DrJBHL DrJBHL

Google’s Superfast Internet–Really?

▼

Google’s Superfast Internet–Really?

from JoeUser Forums

 

Google has announced Kansas City to be the test site for it’s 1 gig/sec Internet connection.

While that’s fast, it’s not the fastest (China, for example).

This vid illustrates (for me, at least) the biggest controversy in Internet services: Capping and Regulation.

 

Superfast Internet is a welcome development for many reasons: Educational, entertainment, research, etc.

While we have this incredible technology, it would seem we also have counterproductive forces at work: Capping. In other words, “A gets type A service and B gets type B service” based on what A and B use the Internet for: High demand (movies/games) vs. visiting sites and small data transfers.

Who gets Cable? Who goes back to rabbit ears? Will this come down to "Pay for play"? You have money, you get served. Not much money? You get free/crappy mugglenet services.

Our neighbors to the north (Canada) has recently gone through a fight about the basic question and come down (G-d bless Mr. Harper!) on the side of non-capping. Unfortunately, this has resulted in degraded Netflix transfers (by 60% according to one article I read).

Do ISP’s have a right to give preferential treatment simply by the buyer’s ability to pay? Where is the individual’s right here? Does the big boy win automatically?

The FCC has left a slightly fuzzy area in the ISP’s right to regulate (throttle) service: Yes to wireless, No to fixed line.

The question comes down to this example: You have a road, and supply trucks travel it. Do you demand a fee for usage based on the type of load (nothing destructive - concrete vs. food) or do you demand payment by weight, and do not discriminate by type of cargo?

Seems to me that the democratic thing to do is to demand payment by weight. Who am I to determine which cargo deserves better treatment than another?

“One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.”

Pun intended, if only to make us smile while we think and…. weigh Net Neutrality. Pun again, and again intended.

62,543 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Currently, the situation here is we have two  providers.  Time Warner, who is trying to get the state to ban municipal broadband, as two cities got so fed up with Time Warner's lack of service they started their own, and have been kicking Time Warner's butt in those cities.

 

Then there's AT&T, who is implementing a 150GB cap.  Low, but not criminal.  There's nothing to keep them from colluding with Time Warner to keep degrading service, especially since communities will no longer be able to do it themselves here thanks to teabaggers.  (Yeah, another reason to hate the Tea Party).

The rural communities really have it rough, as they're now banned from doing it themseleves, and the megamarket telecoms won't come there, so they're stuck with dialup.

 

BTW people  are cancelling because of it, but it's mostly younger folks who aren't tied into cable, I think it's now 10% of people under 30 have broadband but no cable TV.   Also monopoly laws in the US are largely unenforced, we have good laws on the books, but the anti-monopoly lobby has been defanged in the US, just like unions.  This is why I push so hard for labor and consumer rights, I feel like to have a functioning free market, you need a balanced of power between labor, indsutry, and consumers.  Market inequality leads to monopolies, which is just as much of a market failure as communism.

 

The most important role of a government in the economy is to try and prevent market failures.   The broadband industry in the US due to deregulation is a market failure.

Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Alstein, reply 26
Currently, the situation here is we have two providers. Time Warner, who is trying to get the state to ban municipal broadband, as two cities got so fed up with Time Warner's lack of service they started their own, and have been kicking Time Warner's butt in those cities.
End of Alstein's quote

Bravo. Deregulation might be beneficial, but it should have been done like increasing children's privileges: a bit at a time, and 'prove you're handling it well at each step'.

Quoting Alstein, reply 26
Also monopoly laws in the US are largely unenforced, we have good laws on the books, but the anti-monopoly lobby has been defanged in the US, just like unions.
End of Alstein's quote

Correct. Again, competition and collective bargaining are needed to keep things in check, along with regulation.

All will be solved by Google's newest TiSP:

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from Sins Forums Top

Our neighbors to the north (Canada) has recently gone through a fight about the basic question and come down (G-d bless Mr. Harper!) on the side of non-capping.
End of quote

Sadly, that's not entirely accurate.  What they did was veto a plan that would have effectively mandated extremely restrictly caps and standardized overage charges on downstream providers.  The CRTC is free to revise the plan and resubmit it.  We still have some of the most restrictive caps anywhere in the world, and the government didn't lift a finger on the issue until there was a massive grassroots outcry.  We're seeing no initiative from any party on the issue of internet caps or the broader issue of telecommunications (which is in dire need of reform here in Canada), which makes me afraid that a reworded version of the plan that just got vetoed will slip through shortly after the election

Here in Canada, there really isn't a monopoly going on
End of quote

It's called a "cartel"

Look at the options we have in pricing models and services, and compare them with what's available in other countries.  We do not have adequate competition.  At all.

I expect this to become a secondary election issue in Canada.
End of quote

I hope it will, but suspect it won't.  None of the parties cared about the issue before the grassroots movement, they made a little bit of rhetoric during the height of the firestorm to show they were listening, and once the issue was no longer in the spotlight they moved on.

We really need an overhaul of our entire telecommunications sector, but there's no indication we're going to get it. 

Local cable monopoly owns the ISP.  People start cancelling cable due to Netflix being a better alternative.  See a conflict of interest here?  I certainly do.
End of quote

We also have the same problem with the ones that offer phone services and Skype.  They are terrified that television and telephone are going to go the way of the radio; rendered mostly irrelevant by the new medium.  This is about shackling the internet to prevent it from competing with these services, plain and simple.

Even worse is the "video on demand" services, which use the same network resources as Netflix does, but are not subject to any bandwidth caps.  This is blatantly anti-competitive, and these guys should be taken to task for their current policies, much less the abomination they're trying to impose.

but it should have been done like increasing children's privileges: a bit at a time, and 'prove you're handling it well at each step'.
End of quote

Now this, I disagree with.  A corporation's purpose is to maximize shareholder value.  Telling them "we trust you, don't abuse it" puts them at a conflict of interest between their commitment to shareholders and commitment to society that you've just thrust upon them.  The people charged with enforcing the rules and ensuring fair practices are followed should be independent from the corporations who must follow those rules.  Anything less is a conflict of interest, and just asking for trouble.

If the regulations/regulators are redundant, outdated, or just ill-conceived to begin with, then by all means do away with them.  If they fulfill a necessary role, don't get rid of them at all.  It's like firing all the referees from a sports league and telling the coaches that they're in charge of calling penalties against their own teams.  That's just plain silly, no matter how mature you think the coaches are. 

Reply #29 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 27

Quoting Alstein, reply 26Currently, the situation here is we have two providers. Time Warner, who is trying to get the state to ban municipal broadband, as two cities got so fed up with Time Warner's lack of service they started their own, and have been kicking Time Warner's butt in those cities.

Bravo. Deregulation might be beneficial, but it should have been done like increasing children's privileges: a bit at a time, and 'prove you're handling it well at each step'.


Quoting Alstein, reply 26Also monopoly laws in the US are largely unenforced, we have good laws on the books, but the anti-monopoly lobby has been defanged in the US, just like unions.

Correct. Again, competition and collective bargaining are needed to keep things in check, along with regulation.

All will be solved by Google's newest TiSP:

End of DrJBHL's quote

 

Deregulation can work in Europe due to its population density, but not here in the US.  Not  enough competition for the free market to work.

 

See Time Warner's solution to dealing with the competition- it's easier and cheaper to buy politicians then it iis to actually improve service.

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Darvin3, reply 28
This is about shackling the internet to prevent it from competing with these services, plain and simple.
End of Darvin3's quote

I'm not sure about every company, but the ones I've had any experience with have had data caps since before 2000, and have only been increasing them this entire time.

For what you are saying to be true, data caps would have to have been introduced when Netflix came out, and had been going in the direction of lowering service.

This is not what is happening. At least (once again) not in my experience.

 

Quoting Darvin3, reply 28
Look at the options we have in pricing models and services, and compare them with what's available in other countries.  We do not have adequate competition.  At all.
End of Darvin3's quote

From my knowledge on this, it's because North America has ISP backbones that were developed as the technology was being invented. Many, many other countries in the world have only just now started getting an economy to handle installing an internet infrastructure, so they are implementing an infrastructure that is made entirely out of the latest technology.

In an environment where older tech backbones (copper) are privately owned by people who can't afford to upgrade to the latest technology, you end up having a rich, 1st world country that has a poor, hodge podge infrastructure compared to even 3rd world countries that have just caught up with internet service.

This would be a major reason why service levels can handle much better bandwidth and speeds compared to North America.

I mean, to compare, South Korea has 1% of the land mass of Canada, but 10 million more population. They don't need to string out their lines as far to reach all the population (less cost overall for all the new tech).  Going by pop density, not as many people don't live in "hard to reach" areas, compared to Canada. They don't have areas of "mostly copper infrastructure". They built from scratch, instead of building on top of an older weaker base.

They can get more fiber for cheaper, and don't have to deal with old systems that refuse/can't upgrade. I'm not sure how this isn't the main factor here.