SourceOne of the people said Pai may call for vacating the rules except for portions that mandate internet service providers inform customers about their practices -- one of the more severe options that would please broadband providers. They argue the FCC's rules aren't needed and discourage investment, in part because they subject companies to complex and unpredictable regulations.
Or you know, stop putting people with huge conflict of interests in the FCC.
Well, we could but that would require people to be logical and decent individuals. Money in politics only matters because some politicians are completely crooked. Norway's take on politician's having to demonstrate 100% financial transparency is a particularly good solution.
I know I'm an idiot but wow. This isn't a thing in the U.S.?Originally Posted by DIYDeath
Well, we could but that would require people to be logical and decent individuals. Money in politics only matters because some politicians are completely crooked. Norway's take on politician's having to demonstrate 100% financial transparency is a particularly good solution.
That kind of segways into how I think North America is devoid of proper responsibility and to some extend, morally corrupt as our take on Capitalism promotes sociopath behavior. Kind of like Rome before it fell but not quite as bad.
"Monetary transparency in the US". I do not believe that this exists as of the current time and date. Could be wrong though. Lol. Especially in politics.
It exists and we have laws for it, but there are so many legal loopholes and financial havens it doesn't matter.
That's covered by conflict of interest, which the American political system has been blatantly ignoring for decades at this point.
Precisely. You don't even have to look very had for a counterexample even the staunchest cynic would have to acknowledge in Tom Wheeler.
This was more because Netflix was taking up a lot of bandwidth since so many people use it and it eats a lot of data and the ISPs weren't happy about carrying that load and not getting paid extra. Still doesn't make it right, but that was why they were throttling netflix users. They can resolve bandwidth constraints by upgrading their infrastructure but that costs money of course and ISPs are notoriously cheap which is why we're really behind in the US in regards to getting gigabit speeds to the entire country.
I think it was Verizon was offered by another company to cover all costs and parts to upgrade the the servers connecting to an area of a city (or something along that line). They declined.Originally Posted by Malinkadink
Quote:
They can resolve bandwidth constraints by upgrading their infrastructure but that costs money of course and ISPs are notoriously cheap
Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we've been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can't afford a new port card because they've run out - even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that's the case, we'll buy one for them. Maybe they can't afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that's the case, we'll provide it. Heck, we'll even install it.
I hate ISP's as much as the next guy, but there is more to it than this. You can only install so many line cards into a chassis before the chassis is full, and the backplane can only support so much throughput. If we're talking Cisco then those line cards aren't cheap. The article quotes 10Gig, but i don't see why any ISP would use that anymore. They'd probably roll 40Gig, and my company received a quote from Cisco for something ridiculous, i think it was like almost 950K to outfit a Chassis with a 40 Gig line card(Including the chassis and a single card. The chassis can only hold 8 cards i believe.). Now i don't have the exact numbers, but the article calling it a few grand is off base. Now my perspective is from a network support team, not the architecture team that outfits these chassis', but its a lot more than "a few grand".Originally Posted by AcEsSalvation
I think it was Verizon was offered by another company to cover all costs and parts to upgrade the the servers connecting to an area of a city (or something along that line). They declined.
For free and no labor on their part, they turned it down.
This isn't just greed. I'll see if I can find the news article.
EDIT: Link
While it's not cheap major isp's have been given subsidies to do just that...update hardware and lines. For the most part they took said subsidies and have done very little with them aside from profiting.Originally Posted by Shiftstealth
I do believe ISP's have an obligation to provide us the bandwidth they sell us, and should improve their networks. However it will be more expensive than people quote it. A lot of fiber runs are 192 count, and more doesn't need run to expand capacity. They are correct that it is mostly a hardware placement issue, but the hardware is not as cheap as they say.
As stated previously. A lot of fibers are dark, and large chunks of 192 count fiber lay unused. So your statement about subsidies to update the lines doesn't hold true. Although since they don't need to run more lines they should have more money to expand existing hardware.
I believe I said lines and hardware. It really doesn't make sense to do one without doing the other. That aside.....they DO need to run more lines to reach those without and need to connect dormant lines (those laid but never used...it's actually a thing) to appropriate hardware.Originally Posted by Shiftstealth
As stated previously. A lot of fibers are dark, and large chunks of 192 count fiber lay unused. So your statement about subsidies to update the lines doesn't hold true. Although since they don't need to run more lines they should have more money to expand existing hardware.
You are confusing the law with enforcement of the law. Plenty of murderers get away with it, it is still right for murder to be illegal. Net neutrality matters, it just needs to be enforced, which is beyond the point of the article since they want to outright kill it by removing ISPs from Title 2, which specify "mak[ing] any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services".
Sigh,Originally Posted by maltamonk
I believe I said lines and hardware. It really doesn't make sense to do one without doing the other. That aside.....they DO need to run more lines to reach those without and need to connect dormant lines (those laid but never used...it's actually a thing) to appropriate hardware.
Whoa buddy.....did I run over your cat or something? Relax a bit or cut down on the caffeine maybe? No need for insultsOriginally Posted by Shiftstealth
Sigh,
There is plenty of unused fiber. They don't need to run more lines, they just need to utilize the dark fiber they have. Is reading comprehension a thing where you're from? You skimmed over my statements just to talk. Do you have something to say, or do you have to say something?
Sorry,Originally Posted by maltamonk
Whoa buddy.....did I run over your cat or something? Relax a bit or cut down on the caffeine maybe? No need for insults
Running more lines is needed for anyone outside of urban/suburban areas, hence my comment. If fiber is lain across rural areas already, my apologies, but I very much doubt that to be the case. I agreed with you about the hardware just not about enough fiber being made available by isps.