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

[Jito463]

8 minutes ago, Suika said:

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

If you think that's what my argument consisted of, then you're not reading my whole post.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

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.

 

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.

 

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

That's a whole lot of assumptions and misrepresentation.

 

 

[Jito463]

Just now, mr moose said:

That's a whole lot of assumptions and misrepresentation.

If so, then it seems I'm in good company.

[ARikozuM]

[Suika]

12 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If you think that's what my argument consisted of, then you're not reading my whole post.

The only argument I'm seeing you make is that there's no way the situation I described can happen on the basis that it hasn't happened to you, and then proceed to say that if it did happen, I can go make an argument to a government that barely exists and is comprised of farmers that probably don't understand what internet means asides from CenturyLink paying the city taxes. As I mentioned, my time is better spent moving away than living here for any longer (and guess what I'm doing).

 

The issue exists and you're ignoring it, the FCC is ignoring it and failing its responsibility as a government agency.

[8uhbbhu8]

3 hours ago, Jrock said:

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

Winnipeg. Rogers is only a cell carrier here. Bell didn't even exist here until this year when the bought out MTS our only decent isp.... FUCK BELL!!!!!

3 hours 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.

Nope what they will do however is have no reason or ever feel the need to upgrade those lines unless they get tons and tons of actual pressure from their subscribers. (will never happen though lol)

3 hours ago, 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. 

Hmmmm If you would be so kind as to just open a path straight there I suppose we Canadians can help with that again!

 

[The Elder Smurf]

pai was legal counsel for verizon for years, im pretty sure hes a sleeper for verizon, why else would he leave his job there and go into the fcc (granted it took over a decade, thats the point of a sleeper)

[suicidalfranco]

and here i am, living in the countryside, surrounded by fields of corn... oh. and what's this? an optic fiber and ADSL line coming to my house?

i have access to the internet at 100 megs down 10 up?

Only have to pay 25 bucks per month?

What trickery is this? How is it possible? what's different???

...

Oh! right. I'm not in the US currently 

[HalGameGuru]

20 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

-snip-

 

I've explained that once already, Future Tech as in 5G, not as in 50 years down the line, if you need me to go back and edit the post to be that specific I will. But if you are going to keep harping on what I've already explained to you that part of the discussion is over. And once again, that is not ad infinitum, that is up to the point that these rural areas are as dense as current urban areas.

 

Mobile tech not keeping up isn't a concern because these are people already not serviced. And if you are in an area where mobile can no longer keep up hardline will, by definition, now be profitable to roll out. And there is little to no concern of hardline dropping support because of mobile internet because it already competes in urban areas and has not led to that issue. Even in places where you can get competitive speeds to hardline with mobile. Heck even in areas where Mobile is the faster option there is competition; even in the boonies people are still offered old school DSL and Microwave. I haven't read anything on if this effects fixed wireless access or not. I assume it must as that is often how mobile is classified for home broadband access...

 

Hardline providers are not in the habit of MINIMIZING their profits. In the face of a competitor they are not going to surrender the field. Speeds will go up, prices will go down, new techs will be installed. State interference limiting competition are their own issue. And captive markets even more so. Established urban markets have no fear of loss of service because they are dense enough that all these groups can profit from them. SO they compete to maintain market share. Rural areas are already unserved because they cannot support the tech. Government fiat does not change economic reality. 

 

You're moving goalposts, you started out harping on speed now its data usage? Averages for data usage per capita between 3g and 4g in Korea aren't that different, 4G being the growing tech and 3g shrinking changes the ratios but not the per capita usage. Unlimited 4G is a great thing, I hope it is offered for home access in rural areas. 3G can also work just fine. IF your argument is speed 4G is faster than 3G, of course, but dedicated fixed wireless on 3G can hit the mark of the regs just fine. As for data usage independent of data caps there's no functional difference between mobile and hardline.

 

What do you mean they aren't doing it now? That's CANADA. They aren't competing in rural areas, by definition, as that is what the FCC is talking about, because there is no profit in running hardlines to those areas. I have already said I hope repeaterless fiber and other cost saving techs change that in the future. Lack of competition elsewhere is to do with corporatist and cronyist state interference, not with a failure of market competition. If you cannot see the difference between the market and the state interference on said market that is your issue. And the FCC changing course and saying Broadband is now any provider but 100/25 still does nothing to help those rural subscribers. And it doesn't magically make internet better in urban areas either. This is categorization and saturation. This is bureaucratic number crunching, not market action and consumer provision.

 

Yes a fiber trunk CAN handle more concurrent users at higher speed than current mobile can. And for urban areas that is a definite concern if fiber backhaul and FTTN suddenly starts going backwards. That is NOT a concern in rural areas where the density is low and what speed they are getting NOW is a fraction of what we consider broadband. I understand you aren't from here but there are already myriad providers TRYING to compete in these regions using tech that can be economically feasible. And while I don't agree with the different speed requirement I do agree that mobile/wireless tech should be acceptable for home broadband use for these statistics.

 

I am not worried about mobile being able to provide 1Gbps connections to thousands of households in the future. That isn't what is of concern here. What is of concern is getting CURRENT broadband speed to people NOT currently served. If and when the number of people needing internet access is too much for mobile, or NEEDING of fiber it will be rolled out. That is how it works. Comcast, Verizon, TWC, AT&T, Sprint, etc. roll out the tech that is economically viable for the market being served. If these rural areas already had the density they would have VDSL and Cable. And until they DO have that population other avenues need to be made available. For the speeds in question mobile and fixed wireless are fine and dandy. Fixed wireless actually has better latency in many areas than hardline, and depending on the system being used can be competitive on speed with anything up to fiber. 

[HalGameGuru]

16 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

-snip-

 

The "pressure" from their subscribers is jumping ship for competing providers. Lack of competition in specific markets is its own issue. And more related to pre-existing government interference than market failures.

[HalGameGuru]

19 hours 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/

Local and state government have just as much power in local markets as the feds do. In the US  the Feds dictate base minimums, and state's are not supposed to undercut them, but they can specify more stringent or greater limits. Your local government could dictate that any ISP wishing to provide service must provide a set minimum speed, no data caps, a certain % uptime, or what have you and threaten fines or revocation of permits and licenses for failure to comply.

 

The problem is, just like with the feds, local and state governments are often more beholden to special interests. An open market would be fairer to us little people than these dictated favorites and special conditions.

[HalGameGuru]

I'm gonna do a quick historical and economic run down.

 

Internet arrives as dial up and ISDN. Pure analog voice line connections. Landline phone and cable TV are already available in most urban markets. These systems are then used to provide the earliest broadband. DSL and Copper Cable internet access. Over time a few other competing providers and techs come along, but those established entities have agreements and control via the state in most all of these markets so they don't have to do much to maintain their market share. Over time populations get denser, internet usage increases, new data sinks are added, people need more speed. So upgrades are made to the systems. Fiber optic enters the market and it offers a way to consolidate backhaul, and increase headroom for a fraction of the cost of copper on established right of ways. So most of the backhaul slowly gets updated to fiber. Most people cannot afford a fiber run from backbone all the way to their house, and most couldn't imagine a reason for that much speed so it stagnates for consumers. Industry and commerce on the other hand love it and fiber makes big inroads there.

 

Eventually fiber backbone has settled and steady improvement and new lines are established, there is now lower costs and easier access to material and labor so they start noodling with the idea of pushing fiber further out on the consumer side. No one wants to spend the money on fiber on poles or underground where copper already is all the way to the subscribers, but to the node, now that could be done at a fraction of the price. So they start pushing FTTN. IT allows them to dramatically improve speeds and keep costs low. Cable that used to be a hundred bucks for 25/3 can now be had for 75 bucks for 100/25. DSL that used to max out at 1 or 2 Mbps down and 512 or 768 Kbps up because it was copper to the switchboard is now copper to the node and fiber to the switchboard and can hit 24Mbps with no problem, with some newer VDSL and ADSL2+ systems offering speeds competitive with many cable providers for similar prices.

 

We now finally have speeds we consider broadband by today's standards, and we are finally finding ways of making USE of that speed. Smart devices, video streaming, IoT, etc. So now finally the speed of fiber to the home is a marketable feature of the tech, price is still super high, cost saving techs for fiber haven't been keeping up but the future looks bright. Fiber to the pole and fiber to the home start rolling out. It's pricey. Running fiber to the pole is cheaper, and offers speeds in the hundreds of megabits but some want fiber to the home. It's too pricey at the moment to blanket roll out for entire markets, but certain areas have enough established subscribers that 1Gbps connections are springing up all over the place in urban and affluent suburban areas. FTTN is becoming nigh ubiquitous in urban areas and established suburban areas. Average speed is steadily improving.

 

Many rural and isolated small town areas are still on old school DSL and cable systems. People even more isolated, not part of a township or surrounded by miles of wilderness/farmland and maybe a handful of people per square mile are relegated to dial up on old school copper phone lines, satellite connections, or fixed wireless. These are typically either very slow or a lot more expensive than options in urban and suburban areas. Fiber and microwave backhaul is making its way to isolated towns slowly but surely, faster along interstates and major highways but still not fast enough. But even when fiber reaches the nearest township there is little to no economic impetus to run fiber and a node to an area that will only serve a handful of subscribers. You would need hundreds to justify that investment. And there are no signs of that happening. Some areas have real estate developments going up, showing the potential for a subscriber base, and those developments usually have nodes and fiber backhaul built into the development costs. So new denser developments more quickly acquire the newer tech.

 

That doesn't help the rural population that still don't have more than a handful of subscribers per square mile. But certain techs CAN be made use of even with so few subscribers present. Cellular is already making inroads, pun intended, along interstates and highways. Slowly pushing further out, older tech at first then newer tech as these areas establish themselves. Internet access for home users is still primarily dial up, satellite, and microwave. Microwave at least is able to upgrade over time and offer competitive speed to VDSL and Cable. Maybe not as cheaply but its there. But there is still little consumer fiber can do for an area with so few people. But fiber and microwave backhaul CAN support mobile and microwave ISPs in these areas, finding a way to provide those higher speeds to the number of subscribers needed to be economically feasible. No they won't go anywhere near the homes in question but they can provide the speeds needed to the number of subscribers needed, at a competitive price over dozens of square miles.

 

Limiting "broadband" to hardline does nothing to improve the lives of people in these areas because hardline cannot organically enter them under the current paradigm. And it is no argument to say the government should fund it. Allowing non-hardline providers to be a part of this broadband umbrella allows them to justifiably enter these markets specifically for home broadband, not just as basic elective internet access. Not perfect, but capable and readily implementable. And maybe in the future fiber will be cheap enough to push over dozens of miles to individual subscribers. That's my hope anyways. And I refuse to hold a gun to anyone's head to force the issue one way or the other.

[Ithanul]

Well, I just learned the new meaning of expensive internet.

...I feel super bad for the people out in this country I am in currently.

Internet speeds of 512Kbps is 100 bucks per month.

 

....darn.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

You're moving goalposts, you started out harping on speed now its data usage?

Nope, that's just your reading comprehension letting you down.   My concerns are still the same as in the beginning, my arguments have not changed and you haven't address the one question I keep repeating.

 

I hope you didn't spend too much time on those great walls of text, becasue I lost interest after the first few paragraphs,  You are just repeating yourself and avoiding all the pertinent points raised not only by me, but by other forum members and by the articles I linked.

 

 

[8uhbbhu8]

4 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

The "pressure" from their subscribers is jumping ship for competing providers. Lack of competition in specific markets is its own issue. And more related to pre-existing government interference than market failures.

The problem with the US is that in large swaths of area there are no competitors. The ISPs have it literally locked down. Also in places where there is "competition" lots of the time they just have an agreement not to undercut each other....

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

The problem with the US is that in large swaths of area there are no competitors. The ISPs have it literally locked down. Also in places where there is "competition" lots of the time they just have an agreement not to undercut each other....

Which is evidenced not only anecdotally on this forum, but presented as a fact by just about every tech youtuber/reviewer and reported in every major newspaper/magazine.

 

Not sure why anyone would be so naive to think competition in the US ISP industry is a solid thing right now.

[8uhbbhu8]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which is evidenced not only anecdotally on this forum, but presented as a fact by just about every tech youtuber/reviewer and reported in every major newspaper/magazine.

 

Not sure why anyone would be so naive to think competition in the US ISP industry is a solid thing right now.

Exactly!!! Whats sad is its sort of like that in Canada too... Most large isps here have no real reason to compete with each other cause they all have different sections os the country that are "theirs" Although there is a lot more overlap where competition does happen but thats only in BC/Alberta and South east Ontario. Unless your town or city has its own public/private setup or somehow your provincial one has survived all the buyout/sale attempts your stuck....

[HalGameGuru]

On 8/16/2017 at 5:00 PM, 8uhbbhu8 said:

The problem with the US is that in large swaths of area there are no competitors. The ISPs have it literally locked down. Also in places where there is "competition" lots of the time they just have an agreement not to undercut each other....

Yes primarily due to government interference, going all the way back to the telegraph the government has been happy playing favorites. And it continues now. Most all issues revolving around lack of competition has to do with government regulation and interference. In urban areas there is population density aplenty, you could have 3 or 4 times the number of competitors profiting and keeping service respectable. But at every level there are hurdles to newcomers and restrictions on expanding into new areas. Mobile is one of the few areas where competition is semi-capable. Copper is basically locked down in established areas as telecom and cable cornered those markets decades ago. FIBER on the other hand can be added by third parties, at least in areas where they right of ways are not  already owned by one of the established players. Fixed wireless also had a lot of competition for a while.

 

There are some GREAT videos on these subjects from Tom Woods and The Mises Institute if you're interested

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, HalGameGuru said:

Yes primarily due to government interference

Or the Cable Company demands an exclusive rights agreement to wire up the city. I wouldn't say thats government interference. 

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Or the Cable Company demands an exclusive rights agreement to wire up the city. I wouldn't say thats government interference. 

Except that the city shouldn't accept those terms (or at absolute most, it should be a limited time exclusivity, not permanent).  It still goes back to the city/local government.  The cable company wants it because it's best for their bottom line.  The city agrees to it because they're either a) spineless, b) ignorant or c) getting kickbacks (a.k.a. bribes).

[HalGameGuru]

On 8/16/2017 at 3:13 PM, mr moose said:

Nope, that's just your reading comprehension letting you down.   My concerns are still the same as in the beginning, my arguments have not changed and you haven't address the one question I keep repeating.

 

I hope you didn't spend too much time on those great walls of text, becasue I lost interest after the first few paragraphs,  You are just repeating yourself and avoiding all the pertinent points raised not only by me, but by other forum members and by the articles I linked.

 

 

Feel free to respond to actual content rather than ad hom. Your ignoring the content of my posts does not equate to me ignoring your argument, I hit it six ways from sunday. You just keep repeating yourself because you know its the only tenuous leg you have to stand on. 

 

Your concerns are unfounded and not to be taken seriously in the US system. There are far greater concerns and pitfalls we have to deal with that don't revolve around not understanding how the industry and economics work. ESPECIALLY lack of competition due to regulatory capture and coercive barriers to entry, over subscription and poor planning around explosive growth, and a massive disconnect between backhaul providers and ISPs. Even if just the backhaul providers were able to directly compete with local ISPs in providing subscriber level service you'd see a drastic improvement.

 

Two of those articles merely rehash the same old FCC info or GLORIOUSLY display what I have been saying about government interference and regulation keeping competitors from being able penetrate these established markets. The one about cellular is neither here nor there as it will depend on if you are worried about aggregate or per capita results. And in this case we are far more worried about the individual subscribers still needing service to be pushed to their areas. And that covers what little links you provided.

 

Your original question? Which one? Pace? Physical limitations? Capacity? I've covered them all. Mobile tech we have now can handle the speeds we need to get into these areas, for the number of people needing to be serviced. If mobile cannot keep up with growth hardline will be able to take up the slack, especially since that happening at ALL shows the density is high enough for hardline to be feasible and all the new construction will likely INCLUDE hardline infrastructure being as there would be dense enough subscribers to justify it. We already have new developments going up in the boonies with FTTN being run specifically to them. Physical limitations like LOS or range? That's why we have repeaters and fixed wireless antennas. Capacity? Mobile has enough bandwidth for the number of subscribers we are worried about at the speeds we are working. Technically it could handle the original 25/3 standard and I think it was a bad idea to lower it. But if you had enough subscribers that 25/3 couldn't be maintained or the backhaul couldn't handle it, AND you no longer had the ability to add new towers or microwave links congrats you are once again in a position for hardline to be profitable on its own. A tower being knocked down, natural disaster, EMP, solar flare, is no greater a risk with mobile than it is with hardline. And at least with mobile you have links back up as soon as the tower is operational, you don't have to worry about infrastructure between the node and the subscriber being replaced before service is restored.

 

 

[HalGameGuru]

14 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Or the Cable Company demands an exclusive rights agreement to wire up the city. I wouldn't say thats government interference. 

I'm not sure how an agreement with the GOVERNMENT using the GOVERNMENT to prevent the entry of any competition in the region is anything BUT GOVERNMENT interference.

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

I'm not sure how an agreement with the GOVERNMENT using the GOVERNMENT to prevent the entry of any competition in the region is anything BUT GOVERNMENT interference.

Because they wouldn't wire up the city other wise. It was either give us the city or fuck you, no cable for you. 

[Donut417]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Except that the city shouldn't accept those terms (or at absolute most, it should be a limited time exclusivity, not permanent).  It still goes back to the city/local government.  The cable company wants it because it's best for their bottom line.  The city agrees to it because they're either a) spineless, b) ignorant or c) getting kickbacks (a.k.a. bribes).

The agreement was for 25 years. Its been 25 years, but now Comcast owns us. None of the other cable providers in the cities around us seem interested in wiring us up. Also some Cities signed a 100 year exclusive rights agreements. 

[HalGameGuru]

35 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Because they wouldn't wire up the city other wise. It was either give us the city or fuck you, no cable for you. 

That's still the government preventing competitors from coming in and competing, which must have been probable if that first company needed to be protected from it to get involved. Get someone else to do it. Get the state out of the way in enough areas that there are enough competitors new markets opening up can't be held hostage by a single big provider. Look at Romania, they said here is what we consider good service, respect property, respect your contracts, respect your customers, have at it. Not perfect, but BETTER.