Seahawks4Ever wrote:TRUMP, that is what is happening to are beloved internet. Now we will get to hear from IDH, ASEA, and RD regale us how Trump is only going to make the internet "better" .
c_hawkbob wrote:We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.
idhawkman wrote:Some on here believe that giving the Internet to the government so it can be run like a utility would be a good thing. Many states are privatizing utility companies for electric, gas, etc. because they offer better services and lower costs due to competition.
Now, Net Neutrality has created an environment that only a few major companies can play in. If you can't offer the entire Internet, then you can't play in that arena. We now also see these major players buying competitors like the AT&T merger with Time Warner. Once the entire market it cornered or given to Governement, who is going to provide competition to them to keep the prices down? No one.
So why not lift the net neutrality and allow small players to offer services that you want and not have to pay for the entire Internet and pass those costs on to you? If you want cable tv do you have to buy the entire cable offering at a jacked up price? No. They have basic cable and they have add on channels and premium movie channels. Should you have to pay for premium Internet services if you are not using them? No.
Now lets take a look at another aspect of net Neutrality. Right now you have to offer high speed all over, kind of like during the telephone days when the big cities had to pay for the rural areas to get phone service at the same price as the big city guys. Is that fair? If you have to maintain longer phone runs with few paying customers you should be able to charge those customers for their service and not burden the others who have more people to spread out the costs of the service along with fewer problems because of the proximity of the head end.
Now lets consider the doom and gloom that the videos in the OP spew. They think that if AT&T can provide only their services to customers then the customers of AT&T will go somewhere else to get their service. Reality is that the big guys will want to offer everything they can to customers to keep them on their network. Consider the cell phones companies. If you are on AT&T's service, can you call someone on Sprint, Verizon or any of the other services? Yes, you can. Why? Because if AT&T limited you to just their services, you would go to someone else. The cell companies are not regulated by a similar Net Neutrality mandate and yet they still work across platforms. That scenario also allows for new comers like cricket and the other new cell providers. Also, if Sprint comes out with a new service like "unlimited data" for $xx a month then the others usually follow suit as soon as enough of their subscribers jump to Sprint.
c_hawkbob wrote:The internet did NOT come from the government, not any more that it was invented by Al Gore. And putting it under the control of billionaires and corporations is bad for everyone but those billionaires and corporations.
Net neutrality is essential. We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.
In October 1969, the first ARPANET communications were sent between Kleinrock's lab at UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) under the direction of Elizabeth Feinler. (Feinler later led the development of the domain names .gov, .com, .edu, .mil and others.) By the end of 1969, ARPANET had two more nodes at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah.
Many of the researchers who worked on ARPANET made significant contributions to the evolution of the Internet, including Leonard Kleinrock, inventor of packet switching (a basic Internet technology). Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn invented TCP/IP protocol in the 1970s, and in 1972, Ray Tomlinson introduced network email.
During the 1980s, the National Science Foundation started to build a nationwide computer network that included its own supercomputers, called NSFNET. ARPANET had grown well beyond the needs of the Department of Defense, and so the NSF took control of the "civilian nodes."
In 1990, ARPANET was officially decommissioned. Ultimately, the NSF aimed to build a network that was independent of government funding. The NSF lifted all restrictions on commercial use on its network in 1991 and in 1995, the Internet was officially privatized. At the time, the Internet was 50,000 networks strong, spanned seven continents, and reached into space.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:#1. ASEA, I have to say that I agree with your point of view in regards to NN, nice to see you don't walk in lockstep with Trump 100% of the time, unlike IDH.
#2, ASEA, your attack on me was uncalled for since until this thread you usually spew the Trump agenda with few exceptions.
#3 It seems that the drive to have me banned has failed.
burrrton wrote:After reading, it's what I thought- "net neutrality" is government price control. "EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME" means you (with your one-page website) will pay the same as Google, not that Google will pay the same as you.
It didn't help anybody in NYC (except landlords) and it won't help the internet. Should be gotten rid of yesterday.
c_hawkbob wrote:The internet did NOT come from the government, not any more that it was invented by Al Gore. And putting it under the control of billionaires and corporations is bad for everyone but those billionaires and corporations.
Net neutrality is essential. We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.
Aseahawkfan wrote:One last comment. Once a wireless option for Internet delivery matches the fiber networks (and they're getting closer), net neutrality becomes unnecessary. Satellite technology is improving. Once a company can put satellites into space that beam data all around the world, we'll have unfettered competition for internet service. ISPs will have to compete for customers around the globe against anyone with enough money to launch some satellites. There are companies working on making satellite deployment very cheap. At that point it won't matter if ISPs own content because they'll be forced to compete for fast internet service and won't be able to block or throttle data from competitors if customers want it or they'll just find another global provider to get their service from.
idhawkman wrote:Exactly my point about the free market working. Maybe the FCC chairman knows a little more than the general populace about what's coming. Getting rid of Net Neutrality will enhance the incentive for the research to be completed and deployed.
I just can't believe that the Internet grew to what it was in 2015 giving rise to such global behemoths such as Google, Facebook, etc but now needs to be regulated in order to make it fair. Just an oxy-moron to me.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The phone companies like Verizon and AT&T were originally going to let other companies build out DSL networks over their infrastructure. The big cable and phone companies decided to do it themselves. Fiber start ups couldn't compete with a companies that already had huge fiber cable networks built out and phone companies with an already existing infrastructure.
The new FCC chairman wants to let the FTC prosecute anti-competitive business violations like throttling data. That may work. Personally I'd prefer the internet service providers disentangle content production from internet service. It's too much of a temptation to use your fiber network to wipe out content competitors like Microsoft did leveraging Windows to dominate so many aspects of the software industry. I hope cellular technology upgrades fast enough to make the competitive advantage obsolete. With companies like Google with Youtube and Amazon with their streaming service competing, money will be there to fight for bandwidth equality.
idhawkman wrote:Actually, that is not true. I worked 8 years on the AT&T wholesale team and we sold our backbone to any other ISP or network that wanted to pay for it. We even undersold our our retail account teams. Reality is that the main backbone that the internet runs on is AT&T's backbone and other ISPs buy bandwidth on it now. The edge is what is different.
I remember getting in a lot of trouble when Dave Dorman (CEO and President of AT&T at the time) announced that AT&T was being sold to SBC who also bought out Bell South a short time later because I said it was a dumb move at the time. I believe it was in 2003 that this happened. The reason I said it was a dumb move was because AT&T had just built 30 data centers in the U.S. at the cost of approx. $500M each (total of $15B tied up in data centers). The price tag for AT&T in that sale was $16B for the global operation. Business, retail, data centers, wholesales, the entire shooting match. Plus we had like $8B in cash in the bank and our debt had been paid down from $56B 2 years prior to like $6B. Now Dorman got a golden parachute for the deal of about $32M for selling out the way he did but the real strategy was totally missed at that time. Here's what I said should have happened. NOTE: Once SBC bought out AT&T and Bell south, the local access was reduced to just 22 states that both of them were prominent in. SBC and Bell South were LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) that had the wire in the ground to the homes and businesses but not the backbone. That's why they wanted AT&T. What should have happened is AT&T go after content to put in their Datacenters. Music, movies, apps, backup capabilites, Disaster recovery, virtual servers, etc. etc, etc. Then tell all the local exchange carriers, mobile, cable and other access carriers that we don't care how you connect with us, just connect with us and we'll serve the content. This would have opened up all 50 states and worldwide markets to AT&T. Instead, they limited AT&T to just those 22 states and only the LECs in those states because who would want to benefit the local access competitor in those states? e.g. Time warner, comcast, verizon, etc.
Lo and behold, I was the odd man out though. The establishment in AT&T couldn't wait to get back to the glory days of the 80's and early 90s of selling local access again and I was then put on the outside looking in. Nevertheless, the local access sales never really materialized for the embeded lifelong AT&Ters because the technology had moved on and they no longer had a monopoly on homes access to the cloud. Satellite, cable, wimax and other technologies had replaced their monopoly. Now it seems that AT&T is finally recognizing the strategy that I had envisioned so many years ago. But this is not the only time they came around to my vision of the way the network should operate.
While in the wholesale division, I designed the T-mobile network that AT&T offered to buy in 2009 for Billions of dollars. AT&T wanted that network so bad that they put up $2B that T-mobile would get if the deal fell through for any reason. A few months later, it fell through when AT&T backed out for no reason. Probably because they found my design documents and realized they already had the network they needed just needed to add a few backbone routers to duplicate the services. What's funny is that T-mobile offered to buy out anyone's contract no matter how much it cost if they switched to T-mobile. (I have to admit, this made me laugh that they used AT&T's forfeited funds to buy AT&T's cusotmers away from them).
I have built many Sprint, IBM and other networks as an AT&T employee in the past. Many of the designs were bid against our retail business and consumer teams, too. The only network I didn't build for was Verizon and that's because they bought MCI as soon as SBC bought AT&T.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
I don't know about AT&T as much as I know about Verizon. AT&T sold most of its landline phone assets and moved heavily into cellular some time back as far investor side of things. Interesting read on its data center assets. Not sure what you mean by AT&T's backbone unless you mean its initial data centers are the network everyone built out from.
What years are you talking about? Cable companies added internet to their existing cable networks superior to what could be provided over phone networks. Are you saying Comcast, Viacom,and the like had to buy their internet connectivity from AT&T? That's what it sounds like you're saying. What year was this?
net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet
I'm interested to know why you think a former lawyer for an ISP (verizon) would have the consumers best interest in mind?
What if you have to pay to access the HawkShack after net neutrality get rolled back. No more Shack!
idhawkman wrote:Great question. I may have skipped over it a bit but will hopefully clear it up here.
My years in IT was from 1989 through 2008. 89 to 97 was for government agencies - you can probably guess which ones.
97 to 2001 was for manufacturers like Cisco Systems and Crosscom. AT&T was from 2001 to 2008 - all in wholesale.
The backbone I talk about is the OC-192 fiber link that circled the lower 48 states. As I was leaving they had upgraded it to OC-768 speeds. All LECs, carriers of every sort (Cable, cellular, etc) connect to that backbone. That's how someone in Floriday hanging off a Bell south connection can deliver an email to me hanging off a cable network here in Idaho. Datacenters hang off the backbone with at the time, OC-48 interconnects with backups, etc. I'm sure they are at OC-192 speeds now or better.
So at a high level, this is how it works, the guys closest to the consumers (residential and business) carry the traffic to an aggregator point (the LEC for DSL or "head end" for cable companies) They have Muxing equipment to "time slice" all the connections onto a bigger trunk line to a larger aggregation point - sometimes in the same LEC depending on how big the concentration of service is. From there, it is muxed again into a larger trunk line that is connected to the backbone. The data centers are hanging off the same backbone and gets serves up websites, music, movies, etc to the consumer.
Sometimes the bigger carriers have large trunk lines going into the data centers and every data center has different service providers lines coming into it. So one of AT&T's data centers would have a minimum of 3 other carrier's trunks coming into it for redundancy and backup purposes. The same would be true for any other carrier's datacenters. So since they are all interconnected now the key to the game is to get other carrier's traffic off of your own network as quick as possible. E.g. the destination is always what dictates who's traffic it is.
So to put this in perspective, if I'm connected to Comcast's local access cable service and I'm sending traffic to Verizon's data center, then comcast would get my data stream off of their lines and onto AT&T's or Time warner's lines as quick as possible and they would get it off their network as quick as possible until it gets to Verizon's trunks who would then be responsible for transporting it the rest of the way to the data center. Now it really gets interesting when the return route for my traffic doesn't follow the same route because Verizon is trying to get it off their network as quick as possilbe, etc, etc etc until it gets to comcasts network and rides that the rest of the way.
Many lawsuits have been files and there are teams of people monitoring competitor carriers for trying to "ride the light" of someone else as long as they can without taking the data on their network. And there are more teams trying to figure out how to get the traffic off their network as quick as possilbe,too. It's quite a show when you really get to understand it. So my job at AT&T wholesale was to sell (really it is renting) parts of our network to other carriers so they could expand their network without the heavy up front infrastructure expense. An interesting side note here is what Bernie Ebbers went to jail for when he was MCI's CEO. He would buy an OC-3 trunnk from AT&T, sell it to Fiber Pipe or some other LEC, then buy it back from them and sell it to Verizon. All making it look like his network was growing leaps and bounds but it really wasn't. I could go on but...
Now you know why I say net neutrality is bunk. The networks are so intertwined that rate limiting is going to happen at one of two points only. The local access which has lots of competition between DSL, Cable, Wi-max and other technologies or at a Datacenter. This has already been a long post so I wont' go into how and why the big companies want net neutrality and how that will hurt you and I but maybe if I ever meet you for a frosty beverage, I can go into it.
makena wrote:You make some very interesting points. I know that the networks are intertwined in the United States but it is interesting to get a glimpse into the industry from your perspective. I appreciate your insight and how valuable your perspective is to this conversation. Thank you and I really appreciate it.
However, I disagree with you. I would like to know why you think net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet, would hurt "you and I"? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?
Net neutrality is more than the infrastructure in the United States. This ruling will impact global communication and commerce; which I think you touched upon before.
In it's current form, FCC Title 2 or the impartial internet (net neutrality) ensures that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) can't censor, block or throttle websites. A website's speed will still be determined by server quality, how it's been coded, and so forth, but the ISP has to keep everything on a level playing field. Meanwhile, consumers can still opt for faster internet pipelines from their ISP... which I think speaks to your point more. This does not give the internet to the government and it's not price control. ISP's can charge whatever they want to access the net at a particular speed. Rolling back net neutrality is about accessing content based on preferential treatment by IPS's.
If net neutrality were to be eliminated, ISPs would be able to charge both consumers and websites for access, regardless of what infrastructure the data packets travel on. This will leave Comcast and Verizon, along with other big cable and broadband providers, the ability to charge consumers a monthly fee for internet access and charge Amazon, Netflix and any other sites what ever the ISP wants for fast lanes. This would mean that even if you paid your monthly fee for high-speed internet, if one of these websites didn't have a deal with your ISP they will be throttled or blocked. Again, this has more to do with how data is accessed by the consumer and less to do with how networks mitigate data packets on their respective infrastructure.
Here is a simple superficial example of what will most likely happen first:
Comcast has a service called Streampix which is a competitor to Netflix. If net neutrality (an impartial internet) is rolled back, It would be in Comcasts best interest to gate, block, throttle Netflix in favor for Streampix. Personally, I don't like Streampix and I find that Netflix is vastly superior. If FCC Title 2 is abolished, this would 'hurt' me and fellow consumers who favor Netflix over Streampix or similar services.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation, which seeks to ensure the web serves humanity by establishing it as a global public good and a basic right, stats some interesting points at this link here ---> https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0.
Here is tidbit about Sir Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Foundation website:
"The inventor of the World Wide Web and one of Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Important People of the 20th Century’, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a scientist and academic whose visionary and innovative work has transformed almost every aspect of our lives. Having invented the Web in 1989 while working at CERN and subsequently working to ensure it was made freely available to all, Berners-Lee is now dedicated to enhancing and protecting the web’s future."
I enjoy my freedom and ability to think critically about various topics; regardless if I want to believe the facts or not. Truths and facts inherently do not care about an individuals believes or faith. The internet affords me to easily access content that I would not normally have access to a decade ago and helps me discover what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls "Emergent Truth". Check out this interesting Video here ---> https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo.
Lets try not to lose what we take for granted.
Mak
makena wrote:You make some very interesting points. I know that the networks are intertwined in the United States but it is interesting to get a glimpse into the industry from your perspective. I appreciate your insight and how valuable your perspective is to this conversation. Thank you and I really appreciate it.
However, I disagree with you. I would like to know why you think net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet, would hurt "you and I"? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?
Net neutrality is more than the infrastructure in the United States. This ruling will impact global communication and commerce; which I think you touched upon before.
In it's current form, FCC Title 2 or the impartial internet (net neutrality) ensures that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) can't censor, block or throttle websites. A website's speed will still be determined by server quality, how it's been coded, and so forth, but the ISP has to keep everything on a level playing field. Meanwhile, consumers can still opt for faster internet pipelines from their ISP... which I think speaks to your point more. This does not give the internet to the government and it's not price control. ISP's can charge whatever they want to access the net at a particular speed. Rolling back net neutrality is about accessing content based on preferential treatment by IPS's.
If net neutrality were to be eliminated, ISPs would be able to charge both consumers and websites for access, regardless of what infrastructure the data packets travel on. This will leave Comcast and Verizon, along with other big cable and broadband providers, the ability to charge consumers a monthly fee for internet access and charge Amazon, Netflix and any other sites what ever the ISP wants for fast lanes. This would mean that even if you paid your monthly fee for high-speed internet, if one of these websites didn't have a deal with your ISP they will be throttled or blocked. Again, this has more to do with how data is accessed by the consumer and less to do with how networks mitigate data packets on their respective infrastructure.
Here is a simple superficial example of what will most likely happen first:
Comcast has a service called Streampix which is a competitor to Netflix. If net neutrality (an impartial internet) is rolled back, It would be in Comcasts best interest to gate, block, throttle Netflix in favor for Streampix. Personally, I don't like Streampix and I find that Netflix is vastly superior. If FCC Title 2 is abolished, this would 'hurt' me and fellow consumers who favor Netflix over Streampix or similar services.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation, which seeks to ensure the web serves humanity by establishing it as a global public good and a basic right, stats some interesting points at this link here ---> https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0.
Here is tidbit about Sir Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Foundation website:
"The inventor of the World Wide Web and one of Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Important People of the 20th Century’, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a scientist and academic whose visionary and innovative work has transformed almost every aspect of our lives. Having invented the Web in 1989 while working at CERN and subsequently working to ensure it was made freely available to all, Berners-Lee is now dedicated to enhancing and protecting the web’s future."
I enjoy my freedom and ability to think critically about various topics; regardless if I want to believe the facts or not. Truths and facts inherently do not care about an individuals believes or faith. The internet affords me to easily access content that I would not normally have access to a decade ago and helps me discover what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls "Emergent Truth". Check out this interesting Video here ---> https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo.
Lets try not to lose what we take for granted.
Mak
makena wrote:I hear you about the long hours. I will be working most of the weekend migrating a website...
Regarding our discussion...Interesting analogy, idhawkman.
I would think that the roads Boeing would build will allow greater access (better servers and pipes)to their site (website) connecting to larger road networks (internet) where other traffic occurs, more people use and open to all, not just Boeing. Where you live geographically is like having DLS over broadband. So, you experience a slower commute or speed cruising the net. What if not only would you have a slower commute, but then had to pay to have it. That is what the IPS's want to control. Look at this image below. It shows who is in support vs against:
At this glimpse alone, I would argue that there is a red flag when so few want to control something so big and where so many appose that control. This leads to assumption about activities from the ISP's that the common Joe does not have visibility to.
In the executive summary of the 2015 title 2 release, it states:
"Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers
hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t
like."
This appears to be a proven fact and stated in the FCC Title 2 release. If it's a known truth, then I'm left to ask why so few want to get rid of net neutrality? To make more money off of content we currently have access to. Don't forget that Ajit Pai was a former Verizon Attorney providing counsel regarding regulations. I see an inherent conflict of interest with Mr. Pai.
I'm glad that I can speak with you about this Idahawkman, as I know you have experience and viability that others don't.
Mak
Sox-n-hawks wrote:Not trying to start anything here. I would like to pose one question. See, I'm not at all knowledgable about Net Neutrality, nor do I claim to be. It simply isn't something I've ever taken the time to learn about. Maybe I should. I'm not looking to argue or get flamed, but am genuinely interested in hearing a bit of critical thinking.
The question is this:
Would the repeal of net neutrality laws help reduce the over reliance on electronic devices in modern America, and what would the impacts be? I don't remember the last time I saw a phone book, or someone using an Atlas.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests