At 7/12/17 11:14 AM, Izzy-A wrote:
Net Neutrality is a bad thing. More regulation for the internet is going to cause prices to go higher and quality to go down until leftists declare that we need a single payer internet.
I can't convince anyone on here who's already on board the Net Neutrality train. Please do your research, look at the counterarguments, stop falling for the propaganda and flowery language.
Hi.
I'm a Telecommunications Engineer of about 7 years now.This is not an issue conjured up by 'leftists'. You're way off the mark.
Some food for thought:
1. Degrees of regulation that prevent companies from being grubby shitcunts are absolute necessity for our progress and prosperity. Did you know it used to be illegal to tamper with phones in your OWN home because everything from the CO/Linecard to your device (including the device itself) used to be owned by Bell? You couldn't even swap a cable if you wanted. There was -no- demarc. It was ILLEGAL. In addition- it was absolutely disgusting and brutal if you were a mom and pop shop trying to start up a business to compete with any of the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) like Bell/AT&T, etc. They basically monopolized the market for quite some time and dropped lines just about everywhere (with a dash of a greasy pat-on-the-ass back and forth with the government to ensure the ability to communicate was propagated across the country in even the most rural areas) and dropping infrastructure is not cheap. For a monster like Bell/AT&T that has been at it for some time, this was not a problem as effectively they were the "only plumber in town" and basically scaled financially early on to roll straight into a consistent 3% of the country's GDP. Mom and pop shop? Just some dildos with no cheddar to drop on infrastructure. ILECs would crush them and did -not- have to play nice or provide access to their infrastructure. Actually, they would offer rates to 'competition' that were ludicrous and multitudes higher than operating cost to ensure entry into the market was too costly or simply impossible. In short, without horizontal and vertical deregulation (e.g. Such as the Telecomm act of 1996) we would be in the fucking stone-age still.
2. Further to the previous point- The Internet as we know it would not exist. This is a very, very long point to dig into but suffice it to say that communications corporations that were the gorilla of the market in any space had zero interest in branching out to new and interesting things as they thought 'phone' tech was sufficient. I mean, shit, it worked for over 70+ years, why fix what's not broken? In addition- the few things that they did try to 'engineer' was disgustingly inefficient, overly engineered and complicated in order to have a high bar/requirement in order to familiarize yourself with it. Ever heard of SS7? Yeah. Try explaining to anyone with half a brain that it was a good concept let alone implementation. It was pathetic. So- before the Telecomm act hit, companies were striking up lawsuits when people were starting to send signals over the ILEC's infrastructure (which, by the by, in the days of circuit switching and the ~60% Erlang's rule, still did not cause ANY actual peaks or problems, regardless of what nay-sayers might tell you), they started to shit bricks and realize it was something they needed to get on top of as it was not handled by them and could not control it. Hell, frivolous lawsuits are the reason we are behind in communications technology by a couple of decades alone. It wasn't until bulkier entities like the DOJ/Military/IMI space got involved with ARPANET that AT&T/Bell calmed their collective tits cause you don't fuck with the government at this level. Oh no. Not when they've let you run wild with 3% of the GDP for nearly 100 years. Sorry- I strayed off point for a second here. The ultimate take-away here is that the people that fucked about with sending signals over their lines that did end up entangled lawsuits had to fight an uphill battle because the ILECs were unregulated greedy shitcunts that could muscle their way into or out of any situation as they pleased. But they DID end up pioneering a platform which was alternative to the current means to communicate. I mean, shit, before any RFCs were crafted for the TCP/IP stack as we know it nowadays, these guys were fucking about and coming up with interesting stuff which folks further up the foodchain caught wind of.
3. Without proper regulation to maintain all the dominant LECs in check, we would have absolutely fucking retarded shit happening for all the wrong reasons. Let's start with when the ILECs were starting to FINALLY realize the world is bigger than telephones alone. Remember ATM? Remember that shit? Yeah. Let's talk about ATM for a second here... The cell is 53 bytes? Hmmm. Do you know why it is 53 bytes? Technical reasons? Nope. A standardized padding or overhead system that required it for in-band signalling/control? Nope. It was a fucking pissing contest between European and North American entities. It was completely arbitrary and mundane. There were a few engineers that wanted to suggest an offset based on payload sizes that are common but LOL NO FUCK THAT cause pissing contest. Regulation that was imposed by governments helped bring about global standards that are adhered to, to this day. Effectively, it was actually thanks to the Internet (you know, that pesky thing that the incumbents didn't care for at all at the time) that they're being kept in check. X over MPLS became the new ATM and even its predecessor, frame relay, proved to be far more efficient and consistent.
I could keep going on forever as to why regulation is important and necessary but let's debunk your claims that you've posted thus far:
"Net Neutrality is a bad thing. More regulation for the internet is going to cause prices to go higher and quality to go down until leftists declare that we need a single payer internet."
1. 'More regulation is going to cause prices to go higher' - What? Bullshit. You think that it is REGULATION that will cause prices to go higher? So... A momentary sidestep to educate: There is a contending idea that proposes that the other, other white meat of infrastructure (DOCSIS 3.x+ tier Cable/Coax trees) is starting to get less used because of people utilizing Netflix more and dropping their cable subscriptions. Granted, this argument holds water but not at the doomsayer levels that people speak of. Cable is on the decline because it is a dinosaur. It is disgustingly overpriced (e.g. Cost of operations vs cost it is sold at has a ridiculously huge disparity) and Netflix is cheap, utilizes smart technology (content distribution networks, etc). to help propagate itself over standard Internet. It does not require the use (but can very damn well utilize!) the standard cab/co trees that exist. Now... This does not mean this is a bad thing necessarily (getting to the part where what the doomsayers are saying is actually retarded). You're telling me that regular IPTV shit is on the decline and soaking up less bandwidth, but the cab/co trees are being used anyways to distribute Internet to end-users? Where's the fucking problem? Now... Take a step back and think of the same thing with regards to regulation. All bits are equal. Meaning that bandwidth is bandwidth is bandwidth. That is a good thing. You think that the cable companies trying to stifle cab/co trees by forcing users to stick with IPTV would actually not raise the price? If the regulation were removed? How the fuck do you think you're going to accomplish something like this on a grand scale? This isn't some piddly packeteering bullshit you're talking about. New equipment and systems to hawk-eye that shit. Who pays? You.
2 . "and quality". Nope. Horseshit. This has nothing to do with regulation in the slightest. The need for more realtime bandwidth always increases over time. Top-tier backbone providers and their peers will need to upgrade their infrastructure. Fact of the industry.
Have a good one.
