|12/14/2017 - 11:17pm||The FCC has regulatory||
The FCC has regulatory authority over Radio, Television, Cable, Telephone, Telegraph, and the internet. They are all communication mediums which makes sense since it is the Federal Communications Commission. FCC authority over the Internet has literally been called out and confirmed by every branch of the government.
And if by 2015 regulation, you mean that brief period of a matter of month where the US didn't have NN regulations due to basically a legal technicality then no, we aren't going back to that. Though it should be pointed out that part of what led to the OIO is the shit that ISPs were pulling during and leading up to that period.
Instead we are going to a whole new era where not only is there no NN but their is no regulatory oversight on the horizon either. The FCC has with a wink and a nudge basically said, screw the consumer cause we don't care. To think that ISPs won't take them up on that when they've literally already said they would is ignorant at best.
Few people on The Hill have even a basic understanding of basic technology. Congress has historically been pretty horrible on technology issues and understanding their impact outside of big bomb go boom. It isn't at all shocking that congress completely lacks an understanding about what the end of NN means just like they didn't understand the impact that the end of local loop unbundling would have on the vibrant competitive ISP market (hint: it destroyed it). So forgive me if I don't have any faith in Congress to understand implications of technology policy decisions or to act in a timely manner to address them or to address them with appropriate resolutions.
|12/14/2017 - 12:56pm||When your choices are Verizon||
When your choices are Verizon or .............................................................................
|12/14/2017 - 12:53pm||and then it will be useless.||
and then it will be useless. 2.5Ghz attenuates horribly. In realistic scenarios, 600-800MHz will provide significantly more overall bandwidth than 2.5GHz.
|12/14/2017 - 12:51pm||I keep up with the||
I keep up with the technology, perhaps you keep up with the propoganda? Neither MIMO which is simple channel bonding and has been around for decades nor spectrum shaping really do much for going through buildings and maintaining a broadband level of performance to multiple subscribers. IP TV uses less bandwidth than an actual broadband internet connection, BTW, and will use even less in X.265. And yet you say IPTV will require an external antenae...
|12/14/2017 - 12:42pm||Public records. All the||
Public records. All the information used is available in various public records and collected in quite a many databases around the world for obstentially legal purposes. An example is the LexisNexis public records DB but there are many more. Just takes a little script work to hook into one of the DBs and do whatever you want.
|12/14/2017 - 12:28pm||The republican caucus||
The republican caucus literally tried proposing a law that was literally *worse* than the FCC repealing NN. And the FCC was literally created by congress to regulate these exact issues. Both ATT's and Comcast's merger concents expire soon.
The FCC is the proper place for these regulations to be enacted as it is the federal agency in charge of these issues. The idea that congress will do anything with the current party in power is far fetched as they've been large supporters of letting the ISPs do whatever they want and it will take years for congress to react to any nefarious activities that ISPs come up with (if you are doubting this, you haven't paid attention to how long congress takes to do anything even for national emergencies).
About the only thing the OIO didn't get right was local loop unbundling.
|12/14/2017 - 12:11pm||No, it really is true. 5G||
No, it really is true. 5G doesn't solve any of the issues and 2.5GHz spectrum is horrible for residential and commercial broadband due to its high attenuation.
|12/14/2017 - 12:09pm||While this is a great||
While this is a great comment, I'm not sure most people will understand the connection. Luckily Ars just recently republished an article on the Carterphone decision: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/carterfone-40-years/
|12/14/2017 - 12:07pm||Eh? You might want to look||
Eh? You might want to look into the actual history of MERIT. It was a joint NGO founded by UM, MSU, and WSU. And they literally developed and ran the NSFNet. MERIT was literally a contemporary of ARPANET.
They may of become a joke, but they certainly didn't start as one.
|12/14/2017 - 11:55am||No they wouldn't. It would||
No they wouldn't. It would be perfectly allowed under NN to only support 1 network. You really don't seem to grasp what you are talking about.
|12/14/2017 - 11:53am||Pretty much the only entities||
Pretty much the only entities that can compete with existing ISPs are other utilities. Almost all the shining examples of companies competing with ISPs are based around a non-ISP utility getting into the ISP game. As an example, Chattanooga EPB was an already existing power line utility which made their entry into the ISP market extremely easy as they already had the right of ways to every location within their footprint and had both a large amount of experience with running and laying a network along with a large workforce ready and able to do it (as power line companies basically have to have a large workforce of line workers 24/7 in case of emergencies). That allowed EPB to not only get direct benefit from the fiber network (basically perfect grid monitoring and prediction) but allowed them to get the entire network done in a small amount of time for minimal cost.
Some things just realistically form natural monopolies due to the requirements. ISPs are generally within that category as like power line utilities they have to connect every location within a target area and it doesn't economically make much sense having enough providers putting in networks that actual market competition could occur. Imagine every house having 20 different power lines...
|12/14/2017 - 11:45am||No the barrier isn't high at||
No the barrier isn't high at all. In fact it is quite easy to come up with a service and launch it. The costs are minimal compared to basicaly every other field. Building mindshare and taking over an incument who has been there for 15+ years might be hard, but that's true in every field.
Walmart's basic business model is less efficient than Amazon's. That's why they are having trouble.
Snapchat is literally competing with hundreds of similar services that offer exactly the same thing. Google itself has basically continuously failed to compete in the same space that Snapchat is competing in. Facebook likewise has had its fair share of failures.
There is a myriad of choices for pretty much every service on the Internet. If people actively choose to use ones from large companies, that is perfectly fine. Maybe I just have a longer memory of the history of the internet, there have been multiple companies that at the time had as much influence as Google/Facebook do today that basically don't exist anymore.
|12/14/2017 - 10:45am||So what you are saying is||
So what you are saying is that free markets have rules and regulations? Well then, we've always been a free market then. You can't have it both ways. Either a free market has rules and regulations and that's just fine OR a free market is anarchy.
|12/14/2017 - 10:43am||Yes, there are plenty of||
Yes, there are plenty of examples from a wide variety of ISPs. And NN has been a thing well before 2015. Most of the history of the internet is under NN or similar regulations. Hell, the 2015 OIO was merely restoring what had existed just a little bit prior.
|12/14/2017 - 10:38am||The Intenet has been run||
The Intenet has been run based on NN principles for the vast majority of the time it has even been a thing. With but brief periods, the Intenet has always had NN. The 2015 ruling was to re-enable NN after the FCC lost a court case against verizon who was suing to have the previous NN rules ruled unenforcable since they weren't allowed under Title I.
Everyone of those nations that we are behind have significant government control of the last mile providers to the point that local loop unbundling is quite common in those countries and/or internet is provided by a government owned corporation.
Repealing NN, doesn't allow more players in the game, it merely allows the ISPs significantly more power and control to exploit their regional monopolies.
And there isn't going to be some new whatever coming along and inventing some new way to get internet, wired broadband is here to stay. Wide area wireless simply isn't viable for actual broadband.
|12/14/2017 - 10:31am||Except they have ALREADY||
Except they have ALREADY LITERALLY DONE THAT.
|12/14/2017 - 10:30am||They are literally||
They are literally unenforcable under Title I as demonstrated in Verizon vs FCC. And wires are about the only viable method of high speed broadband networking service except P2P wireless which is as expensive if not more and has many complications.
|12/14/2017 - 10:27am||Wireless simply isn't a||
Wireless simply isn't a viable broadband medium as there simply isn't enough spectrum to make it viable. You can do P2P wireless but that isn't anything like cellular data and basically requires a full set of infrastructure for each client. For cellular data, just 10 clients at 100 mb/s will more than swamp a tower sub-grid on 5G at basically zero distance. Start adding in things like buildings and distance and total available bandwidth drops dramatically. Wired broadband is pretty much the only option unless there is a major breakthrough in wireless technology the likes of which has never been seen.
|12/14/2017 - 10:20am||ISPs already offer tiered||
ISPs already offer tiered levels of service providing difference peak bandwidths and differing total amounts of data.
|12/14/2017 - 10:18am||Literally the only way that||
Literally the only way that would ever come about would be via Local Loop Unbundling which requires Title II.
In effect, LLU would make you ISP into the same type of entity that your local power line provider is: they setup and maintain the lines while charging a nominal flat fee for the service and then you contract for an actual provider of power that uses those lines. In many places, you can choose from 100s of power providers which all use the exact same physical transmission lines into your house. But the local power line provider is regulated as natural monopoly.
As far as an ISP never doing such a thing as slowing/blocking MGoBlog, they've already done many similar things in the past.
|12/14/2017 - 10:11am||Of course not, True Free||
Of course not, True Free Markets are basically anarchy where whoever has the most muscle wins. The US was never intended to be a True Free Market as it is a Republic and the very founding document is a regulation.
|12/14/2017 - 9:47am||Yeah, they totally failed at||
Yeah, they totally failed at that whole not having rivers catch fire thing. Those river fires were so awesome, we should still have them but that damn government regulation prevents them.
|12/14/2017 - 9:29am||That literally isn't under||
That literally isn't under the FCC's authority. And small companies have little barrier to entry thanks to NN. And both Google and Facebook can certainly be overtaken. After all, they all overtook large incumbents on their way to becoming massive mega corporations. And there are numerous alternatives alread out there to Amazon, Google, and Facebook that anyone can use instead. Google alone has tens to hundreds of competitiors in every area in which they compete.
|12/14/2017 - 9:23am||That doesn't include by far||
That doesn't include by far the largest traffic hogs: ISPs cable divisions. They don't include the massive ammounts of bandwidth their full channel list of broadband broadcasts take up. For instance, cable companies are literally sending hundreds of HD streams to every customer 24/7.
|12/14/2017 - 9:19am||RE:5
That's likely because
That's likely because no one believes that any of the R committee members are anything but purely bought and paid for. Wheeler was much more of an unknown. Pai has literally been a puppet for ISPs since day 1 with no chance of anything people would do changing his policies. Instead, protests are focusing on making sure Trump/Republicans own the repeal and trying to influence members of congress to over rule the FCC as well as funding the various lawsuits based on incorrect procedures, lack of evidence for the change, and the capricious nature of the change.
|12/14/2017 - 8:57am||That's a BS argument. Any||
That's a BS argument. Any changes to the regulatory framework would require an FCC rule making procedure. As part of that rule making procedure, the FCC could reclassify to whatever they wanted aka redefining to Title I does nothing to prevent your doomsday scenario. NN, and the OIO upon which it is based, has literally nothing to do with any of that BS. It has to do purely with repealing NN and handing the ISPs free reign.
And the FCC didn't make a regulatory decision to define the internet within the 1934 act. As confirmed by courts AND congress AND the executive branch (LITERALLY EVERY PART OF THE GOVERNMENT!), the internet was by definition under the FCC's authority.
There is no talking past each other going on, there is just a BS argument with literally no legal merit from the anti-NN side.
|12/14/2017 - 8:46am||Actually their were in||
Actually they were in place. Verizon sued and the court ruled that the FCC didn't have the authority under Title I but did have the authority under Title II and that they could reclassify ISPs to Title II. Hence how we got the 2015 order. And even prior to that, the majority of consumers had a myriad of ISP options via DSL which was not just under Title II but also had line sharing requirements.
The Idea that NN regulations didn't exist until 2015 is simply false. In fact, ISPs have been fighting NN or NN like regulations dating back to the 90s.
|12/14/2017 - 8:38am||Billions and billions and||
Billions and billions and billions and billions of dollar along with dirty tactics every step of the way from the incumbent ISPs.
|12/14/2017 - 8:36am||Why should Netflix pay money||
Why should Netflix pay money to an ISP for traffic that the ISP's customers specifically requested. Netflix plays for their backbone connection and their transit fees. What you are proposing is quite literally gas stations charging refineries and gas distributors to sell their gas.
Netflix literally already pays MORE than their fair share. ISPs are responsible for upgrading their end point networks to provide what they advertise.
|12/14/2017 - 8:26am||Joke all you want, but the||
Joke all you want, but the Internet WAS a government invention, payed for with government money.
That was the beginning of the Internet. And then the government further funded its expansion via NSFNet/CSNET/etc. Hell, Michigan has a prominent place in Internet history via MERIT and their oversight of the network backbone for almost a decade.
|12/14/2017 - 8:16am||Netflix doesn't get a free||
Netflix doesn't get a free ride, they pay plenty of money for internet bandwidth/transit. The customer is already paying for their bandwidth to their ISP. Netflix is certainly paying their fair share of the costs.
|12/14/2017 - 8:13am||The Internet was/is quite||
The Internet was/is quite literally government funded and invented. You're entire argument is void. Government money funded the whole thing from the basic protocols to the basic technologies right down to HTTP. All government bankrolled. Christ, the internet was literally designed to be a nuclear safe communications network in the event of WWIII. If it wasn't for the government, the Internet literally wouldn't exist.
|10/05/2017 - 8:58am||Um, why are you linking to a||
Um, why are you linking to a story that is 2 months old?
|10/03/2017 - 12:15am||That was also a 3 turnover||
That was also a 3 turnover game for MSU which affected the result rather significantly.
|09/30/2017 - 6:13pm||It is literally insanely||
It is literally insanely stupid what kids will post these days. Know a teacher that had her class basically live blog their underage teen kegger. The kids were shocked when they got in monday and pretty much everyone was put on probation.
|09/28/2017 - 9:41am||Realistically Louisville||
Realistically Louisville should get the death penalty for at least a year. Anything else would be an absolute joke at this point.
Also reports are coming out that Coach-2 in the FBI report is Rick Pitino. Both WSJ and CBS are confirming it, fyi.
|09/26/2017 - 8:55am||Herbstreit also tweeted that||
Herbstreit also tweeted that visitor locker rooms overall in the B1G were horrible.
|09/25/2017 - 7:00am||Yeah, from watching a replay||
Yeah, from watching a replay of Purdue game, it seems that they had him doing a lot of edge contain duty. Lots of plays where he's beat his blocks, pulls up, and sets the edge for a second or two before continuing.
And yeah, lots of plays where Hurst and Gary are on one side with 4 blockers and Winovich is one on one for any easy sack.
So it really seems they weren't turning Gary completely loose in the Purdue game and that combined with doubles will prevent the stat collection which on the other hand means that the other side of the line pretty much has free reign to get the QB.
|09/25/2017 - 6:53am||One thing I noticed a lot in||
One thing I noticed a lot in the Purdue game is that he was aligned well outside on the line and it looked like on a lot of plays he had edge responsibility as well. Winovich generally would be on or shaded on the LT while Gary would be aligned outside the TE. So Gary also always had farther to go than Winovich.
|09/21/2017 - 4:29pm||Um, by using a proper||
Um, by using a proper tackle? When I played in HS, I tackled guys much bigger than me without issue. The problem is players don't want to use proper tackles, prefering instead to go for the highlight reel knock out hits. And that sequence is the perfect example, look at where the defenders hands and arms are: he has no intention of doing a proper tackle and is about as flagrant as it gets.
|09/21/2017 - 4:18pm||Head up, eyes forward, don't||
Head up, eyes forward, don't lead with the head and you'll never get ejected.
|09/21/2017 - 4:17pm||Spot on, it is exactly the||
Spot on, it is exactly the point of the targeting rule. That's the reason that intent has nothing to do with the rule. Proper football is played with the head up, and proper tackles use the arms and wrap up. If you employ proper technique, you won't be called or ejected 6 9's of the time.
|09/12/2017 - 8:02pm||This is merely a lucky quirk||
This is merely a lucky quirk of the rules. All regular season wins and ties are vacated and ALL POST-SEASON GAMES are vacated per NCAA rules. Since USC-Texas was post season, it was Vacated even though a loss.
|09/11/2017 - 3:47pm||Or I don't know, maybe||
Or I don't know, maybe actually review the definition of Misogyny? Misogyny != sexism. Misogyny is the quite literal hatred of women. If the original statement was that there was sexism on the site, it would get a small fraction of the push back, because sexism is an entirely different thing than Misogyny. Words matter and definitions of words matter, substituting Misogyny (or Misandry) for sexism is not a simple matter as they mean and imply very different things.
|09/11/2017 - 1:24am||It honestly all goes back to||
It honestly all goes back to free email. In the beginning, most services decided to use email as a way to tie accounts to people and this made sense. Email services were either part of your work, your organization, your education, or a service that you specifically paid for. This made anonymity and accountability fundamentally compatible as getting a new email address wasn't exactly easy and services banned based on email addresses. The advent of anonymous email basically broke this compact and the services as they never switched to another method of tying accounts to people. In fact, for a period of time, there were many services that wouldn't accept free email addresses in registrations but as so many people migrated over to free email this became impossible.
The net result is that bans don't actually exist anymore. It is trivially easy to just create another account with another throw away email without issue. This has given rise to people trolling with multiple accounts, bots, etc. The lack of fundamental accountability has greatly accelerated the race to the bottom and that lack is primarily because of free email.
|08/25/2017 - 9:32pm||A blockchain does none of||
A blockchain does none of that. It is literally just an immutable transaction record. Quite really the very thing that neither consumers NOR businesses actually want (we want reversability of a whole host of reasons not the least of is theft). And it doesn't remove the need for regulation at all.
|08/25/2017 - 9:28pm||And if you bought Enron stock||
And if you bought Enron stock at the right time you'd be have a million plus or be broke. You know I heard about this great investment back in the 1600s, Tulips, Tulips were the future.
|08/25/2017 - 9:22pm||No legit businesses actually||
No legit businesses actually accept payment in bitcoin. Being able to pay in bitcoin doesn't mean a business is actually receiving bitcoin. Any bitcoin you are trying to pay with is being converted into a real currency prior to payment acceptance.
|05/20/2017 - 5:02am||If in ATL and in need of||
If in ATL and in need of food, Chick Fil A is literally the only option for decent/good food.
|05/20/2017 - 4:51am||In the midwest? Mexican food||
In the midwest? Mexican food is generally terrible. Don't quite know why, but haven't ever found decent mexican food in the midwest. Even places with good reputations tend to be terrible, esp compared to what I can get from just about any road side stand/truck here.