In case anyone was still confused about what’s at stake in the innovation space:
So related to this, what happened to the Google Fiber rollouts and the sudden cease thereof?
I dunno, Google got distracted by a squirrel on the other side of the street?
Some of the biggest, most transformative tech companies (US based) in the last decade would have been fucked from the get go if not for net neutrality. Netflix subscriber? Never would have happened. Like syncing your files to Dropbox? Nuh, uh. Sending racy photos to your SO on SnapChat? Forget it. Browsing for homewares on Houzz or Pinterest? Pfft, go back to magazines. And that’s just the stuff most folk know about - maybe you just like the internet always working because CloudFlare silently does it’s proxy servicing in the background while you’re none the wiser.
Point being, if carriers have the power to essentially apply tarrifs on traffic because a new service starts consuming significant bandwidth, or has a massive in-flux of users, or competes with their own offering, of whatever else they feel like at the time, many of these companies would have barely gotten off the ground.
Governments that don’t realise the staggering power for change the internet and associated technologies represents have their head in the sand and should be ashamed of themselves. Either they are too stupid to see the immense social and economic benefits a free and open internet represents, or they are deeply in the pockets of carrier lobbyists.
The one good thing that may help this, is that WiFi broadband technology is evolving super fast.
I think this is a big reason why Google stopped pushing the Fiber. You don’t really need it. You can get massive bandwidth with the newest Wifi solutions, and they are improving each year.
I think WiFi is going to supplant hardline broadband solutions, and then you’ll potentially get to have Google laying down huge WiFI networks without all of the infrastructure investment (and bureaucratic red tape) that currently favors the established ISPs.
As the Alphabet re-org took hold and different divisions needed to start posting actual profits now and again, the massive cost-sink of Fiber–particularly, the years-long process of fighting the various legal and regulatory battles to break monopolies and get pole-use permissions in each municipality it entered, and the enormous costs entailed in that, made the prospect of continuing down that same path less palatable to big G.
But it’s fine! They’re transitioning to wifi internet, which is Just As Good ™
(As my Qt3 RPG Book Club players can attest, even AC1200 beamed from 15 feet away straight on at a computer is apparently insufficient for a 5-way Skype call, so I’m dubious at best of Google’s ability to saturate areas with 1Gbps wifi any more effectively than they have been able to lay down fiber and connect to households)
Haha, I’ve not seen that one before and had to google it. Fair point.
As someone that used to work for a place that sold carrier based wifi, the problem was never the carrier end, it was the client end. Wifi, despite the way we all use it, is line-of-sight based. Anything in between you and the access point antenna causes lower signal and speed negotiation.
Sure, Google could blanket a city with a mesh, but that’s just as costly, in my opinion, as the cable plant. The difference is the, “last mile,” or customer connection. With wireless they avoid that cost, and for the most part, avoid having to go to you for installation.
So I can see where someone at Google wants to jump on that bandwagon. But good luck with that.
You guys need local loop unbundling as much as net neutrality. It’s the only reason the UK has halfway decent internet.
I regret that I have but one like to give. I’ve been hammering this exact point for years. Just like moving away from renewables, this will kill the US economic future, as new companies and innovations would seek to house themselves outside the US.
Well governments consist of people, and in our case, some of those people are so old and idiotic they treat the internet as a toy, a luxury instead of the necessity it is. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), I’m looking at you, you sack of useless space.
If anyone is interested, this is the actual FCC policy paper:
They’re attacking on two fronts.
That is a very effective billboard. It’s a one-sentence story, and it’s brutal.
I imagine a whole lot of people will read that and have a serious “Holy fuck I thought porn was private” moment on their drive home from work.
John Oliver on Net Neutrality again, inviting us to give feedback to the FCC.
There are reports (example) that their website took a big enough hit from all the traffic to go down, but I think it’s just the Docket search that’s actually broken. Can’t resist: Consumer Complaint Center feedback form | ECFS Filing form
Pai’s already said they’re not really going to pay attention to feedback from the general public. [quote]“We have to remember not all four million were in support of the rules,” he said. What happens, though, if a majority still thrashes Pai and his plan to roll back the Obama administration’s work? “Well, look, that’s part of the process. … After that [public comment period] is over, the agency takes stock of what’s in the record.” While he said the FCC must have “substantial evidence” justifying its work, he said “there’s no numerical threshold the courts have applied” to evaluate if regulators act appropriately.
And by the way, he stopped short of saying consumers’ fears are unfounded. Asked if public-interest groups had been disingenuous, he replied: “The parade of horribles trotted out have no resonance in fact.”[/quote]
This is oliver’s shortcut to leave feedback to the FCC:
It’s getting crushed…
No surprise. I’m worried that it won’t be as effective this time around.
Of course it’s not going to be effective. Pai and O’Reilly voted against net neutrality last time, and they’re the only votes needed for the new “rules” to pass given that there are only three members now.