't speak for the large cities but smaller towns like mine have low amounts of fiber coming in. What does come in is rationed pretty tightly. You see, in the US internet companies set deals with towns. These companies say they'll come in and offer service but in exchange they want the towns assurance that no other ISP's will be allowed in to compete for X years. In the case of my town when Suddenlink came in they got a contract allowing them to be a monopoly for 100 years. There are no second tier carriers over cable. We do have some DSL service but it's quite poor (3mb vs the 100mb cable) and that is it. I don't know how far I could beam a signal over microwave but assuming it's viable I would have to go quite far to reach an area with another carrier I could do business with. Probably around 150 miles (about 250 km).

As for making a group to raise funds, I don't want to say it's impossible but well... that would be extremely challenging.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Aazadan

Korg Trinity
I appreciate what you are saying.... but where you don't have and know you need, go out and make happen for you.

Why not create a syndicate to raise funds for the necessary infrastructure and broadcasting licence.

You can bounce your own 4G signal for miles and miles and miles. The idea should be to find a location where there is a second tier carrier willing to do business and set up a point of interconnect between them and your newly formed 4G network. This would require only a multiplex and you can find them online with cards still installed for about £15K or so.... You would also need to pay for the hosting.

Then bounce line of sight to the desired location, to do this you need only rent space on various masts and install your own wide-band microwave transceiver antenna....

I bet after around 5 hops you will be there....

Do you follow me?

No one need be without high speed internet wherever there is sufficient custom to cover the upkeep.

Korg.



I understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand how it is in the US. I can't speak for the large cities but smaller towns like mine have low amounts of fiber coming in. What does come in is rationed pretty tightly. You see, in the US internet companies set deals with towns. These companies say they'll come in and offer service but in exchange they want the towns assurance that no other ISP's will be allowed in to compete for X years. In the case of my town when Suddenlink came in they got a contract allowing them to be a monopoly for 100 years. There are no second tier carriers over cable. We do have some DSL service but it's quite poor (3mb vs the 100mb cable) and that is it. I don't know how far I could beam a signal over microwave but assuming it's viable I would have to go quite far to reach an area with another carrier I could do business with. Probably around 150 miles (about 250 km).

As for making a group to raise funds, I don't want to say it's impossible but well... that would be extremely challenging.


I think you have been sold a line of bull...

Looks like these companies are in breach of US law...

United States antitrust law


United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations which could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.

The Federal Trade Commission, the US Department of Justice, state governments and private parties who are sufficiently affected may all bring actions in the courts to enforce the antitrust laws. The scope of antitrust laws, and the degree they should interfere in business freedom, or protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated. One view, mostly closely associated with the "Chicago School of economics" suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while a broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest.[1]


If your town is under such a monopoly as you say then all you need do is raise this with your local governors office or approach the district attorneys office directly.

No company in the western world has the ability to run a monopoly whether it be virtual or actual without facing the law... unless people let it slide and no one complains!

The best paralel I can draw is a city here in the UK called Hull. They had their own tier one carrier and owned all the infrastructure within the town. Effectively treating the populace as a cash cow. The government forced this company to open their infrastructure up, but they of course made it more expensive for companies to do this than was worth their while....

A consortium of businesses however got around this by deploying wimax access then offered both voice and data services across this network.... They used a neighboring towns backbone by using one hop 4g connection that terminated onto the free market.

My point?

No matter what the situation there is always and I mean always a way around it.

The truth is the datacoms business is close to free fall with failing business plans and nothing short of a reversal of progress can change that fact. The cause of this is that the upkeep costs to deliver ever increasingly more bandwidth is crippling.

Services such as netflix / youtube account for about 50% of net traffic these days, and it is these content providers that hold all the cards... which is a total reversal on the way revenue was generated previously.

The shrinking revenues of the networks crippled under their own infrastructure costs just want a slice of that.....

however, if they attempt to take a piece of the proverbial pie they will I guarantee it, be cutting their own throats.

I predict mergers and acquisitions of the networks by these content providers... Selling off the deadwood while keeping the foundations.

Time will tell.

Korg.


edit on 18-11-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join