Board 8 > So that Net Neutrality vote is happening now right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Badly because they didn't have anything past dial-up. That's the whole infrastructure barrier thing we're talking about.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Badly because they didn't have anything past dial-up. That's the whole infrastructure barrier thing we're talking about.

Why didn't they?

And how certain are you that buried fiber-optic cables in the ground is the best way to transmit Internet, and will continue to be so forever?
---

Coaxial cable is the primary method of transmitting broadband internet, not fiber optic. It's an infrastructure that was largely in place well before public internet existed. It should be self-explanatory why cable companies had a bit of advantage over AOL in this department.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Coaxial cable is the primary method of transmitting broadband internet, not fiber optic. It's an infrastructure that was largely in place well before public internet existed. It should be self-explanatory why cable companies had a bit of advantage over AOL in this department.

They didn't seem to have an advantage in the 1990s. Do you think they will forever?
---

You're the only one throwing around the word "forever". Yeah, there is a path to change here, but until wireless broadband technologies become as fast, reliable, and able to handle the same amount of data flow as hard wires so "infrastructure-lite" options are just as viable, we're at where we're at for the foreseeable future. Even a company like Google is slow to get into the space with the actual superior technology when it requires brand new infrastructure.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And your analogy is also wrong in its most literal sense.

If Comcast blocks me, my site is still reachable through AT&T, Verizon, satellite, dial-up, and (far more significantly than all of those) wireless internet provided by various wireless providers.

Comcast is a very important way someone can access my website, yes. And social media is very fucking important for anyone trying to attract readers to a website, too.

Are you literally comparing "Oh no Google moved my site down the list of search results, I have to go to it directly or use a different search engine or find it one of a million other free ways" to literally switching your internet service provider
---

VintageGin posted...

damn dude, have a little more respect-- I don't lump you and smartmuffin together

You used the exact same weird phrase as Tomba to dismiss my position. If I start saying the same dumb shit as Muffin then feel free to lump us together.

Anyways the point is the FCC can choose to support local/state policies, or it can override them, and it's all based on politics. Obviously the big guys like this because they can afford all the lobbying, but it doesn't help any competition or consumers.

VintageGin posted...

With the FCC regulations in place, the worst case scenario is that Comcast gets everything it wants. Your solution to this is apparently that we should get rid of the FCC's influence entirely, meaning that Comcast gets everything it wants by default.

This only makes sense if you think Comcast is disadvantaged by local fees and regulations, and it is disadvantaged by the massive lobbying costs that are required to get the FCC to allow you to do your thing. I don't see how you can think that unless you really love Ajit Pai.

For example your LMI and my friends' local ISPs all started doing their thing before 2015 and before any common carrier enforcement. Your Comcast doomsday didn't happen then. What DID happen was million (billions?) spent on lobbying the FCC and Congress for special benefits.

Obviously if the FCC loses control, then nothing instantly changes, due to established infrastructure and local laws and deals. But the point is FCC Title II oversight is a massive wall that can be taken down and make the barrier to entry easier.

VintageGin posted...

You keep assuming that I don't want any change when all I'm saying is I don't want this change.

I'm assuming you don't want to change the fact that 5 dudes at the FCC can control your local ISP, because that is what you are defending. If you have some ideas for fixing ISP monopoly corporatism without changing the 5 dudes at the FCC then I want to hear it. Talking about a dream FCC that does everything you want means nothing.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Even a company like Google is slow to get into the space with the actual superior technology when it requires brand new infrastructure.

Why though?

Google has more money than Comcast and Verizon combined, better tech, better value, more users and brand value. So how were they unable to break in?

As an aside: Do you even think this is a problem? Does it matter at all whether Google competes against Comcast as long as Comcast is highly regulated?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Google has more money than Comcast and Verizon combined, better tech, better value, more users and brand value. So how were they unable to break in?

Simply put, bureaucracy. Even if they're willing to eat the cost of installation, and it's a pretty big cost, they still have to get permission to dig to put the cables in. Both reasons are why they're putting more and more effort in to Webpass instead of Google Fiber.

foolm0r0n posted...

Do you even think this is a problem?

Not exactly, or at least not majorly. This is all tangential from the "making a social media site vs making a new ISP" conversation.
---