The 30 for 30 is often filmed and produced by a Michigan grad. Not sure if this one was or not. Unlike other ESPN stuff, 30 for 30 should be okay and not biased or maybe biased towards us if certain people made it.
Yep. At worst this creates a ton of content for JUB to write about once he gets all the paper work. Even if he is right, JUB can air all the dirty laundry after this. Lawsuit won't happen.
Not the best article, but this is the general idea of how this happened. The government paid them to upgrde lines and they often did not build what we requested. They initally upgraded copper instead of laying fiber in the early 90s. Then they used profits to build out the network we actually wanted and now currently try to claim the original funding didn't build the fiber networks so they can control the fiber lines. It's scummy and unethical, but it worked:
This is not actually a partisan issue. The local level generally has even greater impact so watch your local voting on this issue as well. If your local representation is recieving any $ from Verizon and similar sources, you can bet they are bought no matter which label they carry.
I have read that about 76% across both republicans and democrats both support net neutrality in fairly similar percentages (maybe +/-3%). I am generally republican (in theory), but I understand the technology and the continued need to enforce neutrality. Not all republicans are against net neutrality. This is a complicated issue and simplification into "free market" is not doing the general population any favors in unerstanding this situation. I try to explain to my friends and family if anyone cares to listen. It is difficult and we can win this issue in time if we can explain the potential impact clearly.
I'm unfortunately becoming older- especially in relation to the technology. The innovation we need requires inspiration and energy of a type I would unlikely be able to give at this point. As we all grow older, we become invested in family, other pursuits, and adventures. This was an adventure I undertook before Google and Facebook existed. And if someone does notice, yes our team was discussing using streaming video from moving vehicles in the mid-to-late 90s. All I can say is that the prototype existed and worked in our tests.
We are all young with little to nothing to lose at some point in our lives. Are you willing to risk everything you have and own to multiple lawsuits? If you are starting out in life it works because you have nothing for anyone to take. This is how entrepreneurship occurs in the modern age- strike young and hard or you will not have enough money to hold off the next patent, trademark, or nonsense lawsuit. The landscape has changed drastically. I encourage others to certainly learn and try. You must have an extreme passion and keep up with ever-changing technology. In terms of today, I understand the business challenge, but it is likely the technology has passed me by now. Also unfortunately, it would be a huge investment into a courtroom as well.
Some of us are successful, but very few of us are toe-to-toe Verizon courtroom challenge level successful. This change requires inspiration that would fundamentally challenge the whole industry. That is rare. I wish I was that person, but I am not. However, I do hope that maybe that person might be sitting in the fishbowl right now reading this..
The original intention and the free market could certainly work if all ISPs were limited as last mile providers and had equal resources to start. The problem is that they have legally embedded themselves into the regulatory capture of all city center markets, which makes it unprofitble for competition to enter against them. In our specific case, we had a team of 25 startup employees and minimal legal assistance. 0 full time attorneys against hundreds at Verizon and a few city attorneys the mayor (the mayor of this large city was bought) throws at you on the side makes for a rough ride. We had a team of technology innovators and we were not prepared for a legal battle. Investors want return on their investments and courtrooms make the worst investments.
The city, state, or federal government grants liscence in contract terms to the large ISPs. These ISPs and the entrenched political entity join in agreements to pay donations to maintain continued contract services. This leaves little options and abilities for new entrants. That is how the smaller guys get shut out from all larger metropolitian areas. In theory, yes we should be able to connect to the public fiber node. However, after the lengthy legal battle even the Googles of the world have trouble entering this area. The failure of Google now signals that we will never break the stranglehold.
Also as a side note, I was proud that several from my team joined Google after our failure to continue the fight. We need more innovators to continue this effort. Go get them new grads! I encourge everyone to fight for something they have a passion to do because that is a great way to learn and create new opportunities for yourself and for others. Try something and fail and you will find yourself succeeding in different ways later in life.
Net neutrality has only been violated a few times previosuly. The regualtion was only first needed in 2015 since Comcast and others first tried extracting additional money from Netflix and Layer3 Communications in 2014. The regualtion wasn't needed till someone tried to screw with traffic patterns. If you like paying twice and three times for divided services, you will love the roll back of these protections. Just wait till you buy the social package and sports package for an additional $5 per month each so you can continue to post here without any "slow-downs" and advertsing interruptions.
Additionally one very innovative kid developed a wireless video channel for use by EMTs and Police. This would have streamed WiFi video for all emergency channels. So imagine if the EMT could video chat with the Dr. on the way to the hospital and the nurses saw the patient before entering the hospital doors. This was an innovative tool configured to be used with the bridging technology. This sort of innovation could save lives. Verizion will prevent it because there is potential to sell alternative devices which would not require cellular services. The hindering of progress could be killing people. It is sad that oligarch players will kill these inventions to protect their bottom line. Net Neutrality is critical to future innovations. We could already have these innovations now.
I have actually setup smaller ISPs and have attempted to build these types of businesses. Net neutrality is needed unless you are a large industry player.
As a quick historical reference- in the late 80s and into the 90s the government distributed billions of dollars to AT&T (Worldcom) and others. Over time old Ma Bell was split up into multiple businesses, which today have re-formed again into larger oligrarch conglomerates (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T new, etc..). The dark fiber between cities was paid for by the tax payer but layed out by many different larger companies. This city to city dark fiber connection is a public resource currently being siezed by large companies becasue others are denied access to it (expalin later). The government intention was for these companies to handle the last mile rights from the dark fiber node (city center) to your house. The ISPs build in the most profitable large city locations to maximize profits and have little incentive to build outward into the country lands.
This area is where some niche players reside who have enough technical skill to build community ISPs. This isn't a horribly profitable prosect and usually is done to basically meet local demand needs. The larger players usually will not step into this space because they know they can purchase out the smaller developing businesses at any given time. They allow some small player to exist so that they will not need to take the risk of laying last mile lines to individual and land spaced risky last mile houses.
In one venture that did not go well we attempted to bridge one of these risky setups into more profitable spaces, we directly met with Mr. Pai and the legal machine of Verizon. Our business model would have brought significant speed increases into the city center along with bridging the dark fiber out to the countryside area. The Verizon legal team and purchased local politicians (of both parties) made some calls and our investors immediately pulled the plug. We lost that opportunity and we were forced to sell all existing assets in liquidation. Directly due to the inability to expand and compete from legal resistance, we were forced to shut down our better technical solution. This same resistance is exactly what Google is meeting and why they cannot enter this market as well. When bridging from the cities outward, you require access to the dark fiber node- which Verizon or other big player has more or less legal ownership over at this point.
All competitors have lost the ability to connect to the dark fiber originally paid for by the public. The public should be outraged by this fact. Over the last 20 years there were plenty of potential competitors which were bullied out of the marketplace. It is not a fair or competitve marketplace. The anti-net neutrality companies are more or less in favor of legal piracy over what should be a public utility resource. It is sickening that anyone would support these types. I have met this enemy directly and it is ugly and needs to be changed with public support and by retaking their rightfully owned public dark net highways. I hope there are a few younger UM grads able and willing to take up this fight. We need innovators to change this landscape. That might be our only hope..
Recent Comments
The 30 for 30 is often filmed and produced by a Michigan grad. Not sure if this one was or not. Unlike other ESPN stuff, 30 for 30 should be okay and not biased or maybe biased towards us if certain people made it.
WAPO is Bezos' side hobby national enquirer tabloid now. The days of it being a news source are long gone.
https://youtu.be/22rCPuPh1Gw?si=tb-MwRefqHSfyNQN
Judge is from Stanford. Did she know Harbaugh from back in the day?
…
How about Jason Sudeikis as Jim?
https://fansided.com/2021/10/02/ted-lasso-inspired-by-jim-harbaugh/
Yep. At worst this creates a ton of content for JUB to write about once he gets all the paper work. Even if he is right, JUB can air all the dirty laundry after this. Lawsuit won't happen.
Criminal activity and might be more than just football related. This is a FBI type investigation soon.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/university-of-michigan-employee-student-data-stolen-in-cyberattack/
Not the best article, but this is the general idea of how this happened. The government paid them to upgrde lines and they often did not build what we requested. They initally upgraded copper instead of laying fiber in the early 90s. Then they used profits to build out the network we actually wanted and now currently try to claim the original funding didn't build the fiber networks so they can control the fiber lines. It's scummy and unethical, but it worked:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/the-book-of-broken-promis…
This is not actually a partisan issue. The local level generally has even greater impact so watch your local voting on this issue as well. If your local representation is recieving any $ from Verizon and similar sources, you can bet they are bought no matter which label they carry.
I have read that about 76% across both republicans and democrats both support net neutrality in fairly similar percentages (maybe +/-3%). I am generally republican (in theory), but I understand the technology and the continued need to enforce neutrality. Not all republicans are against net neutrality. This is a complicated issue and simplification into "free market" is not doing the general population any favors in unerstanding this situation. I try to explain to my friends and family if anyone cares to listen. It is difficult and we can win this issue in time if we can explain the potential impact clearly.
I'm unfortunately becoming older- especially in relation to the technology. The innovation we need requires inspiration and energy of a type I would unlikely be able to give at this point. As we all grow older, we become invested in family, other pursuits, and adventures. This was an adventure I undertook before Google and Facebook existed. And if someone does notice, yes our team was discussing using streaming video from moving vehicles in the mid-to-late 90s. All I can say is that the prototype existed and worked in our tests.
We are all young with little to nothing to lose at some point in our lives. Are you willing to risk everything you have and own to multiple lawsuits? If you are starting out in life it works because you have nothing for anyone to take. This is how entrepreneurship occurs in the modern age- strike young and hard or you will not have enough money to hold off the next patent, trademark, or nonsense lawsuit. The landscape has changed drastically. I encourage others to certainly learn and try. You must have an extreme passion and keep up with ever-changing technology. In terms of today, I understand the business challenge, but it is likely the technology has passed me by now. Also unfortunately, it would be a huge investment into a courtroom as well.
Some of us are successful, but very few of us are toe-to-toe Verizon courtroom challenge level successful. This change requires inspiration that would fundamentally challenge the whole industry. That is rare. I wish I was that person, but I am not. However, I do hope that maybe that person might be sitting in the fishbowl right now reading this..
The original intention and the free market could certainly work if all ISPs were limited as last mile providers and had equal resources to start. The problem is that they have legally embedded themselves into the regulatory capture of all city center markets, which makes it unprofitble for competition to enter against them. In our specific case, we had a team of 25 startup employees and minimal legal assistance. 0 full time attorneys against hundreds at Verizon and a few city attorneys the mayor (the mayor of this large city was bought) throws at you on the side makes for a rough ride. We had a team of technology innovators and we were not prepared for a legal battle. Investors want return on their investments and courtrooms make the worst investments.
The city, state, or federal government grants liscence in contract terms to the large ISPs. These ISPs and the entrenched political entity join in agreements to pay donations to maintain continued contract services. This leaves little options and abilities for new entrants. That is how the smaller guys get shut out from all larger metropolitian areas. In theory, yes we should be able to connect to the public fiber node. However, after the lengthy legal battle even the Googles of the world have trouble entering this area. The failure of Google now signals that we will never break the stranglehold.
Also as a side note, I was proud that several from my team joined Google after our failure to continue the fight. We need more innovators to continue this effort. Go get them new grads! I encourge everyone to fight for something they have a passion to do because that is a great way to learn and create new opportunities for yourself and for others. Try something and fail and you will find yourself succeeding in different ways later in life.
Net neutrality has only been violated a few times previosuly. The regualtion was only first needed in 2015 since Comcast and others first tried extracting additional money from Netflix and Layer3 Communications in 2014. The regualtion wasn't needed till someone tried to screw with traffic patterns. If you like paying twice and three times for divided services, you will love the roll back of these protections. Just wait till you buy the social package and sports package for an additional $5 per month each so you can continue to post here without any "slow-downs" and advertsing interruptions.
Additionally one very innovative kid developed a wireless video channel for use by EMTs and Police. This would have streamed WiFi video for all emergency channels. So imagine if the EMT could video chat with the Dr. on the way to the hospital and the nurses saw the patient before entering the hospital doors. This was an innovative tool configured to be used with the bridging technology. This sort of innovation could save lives. Verizion will prevent it because there is potential to sell alternative devices which would not require cellular services. The hindering of progress could be killing people. It is sad that oligarch players will kill these inventions to protect their bottom line. Net Neutrality is critical to future innovations. We could already have these innovations now.
I have actually setup smaller ISPs and have attempted to build these types of businesses. Net neutrality is needed unless you are a large industry player.
As a quick historical reference- in the late 80s and into the 90s the government distributed billions of dollars to AT&T (Worldcom) and others. Over time old Ma Bell was split up into multiple businesses, which today have re-formed again into larger oligrarch conglomerates (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T new, etc..). The dark fiber between cities was paid for by the tax payer but layed out by many different larger companies. This city to city dark fiber connection is a public resource currently being siezed by large companies becasue others are denied access to it (expalin later). The government intention was for these companies to handle the last mile rights from the dark fiber node (city center) to your house. The ISPs build in the most profitable large city locations to maximize profits and have little incentive to build outward into the country lands.
This area is where some niche players reside who have enough technical skill to build community ISPs. This isn't a horribly profitable prosect and usually is done to basically meet local demand needs. The larger players usually will not step into this space because they know they can purchase out the smaller developing businesses at any given time. They allow some small player to exist so that they will not need to take the risk of laying last mile lines to individual and land spaced risky last mile houses.
In one venture that did not go well we attempted to bridge one of these risky setups into more profitable spaces, we directly met with Mr. Pai and the legal machine of Verizon. Our business model would have brought significant speed increases into the city center along with bridging the dark fiber out to the countryside area. The Verizon legal team and purchased local politicians (of both parties) made some calls and our investors immediately pulled the plug. We lost that opportunity and we were forced to sell all existing assets in liquidation. Directly due to the inability to expand and compete from legal resistance, we were forced to shut down our better technical solution. This same resistance is exactly what Google is meeting and why they cannot enter this market as well. When bridging from the cities outward, you require access to the dark fiber node- which Verizon or other big player has more or less legal ownership over at this point.
All competitors have lost the ability to connect to the dark fiber originally paid for by the public. The public should be outraged by this fact. Over the last 20 years there were plenty of potential competitors which were bullied out of the marketplace. It is not a fair or competitve marketplace. The anti-net neutrality companies are more or less in favor of legal piracy over what should be a public utility resource. It is sickening that anyone would support these types. I have met this enemy directly and it is ugly and needs to be changed with public support and by retaking their rightfully owned public dark net highways. I hope there are a few younger UM grads able and willing to take up this fight. We need innovators to change this landscape. That might be our only hope..