Discuss: Net Neutrality Debate

Hewlett-packard / Hp pavilion g6 notebook p...
May 16, 2014 at 06:07:14
Specs: Windows 7, 1.4 GHz / 5610 MB
Hi all,

This week's poll question is about the continued debate regarding net neutrality laws. Discuss here how you feel about net neutrality, and, if you like, the poll results themselves.

Thanks!
Justin


See More: Discuss: Net Neutrality Debate

Report •

#1
May 16, 2014 at 06:57:59
For those not following the debate, I'll summarize it up for everyone.

Customers: We don't want a tiered Internet, where the new companies are squashed by a few ISPs behaving like monopolies.

ISPs: We like money.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way


Report •

#2
May 16, 2014 at 13:02:42
There shouldn't be any debate on this topic. The ISPs want to get paid at both ends.

It is bad enough that ISPs advertise unlimited access then turn around and place limits or throttle the speed.

If some clients get preferred service then others obviously will suffer with slower service.

What is needed IMHO is a system that is fiber from point to point. The only way that is economical is for everyone to share one large fiber system. The company that would own the system would be regulated like the electric, gas and land line phone companies are. That company would NOT be a service provider, only wholesale bandwidth on their system to ISPs.

I read that when Verizon rolled out FIOS the cost was something like $900 for every house they passed. Considering that they probably only contract with 20% of those homes, they need to recover maybe $4500 from each customer served.

If the cost to install the fiber were amortized over every cable customer the cost per customer would fall dramatically.

Unfortunately, this is a pipe dream. I don't think this will happen because that would level the playing field, and the big guns don't want a level playing field.

While I am venting, I would also like to see all ISPs divest themselves of any content providers. As the system works now, cable companies own networks and they don't really want to share them with their competitors.

It is crazy that a country like South Korea has faster broadband at much cheaper rates than the US does.

I don't have multiple sets of AC wiring running down my street, or multiple gas, water or sewer lines either. I do have 3 sets of cables providing internet, TV & phone service. That makes no sense at all.


Report •

#3
May 16, 2014 at 22:25:49
As I use my computer for mostly utilitarian duties, I won't be affected that much by the loss of net neutrality. Other than Netflix, I don't need particularly speedy internet.

However, I feel bad for those people who like to build the latest and greatest system for gaming, who will now meet the bottleneck resulting from the lack of net neutrality.

It won't matter how fast their video card is, or how much RAM they have. If they want the fastest speeds for internet connected gaming, they will now need to pay through the nose for it.

In the end, I think the loss of net neutrality will hurt innovation of the internet.

Depending on how bad it gets, Flash Player and other technologies will fall by the wayside if there aren't enough people with fast enough connections to use that type of content.

http://sdfox7.com

message edited by sdfox 7


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 22, 2014 at 07:44:58
It is bad enough that ISPs advertise unlimited access then turn around and place limits or throttle the speed.

Not to split hairs but there's a difference between bandwidth throttling and unlimited access. China and north Korea limit where people living in their countries can surf to. I'm sure other oppressive regimes also practice this policy. To the best of my knowledge, no where in North America or Europe is this true. We have "unlimited access" on the internet and can go to any sites we want to.

This is not the same thing as throttling bandwidth. Most ISP throttle the "up" side of their home packages and limit them fairly severely to prevent people starting web servers at home and to also help reduce the amount of illegal point-to-point file sharing. But typically, if you're paying for say 5 Mbps of bandwidth, you're getting that when downloading. You're likely only getting a fraction of 1 Mbps while uploading.

You can get "business grade" packages from most ISP's wherein your upload rate isn't throttled at all, or not as badly. Those of course cost more.


What is needed IMHO is a system that is fiber from point to point. The only way that is economical is for everyone to share one large fiber system

First off, the backbone of the international network IS fiber optic. If you care to, you can do some research online and find maps of the fiber optic backbone around the world. Running fiber optic door-to-door for home users is not worth the effort and totally not necessary.

Your average PC in the home has a 1000 Mbps (1 Gig) network interface. So do your newer SOHO Routers. Assuming you have a provider who can provide you with 1000 Mbps to your home and all your equipment is capable of that, 1000 Mbps is 1000 Mbps regardless of media. Which is to say, 1000 Mbps on copper is the same as 1000 Mbps on fiber. So do I care if my 1000 Mbps is copper or fiber, hell no because it's the exact same amount of bandwidth. Also, don't forget copper equipment is cheaper than fiber optic. If you get fiber to your house, who do you think is going to pay for it?

Besides, even if your ISP did run a fiber optic cable to your home, you have no guarantee that it doesn't hit copper at some point in it's travels. Heck, your 'fiber to the house' could terminate directly into a media converter and go from fiber to copper less than 100' from your house.


However, I feel bad for those people who like to build the latest and greatest system for gaming, who will now meet the bottleneck resulting from the lack of net neutrality.

Gaming actually uses very little bandwidth compared to any other number of internet activities. We used to run games like Doom and Warcraft on dialup. I can recall playing both with a 14.4 baud modem. Most gamers know little about computers and networking and assume that 100 Mbps bandwidth will be "faster" than 10 Mbps and somehow improve their gaming (yeah right.....and a RAID 0 will improve gaming too.............LOL........but I digress) It won't. If your game uses say, 1/2 Meg of bandwidth while you're actively playing, it's going to use that amount no matter how big the pipe is.....whether it's 1.5, 3, 5, 10, 100 or 1000 Mbps.


As to the whole net neutrality thing. We already do not treat all data flowing across networks the same. We employ a technique called "Quality of Service" to rate traffic. The higher the priority the traffic the higher the rating it gets. The higher the rating, the higher priority and amount of bandwidth is made available to it.

For example, most business' who use Video Conferencing don't want that traffic interrupted so, all Video Conferencing traffic is given a "Gold" priority. If the same company has VoIP phones, it would likely get a "Silver" priority. Simple http traffic would get the lowest priority of "Bronze.

QoS is commonly used in private networks everywhere and also across the internet. I'm quite sure you could get higher priority for you traffic..........but it would cost you.

For now, I'm watching and waiting to see what happens. I can't see any one person or company getting a monopoly on the internet since it's such a large and complex entity. I'd be much more concerned about governments (like the above examples) telling us how we can and can't use it.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#5
May 22, 2014 at 09:54:26
Curt R

If fiber to the computer is unnecessary the why does Verizon do that with their FIOS and why is Google in the process of building their own fiber network? See Kansas City as a model.

Locally we have U-verse available. Their trunk lines are fiber but the last mile is 75 year old copper pairs. The only way they get things to work is to send ONLY the TV channels you request to your equipment. AT&T are pushing the envelope on what is possible with that infrastructure.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about this topic but I do know that individual ISPs running their own cable is not economical. I am involved in our local communities PEG channels and have had contact with our 3 providers.


Report •

#6
May 22, 2014 at 10:38:59
If fiber to the computer is unnecessary the why does Verizon do that with their FIOS and why is Google in the process of building their own fiber network?

The short and simple answer is, "money".

If you opt for fiber to your computer your ISP is going to charge you more than your ADSL or cable connection would cost you. So heck yes, they'll tell you how fiber is so much better (it is, but not in the way you're thinking) than a copper connection but I reiterate, 10, 100, 1000 Mbps on copper is the same as on fiber.

As to Google building it's own fiber optic network, again, it's about money. The big carriers lease access to smaller carriers and ISP's. The ISP's in turn lease to you and I and to businesses. I suspect Google want's to make more money. Also, I would suspect that they want the control having your own network gives you which they don't get from leasing. When you lease, you have to abide by the rules of whomever you lease from. If you own the infrastructure, you can do what you want with it.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about this topic but I do know that individual ISPs running their own cable is not economical

Cable companies and telephone companies do have their own infrastructure which they've already paid to put in place. For the most part, these were in existence before the internet ever became affordable, and thus available to the average Joe at home. All they've (they being the cable/telco) have done is added the data side to their existing networks. Their internet access runs on the same infrastructure as the cable TV and telephone. So economically speaking, it's more economical for those companies to maintain the status quo than to spend the money building all new infrastructure.

This is not a whole lot different than those long distance carriers that sprang up some years back offering cheap long distance rates. Did you think those guys built new telephone networks? Heck no. They bought blocks of long distance off of existing Telco's and then resold it to us.

Very few companies like Google have the money to build a fiber optic network. I suspect that if they do, they'll start buy just building a network within the US. If all goes well and it's making them big bucks, they'll likely look at expanding. But for most business' and people, you'll just lease access. It's simpler and more economical.


********Edit********

Since I responded I've had a nagging feeling I missed something so I just came back and reread what I quoted (in italics) above and realized when you said "running" you meant building their own network. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.....lol

If I'm correct (this time as vs my original response) then you're absolutely right. There's no economical value to the vast majority of ISP's creating their own network. Few, if any, could afford to build a network of any size like Google is planning on doing. Also, for the most part, they have infrastructures already in place so why spend all that money 'reinventing the wheel' when you already have an adequate network in place.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***

message edited by Curt R


Report •

#7
May 23, 2014 at 14:59:23
CurtR:"1000 Mbps on copper is the same as 1000 Mbps on fiber."

Not necessarily. Using single-mode fiber you can run kilometer after kilometer of 1G line and not have any recognizable signal degradation. Copper can only get you 100m of 1G before it becomes unusable. So, you might have 1G copper running from your house to the street but beyond that, the only real feasible option is to go fiber for real high speeds.

Also you can drop your fiber in the same ditch as your high-power distribution mains and not have any problems with interference.

On topic:
Another plot by ISP's to gouge us for data. 'Nuff said. I'm already charged $60 for 5M/1.5M link that runs 4M/0.5M on average.

~oldie
Not everyone can decipher Klingon script...
chay' ta' SoH tlhe' vam Doch Daq

message edited by OLDISGOOD


Report •

#8
May 26, 2014 at 07:53:45
Not necessarily. Using single-mode fiber you can run kilometer after kilometer of 1G line and not have any recognizable signal degradation.

I wasn't talking about segment length.....I was talking about transmission rates. 1000 Mbps is the same regardless of transmission media.

To use an analogy. 60 miles an hour in a car is the same as 60 miles an hour in a semi, is the same as 60 miles per hour in a train.

My point being, from a consumer point of view there's no difference between fiber and copper. You wouldn't notice any difference.

You do realize that back 10 to 15 years ago, all internet access to the home user was all copper based? It used to be most all ISP's were running T1 connections to the internet and it worked pretty good considering. A T1 is copper and provides 1.5 Mbps. Sure we dialed up to the ISP, but you could have 50 or people concurrently connected all sharing that 1.5 Mbps and we thought it was pretty darn good. Our expectations sure have changed........lol

On topic:
Another plot by ISP's to gouge us for data. 'Nuff said. I'm already charged $60 for 5M/1.5M link that runs 4M/0.5M on average.

They gouge because they can. That's what the petroleum companies do, that's what the pharmaceutical companies do................that's what every business does. When you own something, you can charge what you want. We aren't forced to pay them, it's a choice we make.

The reason you're not getting your rated bandwidth is most likely because your ISP oversubscribes their segments. Which is to say, put more people on each segment than can properly be supported. There's an equation you can use to calculate how many users a segments can support. So lets say your ISP runs the equation and the numbers come up saying "150 users per segment" But they have enough host IP's for 250. They're going to shove 250 customers on that segment which degrades bandwidth for all users on that segment. Add on to that all the P-to-P and video streaming and yeah, your bandwidth is going to drop. Especially during peak hours.

If like me, you live somewhere small enough there's only one or two providers, you're basically screwed and have to pay what they're asking if you want internet.

To me personally, 5M/1.5M and 4M/0.5M are pretty darn good. I don't upload any big files so I couldn't care less what fraction of my download rate my upload rate is and 4.0 Mbps is a whole hell of a lot better than 1.5............or worse yet, the 1200 baud modem I first connected to the internet with.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#9
May 27, 2014 at 05:45:28
Curt, your assumptions are correct but your conclusions are faulty.

What parts of my #2 above do you disagree with?

At some point in the near future, providers will need to switch to all fiber. This is extremely expensive to do. Especially when the effort is duplicated 2,3 or 4 times past the same customer.

If you are the only user on the cable then your analogy is correct. Cable providers use nodes to group users together that then share the available bandwidth.

That last mile of copper is shared by MANY users.

That copper eventually connects to fiber, which carries the data from ALL the local nodes on one cable.

Using a large enough fiber cable could conceivably allow that full speed, regardless of the number of users. The capabilities of using light to transmit data haven't even begun to be exploited.

Different wavelengths of light could be streamed simultaneously. To my limited knowledge, this is necessary yet due to the capabilities of the current model.

You cite things that have nothing to do with where the US stands in saturation of fast internet.

Our current condition is all about maximizing profit while suppressing the competition. As I stated in #2 above, cable service should be treated as a utility and regulated as such. Even if cost were not an issue, having multiple cable runs past the same point makes no sense.


Report •

#10
May 27, 2014 at 08:34:53
Ok, first and foremost, it's not been my intention to pick a fight with you.

But your use of incorrect nomenclature and your incorrect comparison in your response #2 between "unlimited access" and "bandwidth throttling" caused me to want to try and help you better understand networking and network media.

That copper eventually connects to fiber, which carries the data from ALL the local nodes on one cable.

Actually, depending on the ISP's network, your data may cross over from fiber to copper and back several times before leaving the providers network and hitting the big fiber optic pipes that run around the world.

For instance, at my work, we have dual redundant internet connections into our main building here from two completely different providers. In both cases, it's fiber into the building but the providers themselves run that through a media converter and go from there over copper into their "edge device". This in turn connects to our "edge devices" via copper and then travels over copper to our main server room where our core switches and routers/firewalls reside. From there it disburses over fiber to servers in the data center. Also, we have fiber backbone from the core switches in the server room to all closets which contain our edge switches. Those in turn connect to all clients using copper.

So, Jane sitting over in the finance department goes from copper (from her desktop to the switch she connects to) to fiber (from closet switch to core switch) to copper (from core switch to point of egress) to fiber (from media converter to provider) before getting out our door and onto the internet.

This is not dissimilar to most, if not all present provider setups in that they switch back and forth between medias before your data makes it's way out onto the internet..

Most providers simply can't afford to convert completely to fiber and as I've been saying all along, it's not really necessary. At least not to the doors of us customers. If the most they are going to provide you with is 100 Mbps, does it matter if your fiber connection is actually capable of 1, 10, or possibly even 40 Gig? They're only allowing you a fraction after all. And if copper can do 100 Mbps as well as fiber, what do you need to pay all that extra money for the fiber for?

Yes, we all have to suffer with some congestion during peak periods of use in our areas. But this would be true even if it were copper to the door.

Using a large enough fiber cable could conceivably allow that full speed, regardless of the number of users.

Again, confusion over nomenclature. "Speed" is the incorrect terminology here. Speed refers to how fast a plain or car is going. When discussing networking and data flowing through a media, we talk in terms of "bandwidth" (google the definition)

Yes, fiber can provide more bandwidth (or what we refer to as a "bigger pipe") and can carry more users per segment. But they (the providers) will still oversubscribe their segments (to make more $) as per my last response. So you will still suffer the same issues during peak hours. Or would, if all providers were to go to fiber....which I don't believe will happen as it's not necessary.

Our current condition is all about maximizing profit while suppressing the competition.

Yep, that's the way it goes in a "free enterprise" competition based society like we have. That's why some of the providers, who have the $$$, are trying to grab all the customers they can by going with fiber and trying to make people who don't know any better believe that it's "faster" and/or more reliable. But that takes me back to my previous statement that it won't really be any better because they'll still oversubscribe their segments and you'll still experience issues during peak hours.

And even if they do run fiber to your house, you have no clue if they run your data over copper at some point and they may very well do so. Their contract will state "fiber to your door". Read the fine print and you'll probably notice nowhere does it state "fiber all the way to the internet" I'd be willing to bet on that. :)

As I stated in #2 above, cable service should be treated as a utility and regulated as such. Even if cost were not an issue, having multiple cable runs past the same point makes no sense.

Again, "free enterprise". After spending the money to pull cables past your house, the Telco is not going to share that with the cable company. Therefore the cable guys have to pull their own cable. The electric company isn't going to do anything any differently so you end up with all kinds of stuff running past your house either above or below ground. While you could carry phone, TV and internet over fiber, you still can't carry electrical so no matter what, you'd have to have at least two types of cables buried close by.

Also, I really rather like the idea of competition, it keeps prices down. If one company gets complete control over TV, phone and internet, your rates would go through the roof.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#11
May 27, 2014 at 08:57:03
The debate was over before it started and it had been decided for us.

To err is human but to really screw things up, you need a computer!


Report •

#12
May 27, 2014 at 19:29:47
Curt R

I was never my intention to fight. I simply am convinced of my positions. I am the chairman of our local Cable Committee. I am located in Michigan and about 4 years ago AT&T successfully lobbied for (bought), a statewide franchise agreement that controls PEG channels for all communities in the state.

This effort was originally fought by the incumbent cable providers but they eventually saw how it would also help them. From being involved for over ten years I see how each provider tries to trump the others. Sports channel packages controlled by Comcast are priced out of reach of the competition. Exclusive agreements with condo developers that keep other providers out. The list goes on and on.

The state agreement mandates that all providers craft a standardized state agreement after the expiration of any existing local agreements. The state agreement allows cherry picking of customers, which was virtually not allowed under boilerplate local agreement language.

When the next wave of upgrades comes, I predict that some areas currently served by one or more cable providers will be passed by due to monetary decisions. This is unacceptable IMO.

One independent transmission company that would be under the control of the Michigan utilities commission could prevent that from happening and would help level the playing field.

The current system of using neighborhood nodes causes slowing of internet connection because the bandwidth of the node is shared by all. During peak usage all are slowed down. Fiber to the street front would change that.


Report •

#13
May 28, 2014 at 08:08:17
One independent transmission company that would be under the control of the Michigan utilities commission could prevent that from happening and would help level the playing field.

On the negative side, you have a single entity that has a monopoly....which in my estimation also isn't good because if they decide to shaft you, you have no alternatives except to do without.

But I do get what you're saying and understand your concerns with the present system.


The current system of using neighborhood nodes causes slowing of internet connection because the bandwidth of the node is shared by all. During peak usage all are slowed down. Fiber to the street front would change that.

The physical layout (topology) of the network isn't going to change if your ISP converts from copper to fiber. The only thing changed would be the media. The major difference between copper and fiber is that fiber allows for more bandwidth.

Here's a scenario:

Present with copper:
- Total host IP's available for segment = 254 (CIDR = /24)
- Calculated "optimal" number of users for available bandwidth = 150 users
- Total users on segment = 225 (oversubscribed to maximize income - as per usual, ISP doesn't care if your internet access slows down during peak hours, they care about $$$)

Replace copper with fiber:
- Total host IP's available for segment = 1022 (CIDR = /22)
- Calculated "optimal" number of users for available bandwidth = 500
- Total users on segment = 800 - because again, the ISP doesn't care if your internet slows down during peak hours, they care about income.

(as an aside: the size of the network is based on the calculation of available bandwidth. Once you know how many users your segment can support, you then use that to decide how many IP's your segment requires and subnet accordingly)

In either case, the separate user connections at some point go back into a single device and their total bandwidth is combined. Typically, this would be the very next hop from your home. Then in turn that bandwidth gets combined with more bandwidth from other users as it passes through the network, and more network appliances (be it a switch or router) until it all meets up at the ISP's point of presence (egress) to the internet.

I have no way of knowing how many users' combined bandwidth is running through the point of egress from the ISP's network onto the internet, but you can bet it's a lot. Where I work, I have hundreds of users traffic going out (and coming back in of course) as well as hundreds to thousands of external users traffic coming in to our websites hosted on servers in my server room (with return traffic going out of course) all running through a single point (point of egress) in my network. I would imagine for an ISP, that's a much larger number of users traffic going in and out than I have here.

So, to sum up.
- Changing the media does not change the network topology
- Increasing bandwidth available per segment only means the ISP's will increase the number of users per segment

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#14
May 28, 2014 at 08:42:30
In the 'States at least, we came to a conclusion to this debate in 1934. Just label ISPs as a Title II Common Carrier, and regulate them as the monopoly they are. This will never happen, because the FCC is a captured agency.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way


Report •

#15
May 28, 2014 at 10:16:17
Curt

In Michigan the Utilities commission sets the rates and only allows a certain profit. Costs and rate increases must be justified. This is all done with public hearings. This has worked for the electric and gas companies for years. There is only one provider of each service in each geographical location.

In the case of cable providers we have 3 companies that each have a NON- Exclusive agreement, as spelled out in both the state and federal regulations.

Having one controlled cable transmission company operating like the gas and electric would save consumers money. That transmission company would wholesale the use of their cable capacity to each of the retail cable providers. I guess I didn't make that clear before.

Even AT&T POTS lines are regulated the same way. Only cable is not.

As far as the infrastructure in my town goes, Comcast and WOW are both ALL copper until they leave the community. I have lived here for 35 years and the cabling is all old copper.

Only AT&T u-verse has fiber inside the township, with the last half mile or so being the 75 year old telephone cables.

Perhaps other states run things differently than Michigan.

This thread and my comments are off topic to a degree.

message edited by OtheHill


Report •

#16
May 28, 2014 at 12:17:59
LOL

More than just "to a degree" but that happens and it's not worth starting a new thread at this point.

The province I live in has several providers for all essentials. If I'm not happy with one, I can join up with another. I did so a couple years back as my previous natural gas provider was sticking it to me pretty hard. I signed a 3 year contract with another provider that does electric as well as gas and I'm saving enough money per year that I'm quite happy I did.

I'm not against a properly regulated services but my experiences with that where I live (and have lived) when one company has a monopoly, it's not regulated very well. Or at least, not in the customer's favor.

I'm suspect that things are done differently in the US than here in Canada.

But none of this changes what I've been saying all along with regard to going from copper to fiber for the home user. Which is to say, the home user will not see any real difference between the two.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#17
May 30, 2014 at 03:46:45
Do you really think there are TWO sets of gas and electric lines in front of your house?

I don't believe it.

You make my argument. I am sure you have only ONE actual provider for the transmission of those services but more than one retailer, that wholesales their product to third parties.

That is basically what I have been suggesting here from the start.


Report •

#18
May 30, 2014 at 07:24:24
You make my argument. I am sure you have only ONE actual provider for the transmission of those services but more than one retailer, that wholesales their product to third parties.

You're right, the people who originally installed the infrastructure have been forced to share with other providers.

But this is not the case with internet access. Cable providers have their own media and network infrastructure that they installed for TV and adapted for internet access. The Telco's adapted their phone lines. Wireless providers of course had to build their networks from scratch in most cases. In each case, these are unique, separate infrastructure.

This differs greatly from electrical and gas services. They have a single set of infrastructure for each and the original builders were paid off and forced by laws to share to get rid of the monopolies they created and make it so we consumers weren't being screwed over anymore and got better prices.

Do you really think ADSL/cable/wireless ISP's are going to disappear in favor of a single fiber ISP?

Even if someone does say run a province/state or country-wide fiber optic internet service provider, it's going to cost the end user more money than ADSL, cable or wireless. So those providers, who already have their infrastructure in place now, and are presently providing internet access aren't going to suddenly lose all their customers to a new "fiber to your home" ISP and disappear. Sure a lot of people will buy into the hype about fiber to their door. But I feel quite sure there are enough people who will realize that a 10 Mbps copper based internet access will compete nicely with a 10 Mbps fiber optic setup and will stick with what they have and pay a fraction of the fiber ISP price.

Also, don't forget, in some cases, the same ISP will be putting in the fiber optic access and providing both to consumers. If all their customers don't switch to fiber, I doubt their going to toss the copper revenue out the door by shutting the copper side of their ISP down.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#19
May 30, 2014 at 15:33:14
NO, not a single ISP. A single fiber cable provider that can't be your ISP. Can ONLY sell bandwidth on the cable to the ISPs that we buy from. This is what I have said from the beginning.

Report •

#20
May 31, 2014 at 05:19:40
While they might do something like you're talking about and lease bandwidth to ISP's, (that's actually how it's works now, the difference being is the fiber stops at the providers point of presence and from there it's copper/coax/wireless on the ISP's own network to your home)

I highly doubt the ISP's are going to get rid of what they presently have in place. What happens to all those customers on the present network who maybe can't afford fiber or if they're like me, realize equivalent bandwidth rates are the same regardless of media and choose the less expensive option for internet access?

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#21
May 31, 2014 at 06:59:15
We are slowly getting there. "I highly doubt the ISP's are going to get rid of what they presently have in place". I believe that replacing all the infrastructure is already happening. In the case of U-verse they elected to deploy their system without running copper in the neighborhoods. Instead they are using 75 year old telephone wiring for the last mile. If you do any reading on that system, they knew going in that it would have severe limitations. AT&T figured to get customers now and worry about upgrading later.

I am suggesting a system the would include all the necessary components, including the cabling past each subscriber and possibly even the drops to the structure.

This is possible and would save an enormous amount of money. The problem is you need to bring all parties to the table to agree to something like that. That is the rub.

Comcast has gone to DOSCIS 3 in order to try keeping up with the demands on their system. In my community ALL the infrastructure dates to the first cable provider from the mid 1980's. Comcast acquired this system from Adelphia, who bought it from Harron, the original company.

WOW bought a built out system from Americast, which was owned by AT&T. At that time, AT&T decided to promote DSL services and sold the system to WOW. Cable subscribership in my community has grown substantially and the content on the internet needs more bandwidth. All the providers need to upgrade NOW.


Report •

#22
June 2, 2014 at 07:29:01
Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not the existing provider infrastructure will be replaced.

I can see that the day may come where some people in the big cities won't have a choice and all will have to pay for a fiber connection to their home. But I'm not convinced this will be true for all areas of all cities.

While the copper in your area may be 75 years old, this isn't true for a lot of other areas in the cities. Some of those areas are a whole lot younger (and so is their copper) so why would they (the ISP's) replace that? Certainly it isn't absolutely necessary like it might be in your area with your aged copper.

Also, keep in mind there are a lot of areas where nothing is going to change.Take where I live for an example....a town of around 2500 people. You have existing ADSL and two wireless providers in place. The Telco's already made it known they won't be upgrading to fiber because it's not cost effective. It would take them too long to recoup the money spent to upgrade. So they just won't bother. And, they don't really need to because the ADSL works really well for those of us in town.

I'm not unhappy about that myself because having worked so intimately for so long with networks, I understand that a 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 Mbps connection on my ADSL is going to give me as much bandwidth as the same on fiber.

Anyhow, time will tell and if were still alive and kicking in another 20 years, we can revisit this conversation and see where we're at then.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#23
June 2, 2014 at 12:33:06
I agree we probably won't agree on much but I think you will agree that AT&T must upgrade their system. See the link below that explains the current capabilities of U-verse.

http://forums.att.com/t5/Total-Home...


Report •

#24
June 3, 2014 at 06:58:34
LOL

Well, I live in Canada and have no personal experience with AT&T. Or U-verse for that matter. But if their (AT&T) copper is 75 years old then it follows logically they'll have to do some upgrading.

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#25
June 3, 2014 at 15:29:10
Yea, U-verse Has a fiber backbone to the nodes. Then uses the telephone lines between the fiber termination and the end user. Very limited system.

Report •

#26
June 4, 2014 at 09:00:18
Here's a humorous bit on net neutrality I thought everyone interested would get a chuckle out of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbO...

Enjoy!

It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

***William Henley***


Report •

#27
June 4, 2014 at 10:25:25
That is hilarious. Thanks for the link.

Report •

#28
July 13, 2014 at 20:24:47
Hey everyone,
I know this is quite late to bring up this thread again, but I thought that Ars Technica had a truly unique take on net neutrality, that, frankly, convinced me:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...

You've been helped by a 16 year old.


Report •

#29
July 14, 2014 at 07:54:02
RMT2

That is pretty much what I was promoting here starting in #2 above.


Report •

#30
July 14, 2014 at 08:48:40
OtheHill

I would love to see a system like that, but I agree, I can't imagine it happening with things the way they are in America. Corporations have too much overall control of the industry. Like how Tom Wheeler, before he was elected chairman of the FCC, was part of one of the biggest anti net neutrality organizations. So, I really don't know how any of this will be fixed any time soon.

You've been helped by a 16 year old.


Report •

Ask Question