Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You act like most of the internet wasn't already observing FCC Net Neutrality rules.
When, specifically, are you talking about? Let's cut out the vagueness, since that may be some of the cause for the disparity between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
The US internet, under previous FCC regulation, observed net neutrality for years. . .without any impact or worries you expressed.
False. There was a point in time when it reasonable network management was having a specific impact prompting worries. That is what precipitated the "fast lanes" and that in turn is what precipitated these new rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
if Comcast, at dinner time, can't serve its customers internet speeds . .everyone watching house of cards at the sametime. . .it just means comcast sucks, and their infrastructure sucks
No it doesn't. If you must create scapegoats then make the American consumer the bad guy, for engaging in childish bargain-hunting behaviors, driving every product and service down in quality and reliability in a petulant attempt to save a nickel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
and if you think for one moment that any ISP was making things better for competitors . . your joking.
You need to go back and read what I wrote for understanding, because this indicates you really didn't comprehend what I wrote.
When, specifically, are you talking about? Let's cut out the vagueness, since that may be some of the cause for the disparity between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
False. There was a point in time when it reasonable network management was having a specific impact prompting worries. That is what precipitated the "fast lanes" and that in turn is what precipitated these new rules.
No it doesn't. If you must create scapegoats then make the American consumer the bad guy, for engaging in childish bargain-hunting behaviors, driving every product and service down in quality and reliability in a petulant attempt to save a nickel.
You need to go back and read what I wrote for understanding, because this indicates you really didn't comprehend what I wrote.
Many people will pay a premium for service. Unfortunately far more these days simply cannot. Also publicly traded corps exist to make more profit every quarter for shareholders. Please go follow the money and see who owns these shares.
This centrally controlled hierarchy driven by the same group at the top of the food chain is how all this has ended up this way. No individual accountability or transparency has allowed global inc to form.
quote:
What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
How can you say that? Now: High-bandwidth users enjoy "fast lanes". Next: We take away the "fast lanes". What do you think is going to happen?
What fast lanes? Cox here has none and never has. As long as Cox meets their download requirement I am limited by my end not by Cox.
Now you may be talking about the hardware dispersion by some of the content providers. But that has little to do with the last mile user problem. And that last mile is exactly what Comcast was blocking.
Quote:
The opposite is true, but that's because you're playing with words, using the term "less susceptible" in a manner inconsistent with many user's understanding of what those words should be taken to mean.
Oh my. I need to bring you over to AVS Forum. You can float that balloon and we can have a fun time watching the videophiles heads explode.
No: Buffering doesn't remove all or most effects. Rather, before the "fast lanes", there were many more complaints about downshifting resolution and buffering delays in playback.
I expect that very few of the AVS members understand how buffering operates and I am not sure about you. The AVS guys simply get annoyed when the buffering fails. But in general buffering should never fail as long as the ISP is meeting his down commitment.
The Comcast battles of course were over bit torrent and had nothing to do with buffering.
Quote:
Gamers, yes. Us here on City-Data... we probably notice the effects the least. I spend 90% of the time reading a static page, and 5% of the time typing in replies, so only 5% of the time actually navigating and loading new pages, often in the background so I really don't know if it takes 1s or 3s.
Say more, please.
ISPs commit to two things. Download rate and monthly total download. If they fail to meet either I would think regulatory agencies could take action. Might be the Feds or a PUC or even a user group suit.
Here Cox has a license from the municipalities. I would think a regulatory scheme could be set up. I have even thought about pushing for guaranteed service to all homes...a thing that is lacking here and is very hard for the immediate client to do anything about.
Many people will pay a premium for service. Unfortunately far more these days simply cannot.
And most of those who can don't. That combines to bring about the situation I alluded to, which we can see throughout the consumer marketplace. Engaging in childish bargain-hunting behaviors drives every product and service down in quality and reliability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
Also publicly traded corps exist to make more profit every quarter for shareholders. Please go follow the money and see who owns these shares.
When people choose to buy the cheaper item, they're subconsciously thinking, "Why pay for quality? This will do what I need." They're not thinking that their purchase weakens quality workmanship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
This centrally controlled hierarchy driven by the same group at the top of the food chain is how all this has ended up this way.
And citizens have allowed it - voted for it - most of them voting for something that will indirectly harm them. Because at the moment they're just myopically thinking of their own immediate needs or reacting to some myopically corrupt fiction that duped them into supporting that which is against their own personal interests long-term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
What fast lanes?
The fast lanes that were the instigator of this recent net neutrality debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Now you may be talking about the hardware dispersion by some of the content providers. But that has little to do with the last mile user problem.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the new rules or this discussion for that matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
But in general buffering should never fail as long as the ISP is meeting his down commitment.
That's ridiculous. I think you don't understand how reasonable network management affects the service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
ISPs commit to two things. Download rate and monthly total download.
And it isn't a commitment. It's an equivocal promise to seek to achieve those metrics during periods of middling and low utilization of the service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
If they fail to meet either I would think regulatory agencies could take action. Might be the Feds or a PUC or even a user group suit.
And it didn't, and won't, happen because your expectations are unreasonable given the terms and conditions of the service. And if you think that's going to change, then you don't understand the political situation, nor the nature of consumer behaviors I outlined at the top of this message.
And most of those who can don't. That combines to bring about the situation I alluded to, which we can see throughout the consumer marketplace. Engaging in childish bargain-hunting behaviors drives every product and service down in quality and reliability.
When people choose to buy the cheaper item, they're subconsciously thinking, "Why pay for quality? This will do what I need." They're not thinking that their purchase weakens quality workmanship.
And citizens have allowed it - voted for it - most of them voting for something that will indirectly harm them. Because at the moment they're just myopically thinking of their own immediate needs or reacting to some myopically corrupt fiction that duped them into supporting that which is against their own personal interests long-term.
I don't think this is the source of the problem. Certainly people should be aware, conscious and practice self-responsibility. The institutionalization of the markets didn't come from consumer buying habits. Many people will still pay for quality if they can. However, they have no choices anymore.
Not just anyone can be a Telecom or ISP. Those who tried in the 90's saw how that worked out.
Voting really is a choice between 2 flavors of vanilla. Never mind it is very apparent who owns the entire voting system and the computers running it. Same players.
Many people will still pay for quality if they can.
But not enough to make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
However, they have no choices anymore.
Because the long-standing and consistent practice of childish bargain-hunting behaviors has driven every product and service down in quality and reliability.
But not enough to make a difference.
Because the long-standing and consistent practice of childish bargain-hunting behaviors has driven every product and service down in quality and reliability.
No not enough because they don't have the money. The divide is larger now than ever.
This is a product of social engineering, but again it did not cause the markets to be institutionalized. The dramatic exponential change from the 80s on are huge. That is a classic meme to point the finger at the abstract masses. Go look at who owns the shares, the market/regulation changes that were made. Many were trying to buy quality and American when they had money. The govt funds benefit hugely from that Chinese off-shoring. Go look at the public investments and the shares. Fitts saw first hand what was going on and barely escaped prison (millions later) for giving people a tool to follow the money. She was flat out told about the off-shoring plan before it happened full scale. The parasite is killing the host.
This came from the top down, not the reverse. Not to say individuals can't make a big difference, but the real power is not in the label as consumer. Plenty of white papers on how the markets changed. The whole economy didn't become debt-based accidentally and institutionally consolidated. it was very obviously premeditated, by design.
Some of the larger changes made. Go look at Redev and PPPs, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr
What others have said on here about the markets is true prior to this, but FSMA was just part of the changes. The changes were progressive and many to continue and expand the consolidation.
This is most of the major changes, occurring in the 90s. When you see the progression, even with what occurred prior to this one can see how quickly so many changes occurred. The 90's is what really paved the way for the shadow banking explosion after 2000. CAF talks about this, she saw plenty while she was in govt, then even more when she was in finance. She describes it as the liquidation of everywhere, iirc.
The "public" internet around 1995 coupled with the market changes then from around 2000 to fairly recently (-33% manufacturing). Internet infrastructure was needed for effective offshoring.
There was the housing bubble and mortgage changes. You need to shift the market if you are going to offshore everything, right? Then there is a need to start leveraging and building those derivatives/securities to new heights. Timeline of the United States housing bubble
NAFTA also (94) (also other agreements) Essentially just like AG21, more corporate merger/management with regionalization.
Last edited by CDusr; 03-11-2015 at 10:23 AM..
Reason: added links
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
