Hammer drops at last: FCC opposes Comcast P2P throttling

Zyphlin · 08-03-08, 11:12 AM

Lets look at this further using your site.

We can look at Broadband per 100 people in the population.

Now, your'e right, the U.S. doesn't have an amazing showing, coming in 15th with about 23.3 people per 100 having broadband. Behind most of Europe, ahead of techno-giant Japan, Spain, and Australia amongst others.

HOWEVER, in regards to "mr no infastructure", that still puts the U.S. as having 40,000 more people with Broadband than the next closest, Germany. The U.S. has enough infastructure that currently 69,859,707 people have high speed internet through DSL, Cable, Fiber, and other types of services. Having enough infastructure to handle more than 3 times what Germany currently has is hardly what i'd call as some kind of horrible lag behind.

The big issue is mostly due to the amount of rural land we have in the middle of the country where the population density is so small. Its in these places that broadband is most difficult to get things out to and its an issue few of the european countries have in any comparable way to the U.S.

PeteEU · 08-03-08, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Lets look at this further using your site.

We can look at Broadband per 100 people in the population.

Now, your'e right, the U.S. doesn't have an amazing showing, coming in 15th with about 23.3 people per 100 having broadband. Behind most of Europe, ahead of techno-giant Japan, Spain, and Australia amongst others.

Yep. And it shows a lack of either investment or that people dont care about dis internets things.. which I doubt.

Quote:

HOWEVER, in regards to "mr no infastructure", that still puts the U.S. as having 40,000 more people with Broadband than the next closest, Germany. The U.S. has enough infastructure that currently 69,859,707 people have high speed internet through DSL, Cable, Fiber, and other types of services. Having enough infastructure to handle more than 3 times what Germany currently has is hardly what i'd call as some kind of horrible lag behind.

The big issue is mostly due to the amount of rural land we have in the middle of the country where the population density is so small. Its in these places that broadband is most difficult to get things out to and its an issue few of the european countries have in any comparable way to the U.S.

Okay.. infrastructure is 2 things.

1. the backbone the internet runs on. This part is critical and you need the bandwidth and capacity to make sure it runs smoothly. This is also the area that it seems the US companies have not invested on. I say this, because they are putting download/bandwidth limits on their connections and even throttling ports. This is classic response to not have enough bandwidth on their own backbone to handle the amount of connections they have sold plus not having a big enough "hole" out onto the internet. I have seen it in Denmark in the 1990s, and in Spain the last ISP I had.. who just a week ago went bankrupt and was sold to Clearwire. So basically when companies start to roll out limitations on usage, its to secure the quality of the service and hence they don't have enough bandwidth to keep up with demand. This is a clear investment issue by the telecommunications companies.

2. The connection from the nodes to the consumer. Now this connection is actually rather simple in many ways especially with the many forms of broadband you can have today. If we are talking good old wire connection then there are technical limits that everyone regardless of country, have to contend with. This means rural areas have bad connections if at all, both in the US, Spain or France. I believe the ADSL distance is something like 300 to 500 meters or so for a "good connection". So that issue is one that effects all regardless if its rural Kansas or rural France or rural Spain.

In cities and towns with telephone connections, broadband connections should not be an issue as long as the backbone is there for it. Again, its up to the tele company to make sure that there is enough capacity to meet demand, both bandwidth and connection wise.

Now rural areas are an issue no matter where, as I have said. But today we have technology that overcomes this issue. Wireless and satellite connections that are as good as wired connections, and this has put many many rural areas in Europe on the broadband connection map. Here again, its up to the companies to invest in the hardware and infrastructure so that they can provide the service. Of course there are economic reasons for not providing a connection for a farm that is the only habitable area within 100 miles, but that's why there is not 100% penetration in all of Europe, just as there is not in the US. However many governments in Europe have pushed companies and funded programs to get internet connections to as many rural areas as possible, because of the internet's importance, which means areas with small populations also have a possibility for a connection, may it be wireless, satellite or ADSL.

But saying that, the excuse "our country is a big place" is just that.. a lame excuse. What lacks is investment in basic infrastructure to cover as many as possible within reason.

Remember the 78% is the number of the population that can (not have) have access to a broadband connection of some kind. I refuse to believe that 12% to 22% (so that you would have a penetration of 90 or 100%) of the US population lives so remotely that they are totally cut off from all forms of telecommunications service. France and Spain has many remote rural areas, but they have wireless connections or satellite possibilities. And both have mountains galore so that is also not an excuse and yet they have higher penetration than the US. You can get a freaking satellite internet connection in the middle of the Sahara these days, and yet you cant get it in rural US?.. makes no sense.

Personally I think it is also a legislative issue in the US.. the ISP companies have achieved near monopolies in many areas, and that is crushing the drive for innovation and expanding the infrastructure, which in turn gives the above results.

But as long as Americans are happy to live with little choice and expensive connections with download limits on them, then I guess its fine.

Zyphlin · 08-03-08, 05:53 PM

You do realize that the monopolies have happened becuase the government has protected them due to the amount of money being pumped into them through subsidies through the government for infrastructure.

Its really no use talking to you. Facts get refuted and you ignore them (such as your bogus DSL claim earlier). You go off on another tangent, ignoring previous things, and come to a conclussion that is so off the mark from what's even currently happening its laughable. You're obvious anti-american, european superiority, act is transparent and old and isn't worth even bothering with. My apologizes, I came here to debate, not to just have a new issue brought up each time I counter one of yours.

1069 · 08-03-08, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

In a ruling that spells good news for net neutrality, the FCC has ruled that Comcast is in violation of its 2005 Internet Policy Statement, which contains four embedded principles:

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

Comcast is going to be fined for throttling bit torrent downloads, but many politicians are still pushing hard for the end of net neutrality, and are also pushing for a packaging scheme, similar to cable, that would limit choices. Cox Cable in Canada is experimenting with a packaging scheme now, and Comcast has also been lobbying hard, although no programming has yet been implemented.

When you vote this fall, know where your candidate stands on internet neutrality, and if he fails the test, vote for his opponent, no matter what political party he is a member of. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. Now I know that some of you Democrats might not like voting for a Republican, and vice versa, but you are going to have to put partisanship aside, and just do it. If you can't, then don't blame me if, sometime in the future, your ability to access the internet is limited to this:

Here is the link.

I've already had sort of a premonition that this is how it's going to be, though.
I think someday in the future, those of us who were alive and online are going to be telling younger people about the good old days when the internet was an endlessly vast, lawless free-for-all, kind of like the Wild West. And they'll be impressed, but at the same time won't really be able to grasp what that means, having never experienced it.
And we'll also have to live with the memory that we spent the bulk of our years in the Wild West not brawling in the streets at high noon or killing indians or getting rich panning for silver, but rather sitting in this really lame saloon called DebatePolitics.com, having the same droning drunken discussions with the same regular patrons day after day.

Hugh_Akston · 08-03-08, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

I've already had sort of a premonition that this is how it's going to be, though.
I think someday in the future, those of us who were alive and online are going to be telling younger people about the good old days when the internet was an endlessly vast, lawless free-for-all, kind of like the Wild West. And they'll be impressed, but at the same time won't really be able to grasp what that means, having never experienced it.
And we'll also have to live with the memory that we spent the bulk of our years in the Wild West not brawling in the streets at high noon or killing indians or getting rich panning for silver, but rather sitting in this really lame saloon called DebatePolitics.com, having the same droning drunken discussions with the same regular patrons day after day.

This explains a lot coming from you...

TacticalEvilDan · 08-03-08, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

And we'll also have to live with the memory that we spent the bulk of our years in the Wild West not brawling in the streets at high noon or killing indians or getting rich panning for silver, but rather sitting in this really lame saloon called DebatePolitics.com, having the same droning drunken discussions with the same regular patrons day after day.

Um.

Maybe you will.

Just saying.

1069 · 08-03-08, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

Um.

Maybe you will.

Just saying.

Why? What other stuff do you do on the internet?
Besides this and look at porn?

Hugh_Akston · 08-03-08, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Why? What other stuff do you do on the internet?
Besides this and look at porn?

Some of us try to stay up with news, current events and sports. Some of us play video games, do business (I build websites, shop online, etc...), pay bills, do research, etc... Maybe if you did something other than DP, you may have known who Tim Russert was before he died. Of course, educating yourself may enlighten you to post something other than emotional drivel, but we dare to dream.

1069 · 08-03-08, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Some of us try to stay up with news, current events and sports. Some of us play video games, do business (I build websites, shop online, etc...), pay bills, do research, etc... Maybe if you did something other than DP, you may have known who Tim Russert was before he died. Of course, educating yourself may enlighten you to post something other than emotional drivel, but we dare to dream.

Guess I'd better just wait for the moderators to come protect me from this daunting personal attack, since I've been warned that one single more infraction point will inexplicably result in an another automatic two week suspension.

............................................
............................................
............................................
..... Somehow, I suspect I'll probably be well into menopause by the time help arrives.

TacticalEvilDan · 08-03-08, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Why? What other stuff do you do on the internet?
Besides this and look at porn?

All sorts of fun stuff.

TED,
Was rustlin' cattle long before there was such a thing as the web.

08-03-08, 11:12 AM	#11
Zyphlin Change we can laugh at Mod team member Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: Today 02:38 PM Location: Herndon, Va Posts: 12,548 Thanks: 5,848 Thanked 7,690 Times in 4,238 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Hammer drops at last: FCC opposes Comcast P2P throttling Lets look at this further using your site. We can look at Broadband per 100 people in the population. Now, your'e right, the U.S. doesn't have an amazing showing, coming in 15th with about 23.3 people per 100 having broadband. Behind most of Europe, ahead of techno-giant Japan, Spain, and Australia amongst others. HOWEVER, in regards to "mr no infastructure", that still puts the U.S. as having 40,000 more people with Broadband than the next closest, Germany. The U.S. has enough infastructure that currently 69,859,707 people have high speed internet through DSL, Cable, Fiber, and other types of services. Having enough infastructure to handle more than 3 times what Germany currently has is hardly what i'd call as some kind of horrible lag behind. The big issue is mostly due to the amount of rural land we have in the middle of the country where the population density is so small. Its in these places that broadband is most difficult to get things out to and its an issue few of the european countries have in any comparable way to the U.S.
	__________________ Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose... Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

08-03-08, 05:53 PM	#13
Zyphlin Change we can laugh at Mod team member Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: Today 02:38 PM Location: Herndon, Va Posts: 12,548 Thanks: 5,848 Thanked 7,690 Times in 4,238 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Hammer drops at last: FCC opposes Comcast P2P throttling You do realize that the monopolies have happened becuase the government has protected them due to the amount of money being pumped into them through subsidies through the government for infrastructure. Its really no use talking to you. Facts get refuted and you ignore them (such as your bogus DSL claim earlier). You go off on another tangent, ignoring previous things, and come to a conclussion that is so off the mark from what's even currently happening its laughable. You're obvious anti-american, european superiority, act is transparent and old and isn't worth even bothering with. My apologizes, I came here to debate, not to just have a new issue brought up each time I counter one of yours.
	__________________ Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose... Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode