|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 14, 2017 14:33:37 GMT -6
The bailout was done precisely because there was a very real risk of war if the entire world's pensions had been allowed to be destroyed by a tiny group of Wall Street banksters. lol what? A war between who? Who is gonna go to war if pensions disappear?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 14, 2017 14:40:52 GMT -6
The bailout was done precisely because there was a very real risk of war if the entire world's pensions had been allowed to be destroyed by a tiny group of Wall Street banksters. lol what? A war between who? Who is gonna go to war if pensions disappear? War on the streets of America...
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Dec 14, 2017 14:41:39 GMT -6
The bailout was done precisely because there was a very real risk of war if the entire world's pensions had been allowed to be destroyed by a tiny group of Wall Street banksters. lol what? A war between who? Who is gonna go to war if pensions disappear? The US pension system is $4,600,000,000,000.00 underfunded, I'd say it's a question of when not if.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 14, 2017 14:42:37 GMT -6
Sigh. You don't need to speak to me like I'm an idiot, I understand how hyperlinks work. I also see that you're operating under the (intentional) misunderstanding of just what Net Neutrality is.
It regulates the internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, making it a public utility. Well - *kind of*. See, companies like Google doesn't use Tier 1 or Tier 2 ISPs. They use peering agreements and connect directly to internet exchange points, and only have traffic on Tier 3 ISPs. So Net Neutrality regulations don't affect Google at all, and if Google wants to give preferential priority to YouTube videos vs gmail on their own network, they can. Because they're a gigantic multibillion dollar company. And the FCC can't do anything about it.
Unsurprisingly, Google is in favor of this regulation, taxation, and oversight for their competitors that they themselves wouldn't have to comply with.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 14, 2017 14:56:19 GMT -6
This is something you don't want, by the way.
Similar: all mail, regardless of source, traveling through a carrier, should be transmitted at the same rate.
Some things are time sensitive (like streaming video) and some things aren't (like email). Right away we see some frankly stupid unintended consequences of this type of regulation. People should be able to pay for preferential delivery, because this also allows people to pay less for slower delivery of non-critical content. Treating everything as the same doesn't turn everything into overnight mail. It turns everything into economy ground 12 day delivery.
The truth is, most people don't really understand this well at all, and only have the superficial opinion they were fed by a special interest based off of thin and parsed information. The issue is much more complex than "they're going to extort me for access to Netflix, and cut off my internet!"
Another point to consider is that ISPs do not negotiate or manage their networks on a local basis. They do these things generally as nationwide networks, particularly ISPs that operate at tier I or tier II level in addition to tier III (where you plug in / interface with). Meaning, when an ISP decides to implement a policy to for specific traffic (like, say...bit torrent), they implement the policy their entire network.
Why is this important? Because the level of competition for ISPs at a nationwide level is good, even though locally sometimes there may exist monopoly conditions (cause by local governments...). In most large markets you have at least 3 choices. What this means is, if Comcast decides to throttle Netflix, they will lose a *LOT* of customers across their nationwide footprint. It really doesn't matter that in Nowheresville Illinois you only get Comcast. They aren't going to handle traffic specifically just for Nowheresville. This is all to say why we never had a problem in the first place - not to any significant degree, anyway. Never mind the fact that the uneven application of the actual regulation that was put in place under title II doesn't fix the alleged root cause anyway (lack of consumer choice at the tier III level), but exacerbates it!
You also mentioned the other bogeyman - preferential anti-competitive behavior via "fast laning".
But fast lanes have always existed as long as the internet has been around, based on how much money you are willing to spend. A content provider can spend gobs of cash on...
1. Servers (quantity, size, location)
2. Caching services such as Akamai which gets to content stored closer to the consumer.
3. Bandwidth provision for hosting servers 4. Peering (The more ISPs they peer with, the less hops it takes to get to their customers).
So basically what we're saying is, we're ok with companies that have money being able to improve their customer's experience in ALL OF THESE WAYS, but not these other ways as arbitrarily and capriciously defined by the FCC under Title II.
Further, that if you *really* have money, you can bypass the whole NN / Title II mess by doing 1-4 above plus your own fiber to really speed things up.
Spending affects content delivery, it always has, it always will.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 14, 2017 15:29:33 GMT -6
Just a nit Bob. Financial liability wasn't replaced by regulation in 2008. It was replaced by the US government taking on the liabilities of the banks and AIG and printing a lot of money to make the system more liquid. That was a bailout, not regulation. No, it wasn't. The bailout was done precisely because there was a very real risk of war if the entire world's pensions had been allowed to be destroyed by a tiny group of Wall Street banksters. I think we're talking past each other Bob. When you said, "The latter (financial Liability) has been replaced by regulation", I was responding to that sentence in the context of the government's financial bailout of the liable parties in the financial collapse. In no way were they held liable for the collapse of our financial system. They got a new stake and moved on with profit making.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 14, 2017 15:46:06 GMT -6
If everybody in Europe loses their pension thanks to Wall Street and has to take over the support of their parents do you think for a minute right-wing governments couldn't be elected and attack the United States? That's pretty much what happened prior to WW2.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 14, 2017 15:53:01 GMT -6
One other thing, real quick.
Has anyone considered the fact that the previous administration's FCC actually created a whole new class of federal regulation that wasn't provisioned by Congress to the FCC? They re-interpreted the 1934 regulation act governing the telecom monopoly of AT&T...for the Internet. This was an entirely unconstitutional federal grab at doing what an administration wanted to do without Congress having given them the power to do it.
If all the NN folks want more federal government regulation over the 'net they should lobby Congress to create a bill that provides the FCC the power to regulate the internet. And that bill will need to be voted on by both the senate and the house, and signed by the President. That's how it's supposed to work.
If you hate the idea that President Trump's administration can affect so many trillions of dollars of our economy, you should also hate that President Obama's administration did this. Don't you think it makes sense that we actually use our system of governance appropriately?
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 14, 2017 16:44:48 GMT -6
responding in line via blue text This is something you don't want, by the way. Similar: all mail, regardless of source, traveling through a carrier, should be transmitted at the same rate. Some things are time sensitive (like streaming video) and some things aren't (like email). Right away we see some frankly stupid unintended consequences of this type of regulation. People should be able to pay for preferential delivery, because this also allows people to pay less for slower delivery of non-critical content. Treating everything as the same doesn't turn everything into overnight mail. It turns everything into economy ground 12 day delivery. are you unaware that electrical signals travel at the speed of light?
The truth is, most people don't really understand this well at all, and only have the superficial opinion they were fed by a special interest based off of thin and parsed information. The issue is much more complex than "they're going to extort me for access to Netflix, and cut off my internet!" Another point to consider is that ISPs do not negotiate or manage their networks on a local basis. They do these things generally as nationwide networks, particularly ISPs that operate at tier I or tier II level in addition to tier III (where you plug in / interface with). Meaning, when an ISP decides to implement a policy to for specific traffic (like, say...bit torrent), they implement the policy their entire network. Why is this important? Because the level of competition for ISPs at a nationwide level is good, even though locally sometimes there may exist monopoly conditions (cause by local governments...). In most large markets you have at least 3 choices. What this means is, if Comcast decides to throttle Netflix, they will lose a *LOT* of customers across their nationwide footprint. ha. haha. hahahahahaha. If Comcast is their only provider, those customers aren't going anywhere. I'm dealing with this right now as Spectrum is the only internet provider in our area and their upload speeds are deplorable compared to what we had in NYC (FiOS 100/100). They just have to sit there and take it up the ass that their netflix subscription streams with glitches and playback errors because comcast decided to only let 512K/sec through to each connection on their network, even tho HD video requires 5+mb/sec (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Video/pktvideoaag.html) What do you think will happen when netflix starts streaming 4K video to users who access netflix via their PS4 Pro (which supports 4K resolution) or the new XBox?
It really doesn't matter that in Nowheresville Illinois you only get Comcast. They aren't going to handle traffic specifically just for Nowheresville. This is all to say why we never had a problem in the first place - not to any significant degree, anyway. Never mind the fact that the uneven application of the actual regulation that was put in place under title II doesn't fix the alleged root cause anyway (lack of consumer choice at the tier III level), but exacerbates it! You also mentioned the other bogeyman - preferential anti-competitive behavior via "fast laning". But fast lanes have always existed as long as the internet has been around, based on how much money you are willing to spend. A content provider can spend gobs of cash on... I see what you're getting at. being able to purchase something like Fios 50/50 vs Fios 150/150. I don't think that's the issue at hand. The issue is when those netflix packets travel from Netflix' server to the FiOS servers and verizon says "oh, this is a netflix packet? Well, HBO Now pays us $x so their packets get through our fiber optic cables at a faster rate than all other video providers, so we better make sure the netflix packet aren't pushed through as fast as those HBO Now packets. The HBO Now packets need to stream at 5,000 packets/second because that's what they paid for, so push the netflix packets through at 3000 packets/second even though 1080p video needs 4500 packets/second throughput to not suffer from buffering during playback. if netflix wants non-buffering playback, they or the customers gotta pay us for that privilege". HBO Now packets shouldn't receive any preferential treatment over Netflix, or Hulu or Amazon Prime, or YouTube Red.
1. Servers (quantity, size, location) 2. Caching services such as Akamai which gets to content stored closer to the consumer. 3. Bandwidth provision for hosting servers 4. Peering (The more ISPs they peer with, the less hops it takes to get to their customers). So basically what we're saying is, we're ok with companies that have money being able to improve their customer's experience in ALL OF THESE WAYS, but not these other ways as arbitrarily and capriciously defined by the FCC under Title II. Perhaps part of the confusion is that people don't know how many ISPs there are in a country like America. Who owns all of the copper lines that run to neighborhoods that have cable internet in small towns like Fall City, Washington? Do companies like Verizon/Comcast/Spectrum just rent the lines from whoever owns it so they can be the ISP for the citizens of Fall City? or does the company that owns the copper internet infrastructure in Fall City strike a deal to connect with Verizon's fiber backbone that connects to the rest of the country?
Further, that if you *really* have money, you can bypass the whole NN / Title II mess by doing 1-4 above plus your own fiber to really speed things up. Spending affects content delivery, it always has, it always will. What if the power company in your area could detect what kind of appliance you were plugging into the wall and decided that because it was made by Panasonic instead of GE, they would deliver the power at 105V, instead of the typical 120V. If you needed 120V for your Panasonic, you had to pay them a Panasonic device usage fee. Isn't that wrong? Shouldn't we the consumers and content providers be entitled to use whatever appliance we want and the power provider shouldn't be allowed to influence that decision at all? Shouldn't we, the consumer, be allowed to view whatever content we want online without the internet provider influencing that decision at all, especially by affecting the speed at which that content travels from the content provider's servers to our computer endpoint? If I'm paying for FiOS 100/100, then when I visit nytimes.com the articles should travel from their servers, through FiOS's network and finally through the Optical Network Terminal in my house at a rate of 100mbps, as promised by FiOS. FiOS shouldn't be allowed to affect that rate because CNN pays FiOS to push their packets through the network faster than all other sites. At least, that's what I believe they shouldn't be allowed to do.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 14, 2017 17:40:52 GMT -6
The big ISPs are Deathly afraid of actual throttling and filtering because getting caught would bring down the hammer. Right now, they can still demonstrate they haven't overtly tried it in a purely commercial anticompetitive instance (that didn't involve Netflix throttling itself by not upgrading peering and then blaming Comcast to get NN passed in the first place so they could cash in). Look bandwidth is not infinite. There are legitimate business reasons to offer content providers higher prioritization. If netlfix decided to start incorporating augmented reality which requires low latnecy they are going to have to pay for prioritization. There are legitimitate innovations that require it to tackle technical constraints. If you want the internet to stay exactly the way it is today for the next 20 years then implement NN. if you want innovation, keep government out. I’ll be honest, I’m not really interested in the shallow sound byte talking points. This is more complex than you’re willing to acknowledge. How bout this - I bet you $1 the Internet doesn’t implode. Deal? Ps The anti-competitive throttling is excuse that Netflix made to cover their backsides. In 2013-2014 Netflix customers did experience a drop in bandwidth, but it was because Netflix had outsourced it's data usage to a third party which could not meet the demand. When Netflix moved away from the third party, the bandwidth for all ISPs rose simultaneously. www.bretswanson.com/index.php/2014/11/m-lab-the-real-source-of-the-web-slow-down/#more-2475
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 14, 2017 18:04:51 GMT -6
If any of the dire consequences of not regulating the internet come to pass, we'll have a Dem congress next year and they can impeach Trump, and then pass a NN law that Pence will sign. No worries!
I'm betting nothing predicted by the NN'er will happen, and they'll move on to the next outrage.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 14, 2017 18:16:45 GMT -6
I'm as "liberal" as they come but this is B.S. favoring the SillyCon-men Vallee banksters. It's too bad it's couched in anti-monopoly rhetoric that the Democratic Party swallowed hook line and sinker.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 14, 2017 18:57:05 GMT -6
The big ISPs are Deathly afraid of actual throttling and filtering because getting caught would bring down the hammer. Right now, they can still demonstrate they haven't overtly tried it in a purely commercial anticompetitive instance (that didn't involve Netflix throttling itself by not upgrading peering and then blaming Comcast to get NN passed in the first place so they could cash in). Look bandwidth is not infinite. There are legitimate business reasons to offer content providers higher prioritization. If netlfix decided to start incorporating augmented reality which requires low latnecy they are going to have to pay for prioritization. There are legitimitate innovations that require it to tackle technical constraints. If you want the internet to stay exactly the way it is today for the next 20 years then implement NN. if you want innovation, keep government out. I’ll be honest, I’m not really interested in the shallow sound byte talking points. This is more complex than you’re willing to acknowledge. How bout this - I bet you $1 the Internet doesn’t implode. Deal? Ps The anti-competitive throttling is excuse that Netflix made to cover their backsides. In 2013-2014 Netflix customers did experience a drop in bandwidth, but it was because Netflix had outsourced it's data usage to a third party which could not meet the demand. When Netflix moved away from the third party, the bandwidth for all ISPs rose simultaneously. www.bretswanson.com/index.php/2014/11/m-lab-the-real-source-of-the-web-slow-down/#more-2475Nevermind that the repeal is only going back to how things were 2 years ago. If they weren't screwing you then, they probably aren't going to do it today. It's just propaganda to keep government hands in the proverbial cookie jar.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 14, 2017 19:17:00 GMT -6
My bandmate's biggest worry is that his cable bill will go up. A Christmas present to the Middle Class from Trump. My guess is consumer internet bills will go up NN or not, as more people rely only on internet and dump bundled TV packages and tethered phones.
An anecdote, I tried out Verizon Fios' second from the top speed tier for a couple months and found no perceptible difference in my browsing or download experience. I went back to where I had it, a step lower. It's still remarkable to me that 4k TV gets streamed reliably. It's a marvel of the age.
I found that a really good router system was my key to (relatively) trouble free wifi. I needed a coax repeater behind my main TV (and it's ethernet'd to my TV) and another one in my studio (which is 50ft away from the main router) to get even coverage at my place.
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 14, 2017 20:10:34 GMT -6
We noticed the improvement with high-speed internet (FiOS) when we skyped with my parents. with our old plan (Time Warner Cable Internet), their video had very low resolution, but with the high-speed plan (FiOS 100/100), their video was HD and they could see us super clear because the bandwidth to stream our video feeds was available. Also, when uploading videos to youtube or transferring stems to clients, the speed difference is noticeable. Most of the internet providers don't care to provide equal upload and download speeds. it's always focused on download speeds.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 14, 2017 21:31:51 GMT -6
I just discovered the huge discrepancy between upload and download speeds using RCN. yesterday My download speed was 150, upload was a joke. I've forgotten the exact number but it was less than 10% of the download speed.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 14, 2017 23:04:00 GMT -6
10% is pretty standard. Most people don't do huge uploads. The bulk of their bandwidth is in downloads. There are some exceptions like chuck noted, but the vast majority of cable providers offer dismal upload speeds.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 15, 2017 0:01:22 GMT -6
Upload is one of FiOS's strengths.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Dec 15, 2017 10:12:28 GMT -6
Hey Chuck, I was on my phone so I didn't really have a chance to respond clearly to this. I think you're missing some of what I'm trying to say - I'll try to clarify. Network capacity isn't usually limited by physical (i.e., light or conductivity) constraints. It's limited by switching and other computer/network routing capacity. This is why we use packets in the first place, to allow for transfer of information "chain links", so the entire "chain" can be transmitted in discrete, interruptable chunks. What this means is that when you're at capacity one packet may be delayed, but it's robust so that one piece being delayed doesn't ruin the entire chain (packet can be re-sent, whatever). Networks use load shaping and various methods of packet prioritization to increase the efficiency of this. This is normal. Some things are more sensitive to packet interruption than others. This is separate from bandwidth capacity. You may be able to download at an extremely high rate but have problems with streaming video due to poor packet handling further up the chain. Latency vs bandwidth. For the record, this is why the electricity comparisons are not entirely valid (ALL electricity is basically delivered latency free...I guess you could draw an analogy between latency and power factor, but the grid charges more for bad actors in power factor). NN made disparate handling of packets by ISPs based on source or content illegal. So your super-urgent critical packet gets the exact same priority as your completely not urgent packet. A network may desire to optimize customer experience by delivering some content faster, others slower, maintain the total average latency (which is a capacity limitation) through slowing down other non-critical packets - not physically, but by prioritizing how they are handled. Please note the bandwidth hasn't changed in either case. For the network and competition issues, I think you misunderstood. If there's a monopoly that exists in a rural municipality and that local ISP is being terrible, yeah, that local area is screwed. But NN doesn't address that, because it doesn't actually provide any pressure or help to establish more local ISPs, or eliminate monopolies, etc. If your service sucks under a monopoly ISP, NN was not going to help that. In fact, it would hurt, because it put in a bunch of Title II taxes and regs that made new ISPs and infrastructure spending more expensive. But NN proponents always threaten throttling based on competitive grounds, like Comcast throttling Netflix to support their own video product. If they did this, it would be nationwide. So yes, it would hurt the rural guy that only has comcast as an option. But in a major market like Chicago or NYC people have 3 or 4 options, and they would beat feet so fast that Comcast would suffer. Never mind the political fire and brimstone that would rain down on them. Even if there's no local deterrent to anti competitive practices, there is a nationwide / large scale deterrent. Make sense? I'm not sure if this is rhetorical or not. There are a ton of ISPs, and the 'net is divided into basically three tiers. Tier 1 providers are backbones that only exchange, they do not purchase transit "upstream" because there is no one "upstream" of them. They connect with other Tier 1s on peering agreements - these are the backbone of the system, and they connect large regions (like the US with Europe). This is your Cogents etc. of the world. Tier 2 providers are regional connectors between Tier 1 and Tier 3s. This is vodafone and others. They may have some tier 1 capacity but they purchase via peering with Tier 1s to get to the 'net as a whole. Tier 3 ISPs are who you buy internet from. Comcast, Verizon, and small local ISPs (Suddenlink) are tier 3. They're the "last mile provider". The reality is it's less simple than that as AT&T, Verizon, etc. are also Tier 1 carriers, so they have end to end connectivity on their own networks. But they also have peering agreements (otherwise they wouldn't be able to be reached by people on other Tier 3s). There are 2600+ ISPs in the US. broadbandnow.com/All-ProvidersGenerally speaking last-mile physical connections are owned by the ISP. If they lay the fiber or DSL or cable line, it's theirs. Practically there's a maze of state and local regs to get to do that, and the cable companies just lucked into it their position as last mile alternatives. So to your specific scenario, more than likely the company that owns the cable is a tier 3 (small market) ISP and they get to the net through a tier 2 ISP. But that last mile infrastructure could have also been installed by AT&T. So this is why some places you have Comcast (Cable) and AT&T (DSL) - legacy infrastructure (cable and phone, respectively). The cost to last mile are why you have very few options in your area. There's a rule of thumb for infrastructure: The closer you get to the end user, the more investment is needed, averaged per user connected. It's expensive to make all those connections. It's usually a square law, like 1:3:9 or something, depending on what you're installing. When you put in a large scale backbone, you can upgrade pretty easily and your potential sales base grows, because you cover a large region. When you put in last mile, you have this huge sunk cost and the ONLY potential customer for each new piece is the one you're hooking up. And... they don't even have to use the infrastructure you're installing. So basically once you have two options in a service area, it becomes extremely difficult to recover the up-front fixed costs. As for your electricity example, if you want the internet to become a public utility then have at it. But you're guaranteeing all of the crap that comes along with it. Public utilities have low-but-safe margins. They don't innovate, they don't really care about customer service, they don't have any incentive to scale their supply. You'll all but guarantee mediocre service, forever...and probably not cheaper. The internet is not like power gen, though. Power gen capacity has gone up on an efficiency basis from maybe 50% net thermal efficiency in the 60s to 70% today. (This is my area... I'm rotating equipment engineer by day). Yeah, a gas turbine package size has gone from 20 MW to 200 MW, but this is more about consolidation and scaling than real gains. And electricity demands aren't really going up exponentially like ISP stuff is. An old turbine still makes solid power to push to the grid. On the other hand, the capacity and demand on the net is wildly different and the tech from today looks nothing like the tech from even 15 years ago. It's not really a good comparison, and we need to allow the industry to innovate. NN and Title II would have prevented that. They did, actually, demonstrably: since 2015 infrastructure spending flatlined. The current FCC chairman explains it well: "...Essentially Net Neutrality involves regulating all of these companies like utilities, treating your internet service provider as you would your water company or electric company or subway system. And the argument I’ve made is that the internet is not like any of those things. It’s certainly important, increasingly, in our daily lives, but the internet also scales dramatically over time. 20 years ago, we were talking about 28k modems and AOL CD-ROMs in the mail and email being the killer app. Now we’re talking about gigabit fiber and 4GLTE and high definition wireless streaming. And so the way the internet has developed is scalable so to speak in a way that utilities, as we traditionally think about them, are not. And the argument that I’ve made is that treating the internet like another slow-moving utility guarantees that you’re going to have another slow-moving utility providing the internet. And that’s the last thing I think that consumers want. They seem to want better, faster, cheaper internet access, not another DMV in their lives." Cheers.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,739
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 15, 2017 11:06:53 GMT -6
OK slightly off topic thought of the day We can't agree on politics but we all agree a $13-20K IMac is nuts right😎!
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 15, 2017 12:30:29 GMT -6
OK slightly off topic thought of the day We can't agree on politics but we all agree a $13-20K IMac is nuts right😎! Not if you're a video guy with a lot of work and tight deadlines!
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2017 16:08:57 GMT -6
It's not a partisan issue. I dislike Hillary nearly a much as I dislike Trump. They're cut from the same cloth, the primary difference is that Hillary is more or less competent at what she does and knows enough not to make a fool out of the country on the world stage. I actually fear Hillary more than I fear Trump as I regard Hillary as a compentent psychopath while Trump appears to think he's still in an episode of 'The Apprentice'. Apart from Fox Hillary has had a free pass from the Liberal media inspite of her myriad of documented lies and deceit. Regardless of which 'Commander in Chief' occupies the oval office they are predominantly under the control of larger unseen forces. The idea of "Hillary as psychopath" is 100% the product of the Trump propaganda machine, and is a brilliant example of Trump blaming his opponents/perceived "enemies" for what he himself is guilty of. Trump scares the crap out of me, as there's a very real chance that he could get us all killed by provoking atomic war with either North Korea or Islam, or perhaps both. It should not be overlooked that Pakistan, ostensibly a US allay, is both Islamic and a legitimate (as oppposed to rogue) nuclear power. Hillary is a competent politician and bureaucrat, probably better at her job than most. What I don't like her is that although she identifies as a "Democrat" with lip service to progressive ideas, in reality she's a neo-Republican who is firmly in the pocket of Wall Street and Big Business. She supports gun control because, like many people in Washington, she's scared shitless of what might happen if a majority of the population should actually get fed up and decide to do something about the business oligarchy controlling this country and make a real attempt to restore a real democracy. Not that there's much real chance of that happening.The truth is that virtually none of the accusations of "lies and deceit" have been substantiated and the majority have been conclusively disproved repeatedly. That portrait of her is 100% the product of the Trump/Tea Party propaganda machine, which collapse in anaphylactic shock if they weere ever bittern b y the truth. The only really dishonest thing Hillary has been proven guiltyy of was colluding against Barry Sanders in the 2016 presidential primary, which turned out to be a huge mistake for the Democratic party and the country as a whole. As to the myth of the "liberal media", there is no real liberal media left in this country - the media is, at most centrist. There is no functioning left wing remaining in the USA. What is generally regarded as "leftist" these days is somewhat to the right of the historical Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society, which were regarded as far right back in the 1960s, which was the last time this country actually had much of a balanced government. I'm astounded and dismayed by the lack of knowledge of US History as recent the end of the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower, himself regarded as a staunch right-winger in his day, issued serious and strong warnings about what he viewed as trends very dangerous to the country and democracy itself - warnings which have been born out by recent events.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2017 16:10:07 GMT -6
Wasn't a problem from 1992 - 2015. Why would it be a problem now? What wasn't a problem?
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2017 16:17:58 GMT -6
This is something you don't want, by the way. Similar: all mail, regardless of source, traveling through a carrier, should be transmitted at the same rate. Some things are time sensitive (like streaming video) and some things aren't (like email). Right away we see some frankly stupid unintended consequences of this type of regulation. People should be able to pay for preferential delivery, because this also allows people to pay less for slower delivery of non-critical content. Treating everything as the same doesn't turn everything into overnight mail. It turns everything into economy ground 12 day delivery. The truth is, most people don't really understand this well at all, and only have the superficial opinion they were fed by a special interest based off of thin and parsed information. The issue is much more complex than "they're going to extort me for access to Netflix, and cut off my internet!" Another point to consider is that ISPs do not negotiate or manage their networks on a local basis. They do these things generally as nationwide networks, particularly ISPs that operate at tier I or tier II level in addition to tier III (where you plug in / interface with). Meaning, when an ISP decides to implement a policy to for specific traffic (like, say...bit torrent), they implement the policy their entire network. Why is this important? Because the level of competition for ISPs at a nationwide level is good, even though locally sometimes there may exist monopoly conditions (cause by local governments...). In most large markets you have at least 3 choices. What this means is, if Comcast decides to throttle Netflix, they will lose a *LOT* of customers across their nationwide footprint. It really doesn't matter that in Nowheresville Illinois you only get Comcast. They aren't going to handle traffic specifically just for Nowheresville. This is all to say why we never had a problem in the first place - not to any significant degree, anyway. Never mind the fact that the uneven application of the actual regulation that was put in place under title II doesn't fix the alleged root cause anyway (lack of consumer choice at the tier III level), but exacerbates it! You also mentioned the other bogeyman - preferential anti-competitive behavior via "fast laning". But fast lanes have always existed as long as the internet has been around, based on how much money you are willing to spend. A content provider can spend gobs of cash on... 1. Servers (quantity, size, location) 2. Caching services such as Akamai which gets to content stored closer to the consumer. 3. Bandwidth provision for hosting servers 4. Peering (The more ISPs they peer with, the less hops it takes to get to their customers). So basically what we're saying is, we're ok with companies that have money being able to improve their customer's experience in ALL OF THESE WAYS, but not these other ways as arbitrarily and capriciously defined by the FCC under Title II. Further, that if you *really* have money, you can bypass the whole NN / Title II mess by doing 1-4 above plus your own fiber to really speed things up. Spending affects content delivery, it always has, it always will. I'd say that what should concerrn us is our ability to stream our own music from small sites that are not controlled by the Big Three and their cronies, and our ability to set up our own servers without either having to pay exhorbitant rates or get throttled down to impracticality. And the potential for ISPs to charge for unfettered access to various major websites and services.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 15, 2017 16:31:18 GMT -6
OK slightly off topic thought of the day We can't agree on politics but we all agree a $13-20K IMac is nuts right😎! Not if you're a video guy with a lot of work and tight deadlines! Most video editing software is faster with higher CPU clock speeds, than more CPU cores. Since I also do video editing, I've found that many tests have been done showing that high-core count/multi-cpu XEONs and 8/12/16/24(etc.)+ core Intel and AMD machines don't do much better than single CPUs with 4 cores and double clock speeds. There is actually a little cottage industry of folks who buy up older server gear and turn it into cost-effective editing rigs, but they've been up against a lot of scrutiny since people are finding that they're not editing any faster than gaming-caliber machines for cheaper. Most video editing machines DO work much better with higher numbers of GPU cores (especially CUDA pipelines), so having multiple high-end video cards is the path to take. A lot of editors will have 2-4 video cards per machine, with one card as the monitor output and the rest are nothing but processing slaves. High end editors like Davinci will use as many CUDA cores as you can put in the machine. A single I7-7700(K) machine with SSDs and multiple 1080Ti cards will completely obliterate machines with 12+ core CPUs with lesser video cards. Besides, most video editing is done by proxy files now. You create a low quality version copy of every file, then edit those. Once you have the edits made, you substitute the high quality versions in place and render those. A 2K$ PC can do most all 4K editing and coloring work.
|
|