Repeal of "Net neutrality"?

Paul F said:
That says a full 70% of Americans that have access to high-speed broadband don't take it. So then why bother trying to deploy high speed broadband if the vast majority doesn't take it? This goes back to my comments about American Internet illiteracy. Research reports I read 10 years ago showed that Americans were not interested in broadband internet. It seems this remains true today.
Click to expand...

I talked to my friend who is an engineer for Verizon. When are they going to be able to air 4k for video. He told me that since they went with the unlimited data. They've had such a demand for unlimited data that they can barely keep up.

I didn't ask if this was across the board or just in the rural area that he serves.
 
I can tell you with certainty that Verizon has significant bandwidth shortages all over the last-mile network; rural and metro. Like the other carriers, they won't have a good solution until 5G is up and running. Meanwhile, Comcast is offering 1G in several cities.
 
No, that's not it. They really don't want it. PEW research did some great work in this regard years ago. At that time, a full 30% did not want any internet. That's what I call internet illiteracy. So than number has come down, but the need for speed is not there. Who really needs 25Mbps+? People did not feel the need to have internet access. That was back when cell phones were more expensive. Now, cell phone subscriptions prices are on par with internet subscriptions. At this point, internet simply isn't needed by many people. The phones have become so functional, that internet is secondary and unnecessary for a percentage of the population. My sister and brother-in-law gave up internet years ago and use the phone exclusively.

To put some of it in perspective, consider that Red Box is still renting DVDs in grocery stores!
 
I do not agree. I think because of Netflix etc internet is more important at higher rates for good streaming and it is the wired phone market and cable TV that is under pressure as people just have a cell phone and watch Netflix etc. I do not have any data on my mobile phone, just pre-pay with unlimited text. It is easy to stop at a mall or coffee shop , most these days have free internet, and log in to get internet if you need it to check something.
 
stoneinapond said:
To do what. Talk to people?
Click to expand...
Talk, text/email/Facetime, look up directions while in the car, check the news (occasionally), take/share photos and videos. It's perfectly suitable for a huge percentage of people, who don't like spending time in front of their PC's, if they have PC's to begin with.

Ron Evans said:
I do not agree. I think because of Netflix etc internet is more important at higher rates for good streaming and it is the wired phone market and cable TV that is under pressure as people just have a cell phone and watch Netflix etc. ...
Click to expand...
Netflix, while incredibly successful in the general sense, "only" has 50 million US subscribers from ~ 120 million households. An OTA TV + smartphone is good enough for a lot of people.
 
Well when they use their phones to get information they are using the internet. Doesn't matter whether it is on a cable or over the air it is still the internet. They also watch Netflix on their phones too. That is the internet. I think you are getting confused by the fact that one is by cable and the other wireless provider. And speed is important whether it is cable or wireless hence the push for faster wireless. That is for the internet not voice or text.
 
That's right, but we are using the term 'internet' here to mean wireline access over a telco or cable facility and the statistics from the FCC is also referring to that. Your point is correct and it backs up the 70% statistic. People are off wire and on wireless. A push for 'broadband for all' hardly seems necessary.

There was some discussion earlier in the thread about how far behind the States are in regards to high-speed broad band access in comparison to other countries. The FCC statistics indicate that high-speed broadband coverage is good (and impressively so considering how big/remote the country is) and largely ignored by the populace.
 
Ron Evans said:
Well when they use their phones to get information they are using the internet..
Click to expand...
One doesn't need 1 Gbps to read/watch the latest from the TMZ ... which is why the wireless customers will get the highest speeds first. It's an irony from the above.
 
The internet is the connection grid NOT the cable or the wireless network, that is just the final connection to the user. I think you should be more precise about your terms including broadband, that just means speeds more than a telephone wire can transmit. That final link will be dictated by users needs and the technology/cost trade off. Wireless is far more convenient if it can provide the needed speeds for the users, absolutely agree. It is still the internet though whatever the connection method or speed.

A 4G wireless network has a download speed of about 18Mbps in comparison to my Rogers cable here in Ottawa of 100Mbps. 18Mbps is plenty fast enough to stream movies etc. So for these speeds the wireless network is certainty faster than a lot of Telco provided internet of phone cabling.
 
Ron Evans said:
The internet is the connection grid NOT the cable or the wireless network, that is just the final connection to the user. I think you should be more precise about your terms including broadband, that just means speeds more than a telephone wire can transmit. ....
Click to expand...

Yes, if we go back in history to 1972 when Vinton Cerf began authoring the paper on TCP/IP (Internet Protocol) at Stanford, we find that indeed, internet is the interconnection of networks. Most people don't know that and even people in the business of providing the internet (telcos and cable) use the term 'internet backbone', not internet when referring to the grid (never heard grid used in the communications industry). As with any word, it can mean several things depending upon context and conversation. The term internet is being used correctly and precisely in its common vernacular as the access service provided by MSOs and carriers as triple-play offerings advertised on MSO and carrier web sites for "phone, internet, and TV". That context was made clear, so I don't see how you can confuse that point.

I didn't see anyone misuse the word 'broadband'. By the way, telephone wire is used to transmit broadband via ADSL and VDSL. I believe you meant to say that broadband means anything above a 56k modem.

stoneinapond said:
In other words, still use the Internet that they supposedly don't want....
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Last edited:
That is really surprising. I know exactly zero people who rely solely on their phones for all internet. For me and everybody else I know, that would involve paying like a million dollars a month to our cell plans, because cell data is so expensive.

I contend that the shortfall you see in "25/3" subscription is purely because people go for the best mix of price and performance. For example, if 12 Mbps is $40, and 25 Mbps is $80, then most people are going to go for the $40. This is even though they would appreciate the difference. For example, Vimeo would rather die than let me skip around in a video, until I upgraded from 15 to 24 Mbps. And every time someone tries to upload a video to Facebook or Youtube, I'm sure they would appreciate faster speeds there. It's taking hours.
 
Yes, for sure there are plenty of people that don't need, want, or see the value of 25/3. I'm getting 50Mbs on Comcast and they are now offering 1G in my market. What am I going to do with 1G?

It is interesting to see there are a lot of people that can do with lower speed access or no access at all. You don't see them because you are not in that community. But there are segments of society that just don't want or need connectivity. That's why I mentioned the Redbox vending machines at grocery stores. Who do you know uses those, yet there they are and I see people at the grocery store using the RedBox quite regularly. They have 44,000 boxes out there.... amazing. Some people don't need no stinking Netfix or whatever else is on the internet.
 
Last edited:
My main uses of the internet are, email, forums like this one, searches for information, downloads of program updates. Lately I do have Netflix and I like the content of documentaries etc. Better than the TV content actually. I can also watch on a number of devices too.
 
Paul F said:
Yes, for sure there are plenty of people that don't need, want, or see the value of 25/3. I'm getting 50Mbs on Comcast and they are now offering 1G in my market. What am I going to do with 1G? ...
Click to expand...
I had 25/3 until about a year ago. The only thing it couldn't do was to play 4K (2160 30p) on YouTube, so I had to settle for 1440.

IMO, the traffic growth will be tied into the OTT boxes from the major cable companies that will be able to deliver 4K TV over their networks. To do that, our company completely switched off their analog cable TV channels, thereby freeing themselves a lot of bandwidth. The current "base" contract is for 80/8, which is enough for everything except the 2160 60p.
 
In the US I agree that bringing fiber to every home doesn't seem cost effective. 5G "promises" the one key-thing that fiber has over 4G and that is faster, much faster latency. I've read around 1ms to the station and then your are out on the interwebz, compared to 50ms for 4G. I come from using 33k modem, 56k, ADSL 0.5 mbit, 2mbit, 8 mbit, ADSL2+ with 24 mbit (18 usable) and now 250mbit fibre (in Sweden, and I had 100mbit fiber in Australia 2012, 24mbit ADSL in the US 2008), and latency is fine all ready at ADSL-level. We got fibre ranging from 10-1000mbit late 2016, and that is in a small town with 1200 people, 25 miles from nearest city... Sweden have about the lowest population per square mile in Europe, 58 vs Americas 88, and still we roll out fiber.

Too me the speed I need as a single consumer is only 10mbit-ish, no web pages need faster, if I want to download a movie I can just "plan ahead" and start the download 10 min earlier or 30 mins earlier. Sure I can't browse netflix 4K content and play as I go, but Netflix now has it so you can use offline mode in Sweden so I could just download ahead... Don't get me wrong, I love the speed of 250mbit, especially when delivering content for national TV that range from 20-30 GB and is finished that the day of airing. But, all that I could already do on 4G with around 40mbit speed in my area. The one thing that kept me from using "only" mobile Internet is the crap latency in comparison. I've played games over the Internet since 56k modems with 250ms latency, and I find for FPS shooters to be enjoyable at around 50ms, but obviously I prefer 5ms that I have now. So for me 5G would be fantastic and work as the "only" data-subsription if it has a latency around 10-30ms.

Anyways I'm rambling, the point is that 5G will finally for consumers basically be "just as good as fiber" in terms of speed and latency, sure the pricing probably won't allow unlimited data like most fiber. However, the 5G towers will still need fiber connections but you don't have to drag out the cables to "every single home", thus I don't see "fiber to every home" as a viable/reasonable approach for a big country like th US especially when 5G more or less will be "fiber"...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top