FCC determining US IPs don't have to provide hardline?

[HalGameGuru]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, but saying it will definitely get better because it did in the past is.

 

That's exactly it it isn't, if data consumption keeps going up there is still the distinct possibility the fibre to the home will be the only option.  Hence Do not give ISPs the excuse to bin it.

 

 

Nope, sth Korea even this time last year was 99% 4g.

 

Also you are still talking about rural areas like they are the only area's effected by this ruling.   Not only has this been addressed already, but even if they weren't there is no guarantee that some of those rural areas won;t become densely populated in the next 20years.  

I didn't say it will definitely get better because it got better in the past. I said the old tech was already capable of what we are talking about and the tech coming down the pike is more so. 10/1 isn't a permanent solution, 25/4 isn't either. And over time speed will have to improve. And if population density increases causing strain you will be in a position to bring hardline in organically as it is now economically feasible. You seem to be operating under the assumption that whatever goes in first is all there will be. It can and will improve, as things change competitors can and will enter the market.

 

You realize fiber to the home isn't happening everywhere right? FTTN is all that is guaranteed as being pushed in most markets. FTTH is select markets for the foreseeable future. Ubiquitous Fiber to the home is a hoped for perfect future status. When repeaterless fiber and other such tech comes online it will be more feasible but that is not what is being pushed out now. A good FTTN can easily provide hundreds of mbps per subscriber. And 5g purports to provide gigabit service over the air. And microwave is already capable of hundreds of mbps with the right hardware. Although some are also touting EOC and premise fixed wireless for the future.

 

Dude you appear to have some major reading comprehension deficiencies. 99% of south korea is covered by 4g, but South koreans can and do still USE 3G. And 2G was only phased out in 2012. Although it appears CDMA 2G is still in use in some markets there?

 

Quote

The Next Generation Mobile Networks alliance states that for something to be considered 5G it must offer data rates of several tens of megabits per second to tens of thousands of users simultaneously, while a minimum of 1 gigabit per second should be offered to tens of workers on the same office floor.

 

Some sources, such as The Korea Times, even reckon 5G networks will be capable of transmitting data at up to 20Gbps.

 

If you paid attention to the FCC this is revisited every year and focuses on broadband service being pushed into unserved areas. Changing the definition of home broadband to include mobile services of 10/1 does not effect established markets' ability to provide or retain faster services from the myriad of other providers. Even when the only broadband defined was 25/4 you could still get lower speed services from pretty much everyone, you can still get 6Mbps/762kbps from DSL almost anywhere. And long before they UPPED it to 25/4 you could get 50/5, 100/20 and plenty of other speeds from cable and VDSL2 providers. The market can and will provide. The FCC is talking about areas currently without broadband service.

 

As I have said multiple times when density increases it becomes economically feasible for hardline providers to enter those markets. It already happens. They roll out into areas that are growing. They are only reluctant in those areas that are too sparse to be profitable.

 

If you have an issue with data consumption going up you should have a lot less of an issue with raw speed and a bigger issue with data caps. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

I didn't say it will definitely get better because it got better in the past.

 

 

No you just said it was definitely going to get better:

 

23 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

CURRENT TECH is more capable, FUTURE TECH will be more so.

 

And you have the audacity to accuse me of reading deficiencies.

 

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

You realize fiber to the home isn't happening everywhere right? FTTN is all that is guaranteed as being pushed in most markets. FTTH is select markets for the foreseeable future. Ubiquitous Fiber to the home is a hoped for perfect future status. When repeaterless fiber and other such tech comes online it will be more feasible but that is not what is being pushed out now. A good FTTN can easily provide hundreds of mbps per subscriber. And 5g purports to provide gigabit service over the air. And microwave is already capable of hundreds of mbps with the right hardware. Although some are also touting EOC and premise fixed wireless for the future.

 

 

Irrelevant, My argument has been that this new ruling would allow ISP's to stop maintaining and stop building physical land lines which will be detrimental in the future if mobile tech can't keep up.   You keep going on all different tangents and writing massive replies that do not address that one concern.

 

 

 

As far as South Korea goes:

 

in 2014, 92% of south koreas internet data was consumed through the 4g network.  That was 3 years ago.    That is not an aggregate figure, the current mobile bandwidth usages is hardly effected by old 3g tech which is 16M population still use.    Your reasoning is guesswork and you should stop telling me I don't know how to read when you refuse to read anything, let alone answer the only one basic question which was posed right back at the start.

 

https://www.mobileworldlive.com/asia/asia-news/4g-accounts-92-koreas-data-traffic/

 

 

 

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

As I have said multiple times when density increases it becomes economically feasible for hardline providers to enter those markets. It already happens. They roll out into areas that are growing. They are only reluctant in those areas that are too sparse to be profitable.

 

If you have an issue with data consumption going up you should have a lot less of an issue with raw speed and a bigger issue with data caps. 

 

That's great,  except that they aren't doing that now, so why would they do it in the future?

 

Here's an example of it not happening right now:

So apart from countering my examples with false claims and failing to acknowledge the one and only question I have ever asked, I am not sure what your goal is here.

 

 

 

EDIT: and even if there were ,more 3g data in sth Korea, it is beside the point, fibre can handle more users concurrently at a higher speed and there is no guarantee mobile will be able to in the future.   We can predict quite easily how much fibre is needed to supply 1Gb or 10Gb internet to every house, you can't do that with mobile.

 

[Jito463]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Irrelevant, My argument has been that this new ruling would allow ISP's to stop maintaining and stop building physical land lines which will be detrimental in the future if mobile tech can't keep up.

So, what you're saying is that you have an irrational fear that ISP's will stop trying to compete with one another, just because of this FCC ruling?  I'm pretty sure I read earlier that you live in Australia, which means you don't even live in the US, so why are you getting so worked up about this?

[mr moose]

Just now, Jito463 said:

So, what you're saying is that you have an irrational fear that ISP's will stop trying to compete with one another, just because of this FCC ruling?  I'm pretty sure I read earlier that you live in Australia, which means you don't even live in the US, so why are you getting so worked up about this?

that's not an irrational fear,  that is currently evident over there today.

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

http://fortune.com/2015/05/19/cable-industry-becomes-a-monopoly/

 

Don't tell me you think these companies won't use this ruling to reshape the industry further, pushing consumers into products that serve less data and charge more for it?

All at the same time allowing them to not spend money on landline maintenance/upgrades.    Do you honestly think any one of them is going to spend money on a fibre line to your house when they can offer you a 10Mb mobile plan and that's it,  no more choice for you?

 

Why am I interested?  because we live in a global economy now, whether we like it or not, shit spreads like a cold and the ocean is no barrier.  After Aussie ISP's saw what NN was doing in the US they started doing it here.  If BS rulings like this one are allowed to flourish over there, then that gives legitimacy to lobbyists over here to push for the same rubbish.  

 

 

[Donut417]

14 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

So, what you're saying is that you have an irrational fear that ISP's will stop trying to compete with one another, just because of this FCC ruling?  I'm pretty sure I read earlier that you live in Australia, which means you don't even live in the US, so why are you getting so worked up about this?

Lets be honest. ISP's dont really compete. I think why people are soo worked up is because of what AT&T and Verizon has been attempting to do. AT&T has rewrote the laws here in Michigan so they can step away from the phone lines on the poles. While I dont see them stepping away from all of their wired infrastructure, at least in profitable areas, some areas could be screwed. Verizon has been selling off DSL markets like a mad man. Frontier who bought a good quantity along with the debt that went with them is about to implode. 

 

This wont affect people who are customers of like Comcast and such. Because Comcast for the most part seems like they enjoy upgrading their network. They are working on Docsis 3.1 Upgrades currently. 

[Suika]

58 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

So, what you're saying is that you have an irrational fear that ISP's will stop trying to compete with one another, just because of this FCC ruling?

The idea that they're competing at all is pretty irrational in itself. I've lived in a rural neighborhood for 11 years now and I've seen absolutely no movement on the ISP's side. CenturyLink has offered 1.5Mb/s and that's been it, Charter refuses to come out here due to complications with the city because of arrangements already made with CenturyLink.

 

But if by compete, you mean bribing officials and paying off other ISPs to not step into their turf, then yea, I suppose there is competition.

[Jito463]

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why am I interested?  because we live in a global economy now, whether we like it or not, shit spreads like a cold and the ocean is no barrier.  After Aussie ISP's saw what NN was doing in the US they started doing it here.  If BS rulings like this one are allowed to flourish over there, then that gives legitimacy to lobbyists over here to push for the same rubbish.

So what you're saying, is that you're incapable of holding your government officials accountable there, so you're raging about a policy thousands of miles away that has no direct effect on you.  Gotcha.

46 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Lets be honest. ISP's dont really compete.

2 minutes ago, Suika said:

The idea that they're competing at all is pretty irrational in itself.

We've recently begun getting 1Gb fiber here in Lincoln, so the idea that competition doesn't happen at all is irrational.  If you feel your ISPs are cheating you, get involved with your city government about incentivizing growth with the local ISPs (or about attracting in new ISPs), don't just mumble and gripe about not getting good service.

 

This ruling from the FCC won't have any more effect on internet growth than the previous policy.  The ISPs will still do what's best for them.  It's on us as the customers to push for better service.  Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and we just have to learn to deal with it.

[mr moose]

Just now, Jito463 said:

So what you're saying, is that you're incapable of holding your government officials accountable there, so you're raging about a policy thousands of miles away that has no direct effect on you.  Gotcha.

 

Well done, totally ignore the point so you can keep with your ideals.

 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

 

This ruling from the FCC won't have any more effect on internet growth than the previous policy.  The ISPs will still do what's best for them.  It's on us as the customers to push for better service.  Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and we just have to learn to deal with it.

 

Except that it actually states so long as there is a mobile service that can deliver 10Mb, then there is no obligation to maintain a landline.  That's a pretty big effect.

[Donut417]

Just now, Jito463 said:

We've recently begun getting 1Gb fiber here in Lincoln, so the idea that competition doesn't happen at all is irrational.  If you feel your ISPs are cheating you, get involved with your city government about incentivizing growth with the local ISPs (or about attracting in new ISPs), don't just mumble and gripe about not getting good service.

City government is more concerned with keeping our water mains from blowing out. And getting new businesses in to help with all the abandoned buildings. I costs a lot for an ISP to wire up a city. I highly doubt our city can get any ISPs in here. Though things might change. Amazon is building a warehouse here. But trust me, no one in the city likes Comcast, the City knows, we were under an exclusive rights agreement with those bastards. But I dont think any companines will come in. We are Comcast's territory after all. 

 

But yeah, In my area of the city we got Comcast. AT&T doesnt serve our neighborhood at all any more. 

[Jito463]

Just now, mr moose said:

Well done, totally ignore the point so you can keep with your ideals.

I got your point, I just don't see it as relevant.

 

Here's my viewpoint.  If your ISP doesn't provide the service you need, switch.  If you can't switch and you think you're getting gouged, contact your local city council.  Just silently fuming and raging on internet forums does nothing.  Hoping for federal interference in these matters is pointless.  Matters must be handled at a local level first, or there's not much chance of things getting done.

 

And the truth is, internet speeds is such a "first world problem", that's almost laughable.

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except that it actually states so long as there is a mobile service that can deliver 10Mb, then there is no obligation to maintain a landline.  That's a pretty big effect.

Do you honestly believe that hardline ISP carriers are going to just go away because of this ruling?  They have an investment in the infrastructure, and they're not going to just abandon it.  As @HalGameGuru stated several times, this ruling was about getting broadband access to rural areas, not about limiting options in urban areas.

[AvocadosGuac]

2 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

wow... Im actually with rogers for my phone and thats pretty damn bad.....

Where are you in Canada? I'm in the GTA and rogers is defiantly in the top 3 ISP in my area. Bell SUCKS

[mr moose]

Just now, Jito463 said:

I got your point, I just don't see it as relevant.

 

Here's my viewpoint.  If your ISP doesn't provide the service you need, switch.  If you can't switch and you think you're getting gouged, contact your local city council.  Just silently fuming and raging on internet forums does nothing.  Hoping for federal interference in these matters is pointless.  Matters must be handled at a local level first, or there's not much chance of things getting done.

 

And the truth is, internet speeds is such a "first world problem", that's almost laughable.

Now you are deflecting from the discussion.  I have a choice of 3 ISP's right now and when the NBN comes to my area (this month) my options increase to about 20.   But that is not the point.  So while I am engaged in this topic, it is not "silently fuming and raging on internet forums", it is engaging in constructive discussion about the state of affairs and how it can effect everyone.  Do you really think I am hoping this discussion will change something?  That is more naive than trying to dismiss my opinions because I live in a different country.  How about instead of trying to dismiss my points because you assume I have a grudge, try addressing the actual points I have made. 

 

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Do you honestly believe that hardline ISP carriers are going to just go away because of this ruling?  They have an investment in the infrastructure, and they're not going to just abandon it.  As @HalGameGuru stated several times, this ruling was about getting broadband access to rural areas, not about limiting options in urban areas.

 

It gives them the ability to yes.   And for the umpteenth time, just because you think this is about rural doesn't change the fact that it is worded to effect ALL Americans.  

[ARikozuM]

How long until the American people burn the White House down for a 2nd time?

 

I really hope that these guys know how to run statistics, surveys, and are, at the least, qualified to know how to obtain basic data on this issue. 

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And for the umpteenth time, just because you think this is about rural doesn't change the fact that it is worded to effect ALL Americans.  

And just because you assume it's going to affect all Americans, doesn't mean that it will.  Your entire argument is based on supposition.  That's my point I've been trying to make.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

How long until the American people burn the White House down for a 2nd time?

 

I really hope that these guys know how to run statistics, surveys, and are, at the least, qualified to know how to obtain basic data on this issue. 

We're too busy worrying about statues, gender pronouns, and fighting Nazi's (that we created with our education system) to worry about things that actually matter.

[ARikozuM]

11 minutes ago, Jrock said:

Where are you in Canada? I'm in the GTA 

Say "hi" to Niko for me. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

And just because you assume it's going to affect all Americans, doesn't mean that it will.  Your entire argument is based on supposition.  That's my point I've been trying to make.

 

So you can't actually counter any of my points then?   Many of Hal's comments have been just flat out wrong, I have linked to articles showing this, many of your comments are just attacks on my legitimacy to have an opinion.

 

Neither of you have actually addressed the first point I made.  Until that happens feel free to ignore the actual topic and focus on me.

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you can't actually counter any of my points then?   Many of Hal's comments have been just flat out wrong, I have linked to articles showing this, many of your comments are just attacks on my legitimacy to have an opinion.

You're free to have any opinion you want, just as I'm free to disagree with you.  I just find it odd how worked up you seem to be getting, over a ruling that has no direct effect on you.

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Neither of you have actually addressed the first point I made.  Until that happens feel free to ignore the actual topic and focus on me.

On 8/9/2017 at 5:32 PM, mr moose said:

At least you weren't promised a fibre package they couldn't afford to implement only to get votes.  Australia has the biggest debacle in the NBN right now.

Are you talking about this?  This was your first post on this topic.  Or did you mean something else?

[WMGroomAK]

26 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Here's my viewpoint.  If your ISP doesn't provide the service you need, switch.  If you can't switch and you think you're getting gouged, contact your local city council.  Just silently fuming and raging on internet forums does nothing.  Hoping for federal interference in these matters is pointless.  Matters must be handled at a local level first, or there's not much chance of things getting done.

Just as a question, how would your local city council be able to actually dictate what the ISP has to do?  This is the whole reason for the FCC to exist is to help with regulating and providing the requirements for interstate communication (which seems to be what the Internet is used for as we can see from the diverse locations of people on this forum).  If I have any issue with an ISP, I'm supposed to be able to petition the FCC about the misconduct of said ISP and have them hold a hearing as is the case presented in this article:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/fcc-seemingly-forgot-about-a-net-neutrality-complaint-filed-against-verizon/

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

Just as a question, how would your local city council be able to actually dictate what the ISP has to do?  This is the whole reason for the FCC to exist is to help with regulating and providing the requirements for interstate communication (which seems to be what the Internet is used for as we can see from the diverse locations of people on this forum).  If I have any issue with an ISP, I'm supposed to be able to petition the FCC about the misconduct of said ISP and have them hold a hearing as is the case presented in this article:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/fcc-seemingly-forgot-about-a-net-neutrality-complaint-filed-against-verizon/

They're responsible for enticing companies into the community and attempting to spur growth.  That's part of their job.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You're free to have any opinion you want, just as I'm free to disagree with you.  I just find it odd how worked up you seem to be getting, over a ruling that has no direct effect on you.

Are you talking about this?  This was your first post on this topic.  Or did you mean something else?

This one:

On 8/10/2017 at 1:44 PM, mr moose said:

be prepared for the future is the first thing that springs to my mind.  It's just like asking 20 years ago what can you not do on 56.6k that is absolutely necessary?

And this one:

On 8/11/2017 at 7:22 AM, mr moose said:

But will it be enough in 10 years?  And if isps dont have to maintain a physical connection what happens if mobile technology doesn't turn out to be good enough?

 

 

You then went on to say (even though it wasn't in response to me), that your mobile speed is good but limited:

On 8/10/2017 at 2:15 PM, Jito463 said:

Ouch.  I can't get it in my specific area yet - as they're still running the fiber - but Allo is offering 1Gb/1Gb for $95/mo, no data cap.  Or are you talking only business pricing?

While I'm looking forward to getting 1Gb fiber, my 12Mb/768Kb currently does everything I need it to.  The only downside to that speed is when I'm downloading something and it saturates my bandwidth, preventing me from browsing.  The biggest issue is the price, which is the primary reason I'm switching once fiber becomes available.

 

You even claim you are looking forward to getting 1G fibre, yet now you seem to be taking the side that mobile is better long term (which is Hal's big claim) and you are convinced ISP's will continue to roll it out even though not only are they avoiding it but that there is no real compilation to spur it on in many areas.

 

Quite a few people on this thread have already pointed out the lack of competition, how shit their landlines are and why it is naive to think an ISP is just going to roll out fibre because reasons.   

 

 

No, My arguments are not assumptions, they are reflection of complaints made by consumers in this thread, they are opinions formed on the current state of affairs in the US as relayed in the articles I linked to.  They are conclusions drawn on the current efficiency of mobile networks compared to fibre networks as illustrated in sth Korea (who has arguably the best mobile network infrastructure in the world).  

 

Juxtaposition my stance next to the current "you're not in the US" and "you can't control your government therefore you are just whining on the internet" arguments and it's plain to see who has put more thought into the actual problem.

 

 

 

 

 

[Suika]

50 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

We've recently begun getting 1Gb fiber here in Lincoln, so the idea that competition doesn't happen at all is irrational.

This actually kind of sums up your entire argument for me.

 

"I'm not personally affected, so nobody else can be. What's the worst that can actually happen?"

 

The argument seems pretty cut and dry, here. The FCC is failing in their role to ensure connection to the world-wide web without discrimination, minorities are being left in the dust because a multi-billion dollar company can outweigh the voice of a few citizens in a predominantly farmer based town.

 

And if I were to invest my time into the local government, I'd rather take that time and apply for new jobs so I can afford a new apartment with faster internet. It's easier that way, which speaks loudly of the issue with your argument. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

This one:

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

be prepared for the future is the first thing that springs to my mind.  It's just like asking 20 years ago what can you not do on 56.6k that is absolutely necessary?

And this one:

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But will it be enough in 10 years?  And if isps dont have to maintain a physical connection what happens if mobile technology doesn't turn out to be good enough?

 

You then went on to say (even though it wasn't in response to me), that your mobile speed is good but limited:

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Ouch.  I can't get it in my specific area yet - as they're still running the fiber - but Allo is offering 1Gb/1Gb for $95/mo, no data cap.  Or are you talking only business pricing?

While I'm looking forward to getting 1Gb fiber, my 12Mb/768Kb currently does everything I need it to.  The only downside to that speed is when I'm downloading something and it saturates my bandwidth, preventing me from browsing.  The biggest issue is the price, which is the primary reason I'm switching once fiber becomes available.

 

You even claim you are looking forward to getting 1G fibre, yet now you seem to be taking the side that mobile is better long term (which is Hal's big claim) and you are convinced ISP's will continue to roll it out even though not only are they avoiding it but that there is no real compilation to spur it on in many areas.

 

Quite a few people on this thread have already pointed out the lack of competition, how s*** their landlines are and why it is naive to think an ISP is just going to roll out fibre because reasons.   

 

 

No, My arguments are not assumptions, they are reflection of complaints made by consumers in this thread, they are opinions formed on the current state of affairs in the US as relayed in the articles I linked to.  They are conclusions drawn on the current efficiency of mobile networks compared to fibre networks as illustrated in sth Korea (who has arguably the best mobile network infrastructure in the world).  

 

Juxtaposition my stance next to the current "you're not in the US" and "you can't control your government therefore you are just whining on the internet" arguments and it's plain to see who has put more thought into the actual problem.

Regarding your quoted points, that again goes back to supposition.  Even in it's day, 56k was incredibly slow.  Whereas 10Mb is no slouch, even by todays standard.  Your argument is predicated on the belief that we need 50Mb/100Mb/1Gb internet.  We don't.

 

On the part of my post you quoted, that is not my mobile speed, that is DSL.  While I actually can get faster (24Mbit DSL), I choose not to because I would have to rent their modem, instead of owning my own.  I am certainly looking forward to it "just because" (and the price doesn't hurt, either), but I could certainly do without it.

 

I'm not saying mobile is better than landline, I'm simply agreeing with @HalGameGuru that it's a better option for those who may not be able to get landline broadband internet.  You're just assuming that this ruling will effectively end ISP competition.  That certainly may happen in some areas, but it's disingenuous to claim it will happen everywhere.  And for those areas where competition is not working, that's where getting involved with local government will help.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why it is naive to think an ISP is just going to roll out fibre because reasons. 

The thing is, my whole point is that they're not going to roll it out because "reasons".  They're going to roll it out when they believe it to be profitable for them, which it would not be in rural areas.  If there's enough customers to justify it, and there's a profit to be made, then it will happen.

 

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

it's plain to see who has put more thought into the actual problem.

It's also plain to see who's put more assumptions into potential problems.