Sorry. I would rather trust Comcast and ATT than the gentleman(?) called Jerry Brown.
California politicians energies are best wasted on global warming and gender equality than technology.
Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
181–190 of 200 posts
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "public ground". Electric companies and utilities acquire a mixture of easements, most of which are actually private, and listed on a property title.
Almost all copper/fiber/etc pass through public roads at some point (or beneath them to be more exact), so yes they are using public grounds for their infrastructure. Same with your gas/electric/water line While "Wireless" provides are given PUBLIC spectrum to use for their business (they pay for it, but that's besides the point). So yes, 99% of internet out there uses some public areas at some point.
There is no point mentioning public ground in the analogy, better say, for access to public transit, which represents the internet.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Local loop unbundling as in the UK does.
LLU is essentially irrelevant today, it's fascinating that people keep bringing this up. LLU happens at the exchange where the local loop edge is. But today's users want speeds which aren't practical over the long local loop. So the fibre was pushed out to street cabinets, FTTC, which are much closer to the end user and too small and numerous for LLU to work. This makes good technical/engineering sense but it means t…
But most Subs don't want to pay the premium for FTC a lot of the high profile whining is from business's who think consumer BB is appropriate fr a business and want residential customers like pensioners and /or bt share holders to subsidize them.
when I helped sort out our BB for an office move in Farringdon (London) there is a lot of whining about BB but we manged to get a 70Mbs ELM in less than 2 weeks and 100Mbs in a quoted 3 months actually delivered less than 2
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Local loop unbundling as in the UK does.
We tried that in the US. The incumbents did weaselly things to make life difficult for the CLECs, and eventually lobbied Congress to remove the requirement.
That's because your regulatory bodies are useless and given that Ofcom in the UK is Murdochs poodle - the FCC is realy useless
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Net neutrality principles have been sanctioned by the FCC since 2005 And before that no ISP would even consider tiered pricing because there were no services worth tiering. Alexadra Petri has a really good analogy over at the WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/12/14/n...
You're referring to this part? >>It may not be technically illegal to bring a bear into a maternity ward, but we have, I think, started to live our lives with the expectation that nobody will do this. So if we put forth a rule saying, just so we’re clear, No Bears in the Maternity Ward, I would not expect anyone to complain that this was stifling innovation. In fact, if someone said “Hey, let’s get rid of that rule a…
If I might be so bold as to put forth one slight addendum to that analogy:
The rule about No Bears in the Maternity Ward only came to be after a number of cases where someone had brought a bear into a maternity ward, following a long history of bear-free maternity wards, in which time the rule had not yet been needed.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Comcast not a private company too? This feels too much like a similar argument that people have been making lately, where silencing voices can only be considered "censorship" if it comes from the government. I'm so tired of seeing this! It's part of a larger trend, where people arbitrarily narrow definitions in service of their argument. It's disingenuous, to say the least. (For the record, I'm AGAINST censorship…
Comcast is not your average private company because they hold a monopoly or oligopoly position in many markets. In effective marketplaces, we trust the choice of purchasers to do most of the necessary work of making sure companies really serve the public. If some ISP in a competitive market decided to shut off access to all Republican-leaning news and commentary, we'd expect many people to switch to an ISP that didn'…
Ok, I can see where you are coming from, but I guess we fundamentally disagree on this. I see any company that provides a de facto public "square" as being equivalent on some level to a public space. (Much as malls were deemed to be a form of public space in the courts a while back, not that it is completely settled law.)
In my opinion, when a company's platform becomes one of the largest and most important venues for public discussion, they can no longer be considered a purely "private" entity in the same way. Corporations exist at the leisure of the public, as the public allows their charters to exist and defines (through law) the powers granted to the corporation. Expression of fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech defeats corporate concerns in this case. The public square must be open to the public, or democracy cannot function.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have this in France. They make ISPs share the lines and compete on their plans to send bits over those lines. If a line is upgraded, they share the cost.
Yeah, there are many good ways to do this. The US had a similar program up until 2005 where local phone companies had to allow ISPs to rent access to their last-mile wiring at mandatory rates. I like the idea, but I don't think it's practical in the US given business culture and the responsiveness of politicians to lobbying dollars.
That's not the way it worked.
The access was provided only to dry pairs ( think alarm wires) for DSL if the carriers had unused dry pairs ( they did not ). To do that, one needed to colocate in a certain number of COs ( large ), take at least a rack per CO ( $2.5K-5K ) even if one had only ONE subscriber. The rack was placed into a special area of CO (so only some COs had them - there was no requirement to build out that area ) and finally in order to terminate anything out of that rack one needed to buy a crazy expensive service from the CO carrier ( think $10-15k/mo ) to get a DS3 or OC3 out.
This meant that absolutely no sane ISP could really afford to do this as there would be no customers wanting to pay hundreds of dollars a month for IP service. ISP DSL access was a replacement for T1s selling for $1.5K/mo between loop and IP, not for residential.
There was no requirement to share fiber builds.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comcast is not your average private company because they hold a monopoly or oligopoly position in many markets. In effective marketplaces, we trust the choice of purchasers to do most of the necessary work of making sure companies really serve the public. If some ISP in a competitive market decided to shut off access to all Republican-leaning news and commentary, we'd expect many people to switch to an ISP that didn'…
Ok, I can see where you are coming from, but I guess we fundamentally disagree on this. I see any company that provides a de facto public "square" as being equivalent on some level to a public space. (Much as malls were deemed to be a form of public space in the courts a while back, not that it is completely settled law.) In my opinion, when a company's platform becomes one of the largest and most important venues fo…
There are two key differences between Twitter and public space. One is that public space is owned by the public. The other is that public space is physically central to a community. All web sites are equidistant. The reason we don't have public space on the Internet yet is that we have a such a superfluity of private spaces.
I get your theory that private community spaces take on additional responsibilities once they're important enough to a community and maybe there's a way to legislate that. But it would be challenging. HN is definitely an important space for this community, for example. Every local newspaper is important too. The notion that we should have detailed federal regulations for exactly how to moderate a discussion thread plus a legal appeals process strikes me as unworkable in practice.
If we really want virtual public space, I think the thing to do is just to build or buy it. It would be easy enough to nationalize Facebook and Twitter for example; Congress just says "now they're part of the government", optionally paying the shareholders.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, there are many good ways to do this. The US had a similar program up until 2005 where local phone companies had to allow ISPs to rent access to their last-mile wiring at mandatory rates. I like the idea, but I don't think it's practical in the US given business culture and the responsiveness of politicians to lobbying dollars.
That's not the way it worked. The access was provided only to dry pairs ( think alarm wires) for DSL if the carriers had unused dry pairs ( they did not ). To do that, one needed to colocate in a certain number of COs ( large ), take at least a rack per CO ( $2.5K-5K ) even if one had only ONE subscriber. The rack was placed into a special area of CO (so only some COs had them - there was no requirement to build out…
As someone who got residential internet service for many years through a colocated DSLAM, paying something like $60/month, I think you are overstating your case.
Regardless, I agree it never took off as regulators intended, but my point was the intent was similar: mandatory shared last-mile infrastructure.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the way it worked. The access was provided only to dry pairs ( think alarm wires) for DSL if the carriers had unused dry pairs ( they did not ). To do that, one needed to colocate in a certain number of COs ( large ), take at least a rack per CO ( $2.5K-5K ) even if one had only ONE subscriber. The rack was placed into a special area of CO (so only some COs had them - there was no requirement to build out…
As someone who got residential internet service for many years through a colocated DSLAM, paying something like $60/month, I think you are overstating your case. Regardless, I agree it never took off as regulators intended, but my point was the intent was similar: mandatory shared last-mile infrastructure.
Your service ISP lost money on you every month.