Net Neutrality

[Ble_PE]

and of course for old times sakes Google SUCKS!

FTW!!

 

[Dleg]

1.  Corrections are part of the business cycle.  Don't put anything in the market that you think you'll need in the next 5 years.

2.  The housing bubble was the end result of a massive set of moral hazards set up by government interventions in the housing market.  If the banks wouldn't have been allowed to shift the risk on those loans to the tax payer, they wouldn't have made the loans in the first place.  The federal government took it upon itself to boost home ownership among groups of people that couldn't or wouldn't put up the traditional 20% down payment.  With no risk of loss, bad loans were the norm.  Like any  condition that can't go on forever, it didn't.

:lmao:

 

[Flyer_PE]

So what your saying is the banks should have been regulated not to do this?

I'm not going to retype the man's book.  The following is worth a watch:

 

[Madpiper]

De-regulation always works out well. The Free Market is the ultimate answer to everything. 

(then suddenly remembers the 2008 mortgage crisis and subsequent global recession)

And in comes our glorious big brother mounted upon his/her/their steed of righteousness to right all wrongs and bail all entities deemed "unfailable" out.  Okay, so a little sarcasm there, but in all honesty, I don't  know what the answer is here. I believe in a very limited government, and a free market. But in our recent history, we've seen big business in bed with big government....blurring the line between the two. The government should have no say in the functionality and serviceability of the internet. However, I also don't believe that a company should be so big that it is a complete monopoly. Is it the government's job to chop these corporations at the knees to make sure the little guys can compete? And if the government can intervene in such a way, what's to stop/limit them from abusing that power? Like the saying goes, "give an inch and they'll take a mile". Has that not proven true of our government?

Just a side note: I heard through alternative news sources, that big corporations actually want net neutrality....kind of the opposite of what the main stream media is saying. It kind of makes sense because if ALL companies, big and small, have to abide by the same regulations and restrictions, who does that really affect the most....the big or the little guy? Anyone else heard this? Am I wrong here? Just curious.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The internet, TV, and video rental businesses are currently in the process of combining into one entity, and it's going to get ugly.  Cable companies are hemorrhaging subscribers to cord-cutting, ESPN is struggling to make money from streaming, Netflix and Hulu are not only dominating network and cable TV stations, they are now producing their own content.  The problem lies in the fact that most internet providers are also cable TV providers, so Netflix et. al. are a huge conflict of interest.  It may come to the point where Comcast throttles Netflix to the point where you can't watch a movie without loading screens or interruptions.  You say it'd be commercial suicide, but in many places, you only have one option for high-speed internet.  This is already reflected in the customer service ratings of cable companies.  They may have lower ratings than Congressmen or airlines.  They don't need to be nice to you...you don't have an option.  We either need more competition, or some sort of regulation.  It is dangerously close to monopoly territory.  I'm praying for Google Fiber to expand fast in Louisville...as soon as it's available, I'm dropping Spectrum like a bad habit.  

Eventually, the cord-cutting movement is going to gain critical mass.  Cable TV stations (including ESPN) are no longer going to be in the driver's seat for contract negotiations.  Everybody will be paying their current cable provide (or Google Fiber, etc.) for a high-speed cable connection, then there will be various options for their TV.  I believe there will be a la carte options to keep current cable channels, but I think a lot of them will fail.  Before you tell me that won't happen, go back to the 1900's and tell somebody that eventually newspapers will be failing due to falling subscriber numbers and the rise of internet news.  They'll also tell you it's impossible. 

 

[Road Guy]

If I owned Comcast I would find a way to sell internet and cable for 50 bucks a month before I ceased to exist - and dominate by volume

of course they will just start eventually charging us out the nose for just internet once they loose 50% of their business to cord cutters - regardless of whatever net law idiotic politicians come up with

 

[wilheldp_PE]

If I owned Comcast I would find a way to sell internet and cable for 50 bucks a month before I ceased to exist - and dominate by volume

 

That's exactly what Google Fiber is doing.  I currently only get high-speed internet from Spectrum, and it is still $64/month.

 

[mudpuppy]

It may be hard for suburbanites to believe, but there's lots and lots of people who don't have access to cable broadband or fiber.  I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps, which isn't enough to stream SD, let alone HD tv.  My mom and aunt both have something similar.  I rely on satellite for TV, but both satellite internet and cell internet are too expensive to stream enough data for television watching.

My hope is some day we'll have access to some sort of wireless broadband at a reasonable price, but it doesn't exist yet.  In the mean time, I don't see the traditional model of television going away completely.  Or if it does I'll be back to exclusively watching TV over-the-air, and ordering seasons of netflix shows on DVD.

 

[Road Guy]

How much is Internet via satellite where you live? For some of our field offices that don't have access to broadband I think we use Hughes net? It's about 100 bucks a month but works pretty well

 

[knight1fox3]

On the PC forums I frequent and help manage, I typically only hear horror stories regarding satellite internet. While it's decent enough for browsing/email/etc, the connection and bandwidth is not sustainable for a continuous reliable media stream to support higher definition content.

But, in a pinch, it's still an option.

 

[Road Guy]

I've watched tons of Netflix on ours when I am "working" a late shift in the field /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20">

What's funny is there is absolutely no cell service in the area though I think the locals still use the string and cup method for phone calls

 

[Road Guy]

Ours is "Rise Broadband" - never had any issue with it except when the contractor forgets to pay the bill

 

[csb]

Ours is "Rise Broadband" - never had any issue with it except when the contractor forgets to pay the bill

I think I've seen that ****. 

 

[Dleg]

The remote Alaska villages often use Hughes net for an internet option. It definitely doesn't have the bandwidth. If you're the only person using it, you might get enough bandwidth to stream SD, but usually there are multiple users and then you're screwed. 

 

[mudpuppy]

Hughesnet here claims I can get 25 Mbit/s (I'm guessing Alaska maybe worse due to the high latitude?), but the killer with both satellite and cell streaming is the amount of data.  Netflix says an hour of HD streaming uses 3 GB, and you only get 50 GB/month with the Hughes $100 plan, so we'd easily blow through that in a couple weeks.  From the research I've done, cell plans are similar in price.

 

[Audi Driver P.E.]

It may be hard for suburbanites to believe, but there's lots and lots of people who don't have access to cable broadband or fiber.  I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps, which isn't enough to stream SD, let alone HD tv.  My mom and aunt both have something similar.  I rely on satellite for TV, but both satellite internet and cell internet are too expensive to stream enough data for television watching.

My hope is some day we'll have access to some sort of wireless broadband at a reasonable price, but it doesn't exist yet.  In the mean time, I don't see the traditional model of television going away completely.  Or if it does I'll be back to exclusively watching TV over-the-air, and ordering seasons of netflix shows on DVD.

DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.

 

[Audi Driver P.E.]

 

[csb]

DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.

Try telling that to the phone company. 

 

[mudpuppy]

With the small size of copper circuits used for phone lines, there is a limit to the length of circuit that will support DSL (around 3-4 miles), even the newer technologies.  Given the location of my house, I was surprised we could get DSL at all (we're nearly a half mile from the road.)  I suppose the phone company could install a repeater, but I doubt they will for the handful of extra customers paying an extra $10-20/month they'd get out of it.

 

[knight1fox3]

DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.

@mudpuppy beat me to it. It's really location dependent. Heavily populated areas that still try to market DSL can piggy-back on existing infrastructure. In more rural areas though, DSL now has to rely on the copper-limited phone lines which ultimately restricts bandwidth.