FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Vassenor]

...OK, let's try a different tack. What innovation was strangled by the introduction of these regulations?

Again its not the lack of innovation it is who is paying for them.

Is it the consumer or the innovator?

And you haven't really established that the ISPs would be innovating were it not for these regulations.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Again its not the lack of innovation it is who is paying for them.

Is it the consumer or the innovator?

And you haven't really established that the ISPs would be innovating were it not for these regulations.

The regulations are fine. It's the fact that they are under Title II that's the problem.

It's a ham-fisted approach.

[The Black Forrest]

...OK, let's try a different tack. What innovation was strangled by the introduction of these regulations?

Again its not the lack of innovation it is who is paying for them.

Is it the consumer or the innovator?

Actually it kind of is a lack on innovation. The ISPs decided the delivery mechanism was the way to fortune and passed on Internet 2.0.

Google and all that exploded and they are "hey wait a minute. We deserve to....."

[The Black Forrest]

Again its not the lack of innovation it is who is paying for them.

Is it the consumer or the innovator?

And you haven't really established that the ISPs would be innovating were it not for these regulations.

The ISPs? Not really. The Networking companies handle that.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm pretty sure things haven't stagnated between 2014 and now. That really should not be something that requires that much thought.

Which is why all those encapsulated copper neighorhoods are getting fiber right?

To their boxes. Sure. To the house? Not so much.

[Telconi]

Which is why all those encapsulated copper neighorhoods are getting fiber right?

Fiber to the premise, or HFC with coax on the last mile?

Either way, it's progress, but I'm curious.

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

[The Black Forrest]

Fiber to the premise, or HFC with coax on the last mile?

Either way, it's progress, but I'm curious.

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

You assume companies want to redo it. Their infrastructure can't handle it if all houses started seriously converting to fiber to the house.

They are planning on it tough. Fiber based networks are easier to control and Net Neutrality get's in the way of that desire. Data plans for the Net are coming.....

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Fiber to the premise, or HFC with coax on the last mile?

Either way, it's progress, but I'm curious.

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

Ah, I see. I misread Vass' post.

I gotta ask, since you're in telco and this is your area of expertise, is it the instability that Title II repositioning and the word-promise of forbearances brought to the broadband sector, or is it something else that's stopping you guys from redoing the systems that are laid out?

[Outer Sparta]

Isn't copper wiring like 20th or even late 19th century technology?

Copper wiring can mean several things. But even your CAT5 cabling carries copper wiring at the core.

COAX is simply a shielded copper wire (or copper-plated) in the center. But even today coaxial cable and copper wiring can be useful for many applications in telco.

Fiber should be used more, but it's too expensive to lay down fiber lines and other corporate interests control this.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

You assume companies want to redo it. Their infrastructure can't handle it if all houses started seriously converting to fiber to the house.

They are planning on it tough. Fiber based networks are easier to control and Net Neutrality get's in the way of that desire. Data plans for the Net are coming.....

You don't necessarily need fiber to the home to enjoy good service though.

I am with Charter, but most of the infrastructure laid out by TWC in my area was HFC with coax to the last mile, so Charter has mostly been using that since the beginning and I've been enjoying good quality internet so far.

[Telconi]

It was sarcasm. They arenter getting shit. 90% of our service is copper throughout. Because the regs are inhibiting us being able to re-do systems.

You assume companies want to redo it. Their infrastructure can't handle it if all houses started seriously converting to fiber to the house.

They are planning on it tough. Fiber based networks are easier to control and Net Neutrality get's in the way of that desire. Data plans for the Net are coming.....

I'm talking about glass to the node systems. And yes, we absolutely do want to change the sustem, because getting whipped by the cable company because your too speed offered is three fucking megabits sucks hard.

[Outer Sparta]

And you haven't really established that the ISPs would be innovating were it not for these regulations.

The regulations are fine. It's the fact that they are under Title II that's the problem.

It's a ham-fisted approach.

These regulations have not cut innovation. Getting rid of them will, since ISPs have more power and they don't really innovate.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Copper wiring can mean several things. But even your CAT5 cabling carries copper wiring at the core.

COAX is simply a shielded copper wire (or copper-plated) in the center. But even today coaxial cable and copper wiring can be useful for many applications in telco.

Fiber should be used more, but it's too expensive to lay down fiber lines and other corporate interests control this.

Fiber is hard to justify on the last mile because most people are happy nowadays with top speeds of 300mbps where available. As far as I know only Verizon and Google try to justify fiber to the premise services under their FIOS and Google Fiber services.

In fact, most people will never use fully their personal networks if beyond 20/10. Business networks and SOHOs are an entirely different matter.

[The Black Forrest]

You assume companies want to redo it. Their infrastructure can't handle it if all houses started seriously converting to fiber to the house.

They are planning on it tough. Fiber based networks are easier to control and Net Neutrality get's in the way of that desire. Data plans for the Net are coming.....

I'm talking about glass to the node systems. And yes, we absolutely do want to change the sustem, because getting whipped by the cable company because your too speed offered is three fucking megabits sucks hard.

Sorry. Assumption you weren't in the network business. I agree and retract my comment.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The regulations are fine. It's the fact that they are under Title II that's the problem.

It's a ham-fisted approach.

These regulations have not cut innovation. Getting rid of them will, since ISPs have more power and they don't really innovate.

Again, it's not the regulatory power of the regulations.

It's the fact that Title II for Common Carriers of the Telco Act is an overly broad regulation, even with the promises of forebearance on several of its provisions.

[Telconi]

I'm talking about glass to the node systems. And yes, we absolutely do want to change the sustem, because getting whipped by the cable company because your too speed offered is three fucking megabits sucks hard.

Sorry. Assumption you weren't in the network business. I agree and retract my comment.

Lol, I'm a field tech for AT&T...

[Napoleonic Europa]

To get them to fight against Trump's attempt to take their fast internet you would first have to spread this news so they would know what is going on.

Oh they know, or at least I'd bet they will. This would ping their radar quicker than you can say 'Pepe'.

If not, someone needs to go yell at 4chan and the like about it.

For several weeks they already had a link on the website to go against them.

This isn't new for them at all.

EDIT: This specifically: https://www.battleforthenet.com/

Net neutrality is already talked about in 8 different threads on /pol/ right now as well as 3 different threads in /news/.

[Karjin]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market. Even if they did pass this, if competition offered “unlimited” plans like phones do now it would render this particular piece of legislation ineffective since people will obviously flock to the cheapest, unrestricted access available.

But again, there needs to be a possibility for new players to enter the game. And with US bureaucracy in play, it’s unlikely to happen soon.

[MERIZoC]

Nationalize the internet, folks.

[Vassenor]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market. Even if they did pass this, if competition offered “unlimited” plans like phones do now it would render this particular piece of legislation ineffective since people will obviously flock to the cheapest, unrestricted access available.

But again, there needs to be a possibility for new players to enter the game. And with US bureaucracy in play, it’s unlikely to happen soon.

The problem is the ISPs own the infrastructure and they have a habit of dragging their feet about allowing other companies access to it.

[Petrasylvania]

So are there any reasons for doing this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

I think it's also FUCKOBAMA.

[Petrasylvania]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market. Even if they did pass this, if competition offered “unlimited” plans like phones do now it would render this particular piece of legislation ineffective since people will obviously flock to the cheapest, unrestricted access available.

But again, there needs to be a possibility for new players to enter the game. And with US bureaucracy in play, it’s unlikely to happen soon.

"Unlimited" plans are still limited. It's just when you go over the limit they severely throttle your speed.

[Karjin]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market...

The problem is the ISPs own the infrastructure and they have a habit of dragging their feet about allowing other companies access to it.

And I understand why they would from a business standpoint. Our lines, our data, our money. I personally think it’s an awful way to go about it for the consumer, but I’m not sure how to fix it either.

[Herador]

What we really need is the possibility of new competition on he ISP market. Even if they did pass this, if competition offered “unlimited” plans like phones do now it would render this particular piece of legislation ineffective since people will obviously flock to the cheapest, unrestricted access available.

But again, there needs to be a possibility for new players to enter the game. And with US bureaucracy in play, it’s unlikely to happen soon.

"Unlimited" plans are still limited. It's just when you go over the limit theybseverely throttle your speed.

Basically. It isn't "unlimited" in that you get unlimited access you pay for, it's "unlimited" in that they just never cut off your access to the internet.

[MERIZoC]

So are there any reasons for doing this that aren't just GUBMINT BAD?

I think it's also FUCKOBAMA.

Ajit Pai is an Obama appointee.