Looks like the FCC lost

[teamorion22]

i think the internet is still fairly new technology that we have yet to see the long term affects of. my roommate is a perfect example. facebook and myspace all day long and talks up a storm it seems. but we go out and some girl is eyein him from across the bar and he seems 2 lack the courage to go over and talk to her.
also the endless and endless streams of information most of which is NOT valid
clearly the benefits outweigh the positives but I can't call the internet a neccessity but this is coming from someone that still reads books so maybe it's me that is stuck in the past.
i think the internet is a dirty priviliage and the govt should stay out of it. and i think it is also something we should have to pay for

 

[captain]

Omar I understand what your talking about, I have one service provider where I live... I choose to live here, I chose what fire service, what police service, what jobs and what entertainment was available when I moved here... Right now that one provider has the upper hand, the best download I can get is 3mb down and 1.5 up, that is on a business class circuit with multiple IP's...

Because I chose to live here I have to deal with that, someday there will be another provider come in to see if there is a market, when they do there will be a mass exodus of people that leave because of the crappy service and features offered...

In the end, the Internet is not a public necessity, no more than TV or radio. If you have a business need to be in contact and its a requirement from your job (I have had those same requirements) then you have to find a way to work around, change work policies or move.

I hear ya when you say that the wireless cards are limited to 5gb but to be honest downloading netflix isnt a life condition and definately not a reason to get the government involved in the facilitation of the Internet. Once they get involved then you can expect taxes on emails, E-commerce orders, shipping across state lines and sin taxes on social media sites or ports and services offered from websites...

Let the people of this country deal with the businesses and "fairness" I hate that a provider blocked bit torrent but to be honest the majority can complain, leave and get someone else or force options to be made... If the revolt is enough another provider will come in.. Once again, bit torrents are not what I would consider a reason for the govt to get involved in my Internet problems....

cap

 

[omslaw]

Yes, I agree that there are different "needs" for the Internet. For some, it is a necessity to do his job. Others, it's just way to pass time or keep in touch with friends...and some consider it an evil LOL. I also agree that the gov't should stay out of it.

Further, I don't condone any ISP from filtering/blocking Internet access. I think Comcast went over the line by throttling Bit torrent traffic. Bit torrent has MANY valid uses...heck, Red Hat uses it as a delivery method for downloading Fedora. There is nothing illegal with that activity and what Comcast did is restrict those who were using the service.

That said - I'm *NOT* saying that Internet access should be free. Everyone should have to pay for the access. I'm saying that the USF should be shifted to help build-out the networks so Internet access is available to everyone - whether they choose to subscribe to it is up to them.

 

[captain]

I think you and I are probably on the high side of usage of bandwidth and ports and services used. BUT comcast made a business decision no different than Wal Mart deciding to charge 50.00 for a loaf of bread or not selling milk anymore. If people can't get the things they want they will move somewhere else...

I will give you a perfect example....

Cable TV.. remember the days when they would put the screws to you for everything, the price of TV was high, movie channels cost an arm and a leg.. Cable thought they had the tiger by the tail....

THEN

Dish TV and Direct TV show up and now I think there are more people using satellite instead of cable... Did you notice that prices dropped and now there are more services available from Cable to compete with the phone companies....

Ever heard of Microwave, ethernet over power, I dealt with R&D on this many years ago...

Basically it's Internet over your power lines, can go long distances. If you have power in your house then you could also get Intenet on the same power lines, in your shop, in your yard, in your house...

Let those cable and phone companies continue to screw the American people and someone will come up with a technology or service that will take those customers right away from them... That is what America is about, making a better widget not regulating or making it fair at the lowest level....

Here is a link to BPL

Cable companies have been trying to sell you on one bill for your utilities, phone, cable and internet... Wait till BPL is out and you can get those plus your power on the same bill...

Wanna know who is lobbying against BPL? You guessed it cable and phone companies....

I don't need the government in my life to make things fair!

cap

 

[omslaw]

Omar I understand what your talking about, I have one service provider where I live... I choose to live here, I chose what fire service, what police service, what jobs and what entertainment was available when I moved here... Right now that one provider has the upper hand, the best download I can get is 3mb down and 1.5 up, that is on a business class circuit with multiple IP's...

Because I chose to live here I have to deal with that, someday there will be another provider come in to see if there is a market, when they do there will be a mass exodus of people that leave because of the crappy service and features offered...

In the end, the Internet is not a public necessity, no more than TV or radio. If you have a business need to be in contact and its a requirement from your job (I have had those same requirements) then you have to find a way to work around, change work policies or move.

I hear ya when you say that the wireless cards are limited to 5gb but to be honest downloading netflix isnt a life condition and definately not a reason to get the government involved in the facilitation of the Internet. Once they get involved then you can expect taxes on emails, E-commerce orders, shipping across state lines and sin taxes on social media sites or ports and services offered from websites...

Let the people of this country deal with the businesses and "fairness" I hate that a provider blocked bit torrent but to be honest the majority can complain, leave and get someone else or force options to be made... If the revolt is enough another provider will come in.. Once again, bit torrents are not what I would consider a reason for the govt to get involved in my Internet problems....

cap

I understand, Doug - but if the FCC is going to mandate the USF, then I think it should be put to use where it would actually benefit people, IMO.

To me, a phone is NOT a necessity - yet, the USF fee is being collected. If they would put that $$ toward Internet, those who chose to have phone service could get it...from any one of MANY providers...

I also think that it may be better if the city/county, etc would own the "last mile" - then there could be competition in there; choose from any number of ISPs...

We're in 2010 now - people should be able to live where they choose and still have access to affordable, high-speed Internet. While I felt the same back in 2000, it's now ten years later and those in rural areas are still left out...

Yes, I do feel strongly about this since it affects me, however, I have felt this way even when it didn't affect me. The Internet is the future; we are lagging behind other countries in Internet deployment... Heck, VA charges a SURCHARGE for going INTO the DMV to renew tags...they want you to do it online. My local news doesn't give you all of the story anymore. They'll tell you most of it and then say "For the rest of the story, please logon to our website at..."

 

[omslaw]

I think you and I are probably on the high side of usage of bandwidth and ports and services used. BUT comcast made a business decision no different than Wal Mart deciding to charge 50.00 for a loaf of bread or not selling milk anymore. If people can't get the things they want they will move somewhere else...

I will give you a perfect example....

Cable TV.. remember the days when they would put the screws to you for everything, the price of TV was high, movie channels cost an arm and a leg.. Cable thought they had the tiger by the tail....

THEN

Dish TV and Direct TV show up and now I think there are more people using satellite instead of cable... Did you notice that prices dropped and now there are more services available from Cable to compete with the phone companies....

Ever heard of Microwave, ethernet over power, I dealt with R&D on this many years ago...

Basically it's Internet over your power lines, can go long distances. If you have power in your house then you could also get Intenet on the same power lines, in your shop, in your yard, in your house...

Let those cable and phone companies continue to screw the American people and someone will come up with a technology or service that will take those customers right away from them... That is what America is about, making a better widget not regulating or making it fair at the lowest level....

Here is a link to BPL

Cable companies have been trying to sell you on one bill for your utilities, phone, cable and internet... Wait till BPL is out and you can get those plus your power on the same bill...

Wanna know who is lobbying against BPL? You guessed it cable and phone companies....

I don't need the government in my life to make things fair!

cap

Yeah, I first read about BPL 15 years ago and it's still not in wide-spread deployment. I'm using the Netgear Powerline adapters and they work nicely...in the house.

Sure cable and phone is lobbying against BPL - it will cut into their strangle-hold on services...but BPL is still not deployed.

What I'm looking forward to is how Google's little high-speed network venture will pan out. I think it will open the eyes of a lot of folks...showing them that consumers DO want faster, cheaper, Internet access.

 

[captain]

I understand, Doug - but if the FCC is going to mandate the USF, then I think it should be put to use where it would actually benefit people, IMO.

To me, a phone is NOT a necessity - yet, the USF fee is being collected. If they would put that $$ toward Internet, those who chose to have phone service could get it...from any one of MANY providers...

I also think that it may be better if the city/county, etc would own the "last mile" - then there could be competition in there; choose from any number of ISPs...

We're in 2010 now - people should be able to live where they choose and still have access to affordable, high-speed Internet. While I felt the same back in 2000, it's now ten years later and those in rural areas are still left out...

Yes, I do feel strongly about this since it affects me, however, I have felt this way even when it didn't affect me. The Internet is the future; we are lagging behind other countries in Internet deployment... Heck, VA charges a SURCHARGE for going INTO the DMV to renew tags...they want you to do it online. My local news doesn't give you all of the story anymore. They'll tell you most of it and then say "For the rest of the story, please logon to our website at..."

Last time I checked Internet was not on the list of things you had to have to survive...

Food
Clothing
Shelter

Don't get confused on the USF Fee.... that is not something that a phone company has to charge you for... Remember I was Director of support and the NOC for 18 Major phone companies, I was in telecommunication for many years....

The USF is a funding source for phone companies, the FCC basically tells phone companies they have to contribute or pay a percentage but you and I never actually know what that number is... MOST phone companies charge whatever they want for USF fees because they have a good excuse to turn around to the customer and blame the charge on the govt... I HAVE DONE THIS! USF charges are used all the time from phone companies to subsidize other areas of the company... there are no limits on USF charges that I am aware of EXCEPT those limits set by customers when they refuse to pay them......

This is a perfect example of the govt telling business to do one thing with intenet to do a good thing and the phone company turning around and using it as a profit center....

The idea is great, however just like most govt projects, Good intent, decent planning and poor execution....

WHAT IS USF
This charge started on January 1, 1998 as part of the FCC overhaul of telephone fees. All companies that provide telephone service between states pay a set percentage of their previous year's billings. The charge is designed to ensure affordable access to telecommunications services for telephone customers with low incomes, telephone customers who live in areas where the cost of providing telephone service is extremely high, libraries, schools, and rural health care providers. Although all companies providing interstate telephone service are charged the same percentage of their billings, companies are allowed to recharge you for this in any way they see fit, and each company uses a different method to charge this carrier specific fee. It is normally not presented to you in such a way that you would think it is a competitive pricing issue. But it is! Some companies do not charge this fee at all, some charge a carrier specific flat fee, others charge a percentage of your interstate and international usage, while others charge a percentage of your entire bill. Although the charge the companies pay is in essence a tax, the fee on your bill is carrier specific, and is NOT a set tax. The telephone company keeps any difference between the USF fees they collect and the charge they pay to the Universal Service Fund.



cap

 

[omslaw]

Last time I checked Internet was not on the list of things you had to have to survive...

Food
Clothing
Shelter

Don't get confused on the USF Fee.... that is not something that a phone company has to charge you for... Remember I was Director of support and the NOC for 18 Major phone companies, I was in telecommunication for many years....

The USF is a funding source for phone companies, the FCC basically tells phone companies they have to contribute or pay a percentage but you and I never actually know what that number is... MOST phone companies charge whatever they want for USF fees because they have a good excuse to turn around to the customer and blame the charge on the govt... I HAVE DONE THIS! USF charges are used all the time from phone companies to subsidize other areas of the company... there are no limits on USF charges that I am aware of EXCEPT those limits set by customers when they refuse to pay them......

This is a perfect example of the govt telling business to do one thing with intenet to do a good thing and the phone company turning around and using it as a profit center....

The idea is great, however just like most govt projects, Good intent, decent planning and poor execution....

WHAT IS USF
This charge started on January 1, 1998 as part of the FCC overhaul of telephone fees. All companies that provide telephone service between states pay a set percentage of their previous year's billings. The charge is designed to ensure affordable access to telecommunications services for telephone customers with low incomes, telephone customers who live in areas where the cost of providing telephone service is extremely high, libraries, schools, and rural health care providers. Although all companies providing interstate telephone service are charged the same percentage of their billings, companies are allowed to recharge you for this in any way they see fit, and each company uses a different method to charge this carrier specific fee. It is normally not presented to you in such a way that you would think it is a competitive pricing issue. But it is! Some companies do not charge this fee at all, some charge a carrier specific flat fee, others charge a percentage of your interstate and international usage, while others charge a percentage of your entire bill. Although the charge the companies pay is in essence a tax, the fee on your bill is carrier specific, and is NOT a set tax. The telephone company keeps any difference between the USF fees they collect and the charge they pay to the Universal Service Fund.



cap

Precisely why if they are going to collect it - then, IMO, put it to use to build-out the network to get affordable, high-speed, Internet to everyone. Stop building out the telephone networks...


Yes, you're right, Internet is not a necessity, but neither is "natural gas" service. Yet, at my last house, it's run to every house in the neighborhood, whether they get gas service or not. One could choose to have an all-electric home and never use the gas.

 

[captain]

Precisely why if they are going to collect it - then, IMO, put it to use to build-out the network to get affordable, high-speed, Internet to everyone. Stop building out the telephone networks...


Yes, you're right, Internet is not a necessity, but neither is "natural gas" service. Yet, at my last house, it's run to every house in the neighborhood, whether they get gas service or not. One could choose to have an all-electric home and never use the gas.

I think the last thing that we want is the government madating that networks be updated... I am all for the USF fund to just go away completely.

As far as the natural gas, I doubt that there is an ordinance or state law that requires gas to be installed or a meter to be set at each home. Typically local companies control natural gas and they make a determination on if there is enough customers on a line to justify putting natural gas into a neighborhood. Now they do have every right to put in a meter in each yard in the easement if they believe it is more cost effecient to put the meter there then instead of coming back later...

Are you saying that in Olathe Kansas you have to have natural gas connected to your house before you can move in? Is that a municiple ordinance, a state law or what?

I'm not really disagreeing with you that the USF is a waste of money, BUT I also don't think that Internet should be run to every house at any cost just because someone wanted to live a long way from civilisation.. Where does that theory stop? If I wanted to move to Montana in the moutains, should I require the closest phone company to provide me with Internet on top of a mountain 50 miles from a CO?

We all have choices in this life, I chose to live in a location where there is only one provider, I could have easily moved to metro OKC and then had several competative options but I chose to live here... They city provides me with water, police and fire and that is all I ask them for....

cap

 

[ogre]

no one's reading properly. comcast is blocking its customers from using bit-torrent. it's a way to download large files, sometimes music, movies, games, etc. the fcc ordered comcast NOT to block bit torrent. comcast told the fcc to eat it, and that they can block what they want. basically, you can download movies on bit-torrent that you'd normally have to pay the cable company (comcast) to have on your premium channels.

 

[omslaw]

I think the last thing that we want is the government madating that networks be updated... I am all for the USF fund to just go away completely.

As far as the natural gas, I doubt that there is an ordinance or state law that requires gas to be installed or a meter to be set at each home. Typically local companies control natural gas and they make a determination on if there is enough customers on a line to justify putting natural gas into a neighborhood. Now they do have every right to put in a meter in each yard in the easement if they believe it is more cost effecient to put the meter there then instead of coming back later...

Are you saying that in Olathe Kansas you have to have natural gas connected to your house before you can move in? Is that a municiple ordinance, a state law or what?

I'm not really disagreeing with you that the USF is a waste of money, BUT I also don't think that Internet should be run to every house at any cost just because someone wanted to live a long way from civilisation.. Where does that theory stop? If I wanted to move to Montana in the moutains, should I require the closest phone company to provide me with Internet on top of a mountain 50 miles from a CO?

We all have choices in this life, I chose to live in a location where there is only one provider, I could have easily moved to metro OKC and then had several competative options but I chose to live here... They city provides me with water, police and fire and that is all I ask them for....

cap

I feel the same about the USF - it should go away. But since the premise of the USF was to get phone service, an unnecessary service, IMO, to rural customers, why not shift the focus and concentrate on high-speed Internet - that's my opinion...

As for providing phone service to those in BFE Montana? I have a friend who does just that. Most of his network is wireless because of how far the customers are; the USF helps subsidize his costs for building that network.

No, I'm not required to have natural gas hooked up. And you're right - the gas company chose to run the gas line on their own dime. In fact, my last two houses, the phone company ran lines to the house before I even moved in...or bought the house. Again, they chose to do that (USF helped with that, I'm sure). I'm saying that I would like to see that happen with Internet service, too; get the conduit there...let me choose whether or not I subscribe.

 

[VaBusa]

Not necessarily in regards to the FCC discussion, but since I see debate over whether this is all a luxury or not, I'll add this...

I like to compare this type of need to that of roads 100 years ago; we didn't all need roads and not everyone could afford a car nor did most Americans own one. We were fine just getting where we could, but the infrastructure was placed, and traveling for work and play became a reason for new businesses and industry to spring up, thrive and evolve.

The Internet has become such a huge part of daily life, our banking, work, our ability to use it affects merchants in online sales, it saves organizations money by cutting out actual human intervention, lessens the need of some industry to even have a storefront. It's truly made the world much smaller and enables most to do things in a fraction of the time it used to take (like shopping, paying bills, even looking for a job). Companies have sprung up solely based on Internet sales; no one even knows where the stuff comes from, you just click, order and it shows up at your doorstep. I'm sorry, but while we do still see the Internet as a luxury item, I do think in time it will be a must for most of daily life, for industry, work, everything. Good, bad or ugly, that's our future.

As for whether or not this should be a gov't sanctioned thing? Ughhh...I honestly don't understand why companies aren't jumping on the chance to build the infrastructure and secure future business, especially in the smaller areas where options are limited. I live in the sticks and I can honestly say, it's been one battle after another and it's easy for those that have to say it's not a big deal to the have nots...

 

[omslaw]

no one's reading properly. comcast is blocking its customers from using bit-torrent. it's a way to download large files, sometimes music, movies, games, etc. the fcc ordered comcast NOT to block bit torrent. comcast told the fcc to eat it, and that they can block what they want. basically, you can download movies on bit-torrent that you'd normally have to pay the cable company (comcast) to have on your premium channels.

Yeah, I know - I just got off on a cosine; took the thread in a different direction.

I don't believe the gov't should tell the ISPs what they can/can't do, but at the same time, I don't believe the ISPs should block anything either. :2cents:

 

[captain]

Ogre I read it, and I get it, what they were blocking was bit torrent, why because it saves network bandwidth nothing more, nothing less.. It has nothing to do with the content of the torrent but the usage of bandwidth that a torrent creates...

Omar bad would come with the good... the reason that phone companies are so screwed up today is because of governement involvement. I say it again, look at the USF fund.

You can't ask for the USF = govt money to be taken away from phones and transitioned to the build up of Internet without the govt coming in to mandate how its done... I would rather do without more options than to have the governement get involved in my technical day to day business. You can't have it both ways, I choose keep them out of the Internet.

Chelle I agree to a point, the Internet has definately made things "easier" but using your roads example, we didnt have good Interstate systems in the US until WWII and they were created as a way to land planes not necessarily to connect the country for convenience. A lot of people still used horses and walked long after the roads were built. Every house in the 40's and 50's weren't given a car to drive on the roads just because they were there.....

cap

 

[VaBusa]

My point was that roads were built, but not everyone could afford the car to drive on 'em...I feel that the infrastructure should be in place for high-speed for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone gets to buy the service to connect. I don't think Omar wishes they'd run it to every house in America, but at least get something close to everyone so IF you want it, if you buy that car, you can actually get to the road to take a spin

 

[captain]

My point was that roads were built, but not everyone could afford the car to drive on 'em...I feel that the infrastructure should be in place for high-speed for everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone gets to buy the service to connect. I don't think Omar wishes they'd run it to every house in America, but at least get something close to everyone so IF you want it, if you buy that car, you can actually get to the road to take a spin

I guess the real question is who is going to pay for that.... we could change the USF money which is a joke over to that project but it comes with a larger price and that is government oversight and that puts beauracrats at your every move on the Internet.

I know what he is talking about, but I think that if you choose to live in a rural area then you have to be prepared to deal with what is offered. I would love to have FIOS but I know that I won't see it where I live for at least 20 years... Just like I know that we won't have many other services that are offered in a location that has more densly populated area... I would love to have a movie theatre closer, a starbucks closer and a best buy but I can't expect those companies to move closer to me when there is no incentive for them to do so.. the last group of people that I want incenting or mandating anything is the US government...

Make no mistake we live in the greatest country ever, I love the red white and blue but too many people want the government to hand everything to them... If you want FIOS then move to where it is.....

cap

 

[VaBusa]

I do know I don't want our gov't involved...I think gov't is too big as it is...

I grew up here, been here for 30 years now. Lots of reasons to stay, have a good job, still drive a long way for the mall, but things change and so does the pace of life. Would I move for high-speed? Absolutely not, but is the lack of high-speed affecting rural areas? You bet. We are being pushed in to a web-based economy, an internet-based world. I cannot even go to the LOCAL DMV to renew my tags without paying them an additional $5 fee just for taking up their time in person. That's a gov't agency, penalizing citizens by forcing them to pay more for "help from a human", or do it online. It is affecting jobs, mine included. I'm in the IT dept, and part of our "disaster plan" is to be able to work from home, but without high-speed, it's nearly impossible for me to connect to our server room. I'm not alone in this; I can list a dozen ways it adversely affects us in the sticks, and I'm not just talking about the luxury end of surfing the web. The world is changing and fast, and it's time those of us in rural areas get up to speed.

I don't see this as something the gov't should or would fix, but I know from my own experience in the last 2 decades, the rural cable companies don't seem to get it and because of their lack of vision, they've lost huge sects of our rural communities, not offering up the infrastructure for those that would subscribe. Twenty years ago, they'd only lost out on cable customers, but now they're losing out on Internet subscribers too. I guess I just wonder why some larger company hasn't seen the potential to get this to all rural areas. It could be a gold mine. Again, NOT to the homes, but close enough to make the trip to those that are willing to pay, like me...

 

[captain]

I do know I don't want our gov't involved...I think gov't is too big as it is...

I grew up here, been here for 30 years now. Lots of reasons to stay, have a good job, still drive a long way for the mall, but things change and so does the pace of life. Would I move for high-speed? Absolutely not, but is the lack of high-speed affecting rural areas? You bet. We are being pushed in to a web-based economy, an internet-based world. I cannot even go to the LOCAL DMV to renew my tags without paying them an additional $5 fee just for taking up their time in person. That's a gov't agency, penalizing citizens by forcing them to pay more for "help from a human", or do it online. It is affecting jobs, mine included. I'm in the IT dept, and part of our "disaster plan" is to be able to work from home, but without high-speed, it's nearly impossible for me to connect to our server room. I'm not alone in this; I can list a dozen ways it adversely affects us in the sticks, and I'm not just talking about the luxury end of surfing the web. The world is changing and fast, and it's time those of us in rural areas get up to speed.

I don't see this as something the gov't should or would fix, but I know from my own experience in the last 2 decades, the rural cable companies don't seem to get it and because of their lack of vision, they've lost huge sects of our rural communities, not offering up the infrastructure for those that would subscribe. Twenty years ago, they'd only lost out on cable customers, but now they're losing out on Internet subscribers too. I guess I just wonder why some larger company hasn't seen the potential to get this to all rural areas. It could be a gold mine. Again, NOT to the homes, but close enough to make the trip to those that are willing to pay, like me...

they do get it chelle, it's just expensive to bury a mile of cable to a single house.. Repeaters or switches to keep the signal going for what 39.95 a month? You know how long it would take to recoup that kind of money..

Trust me when I say that the public service companys ie. cable and phone would love nothing more than to ding you with another 40.00 a month for Internet but it's just not cost effective.

As far as you paying more for not using the Internet I think maybe a way to look at it is that those that are using automation are being incented to use it. You obviously have Internet at home so you should be able to pay your mortage payment, get your license renewed, that sounds like the basics to me... Once again I don't think that downloading netflix or surfing websites is a right that we get as citizens... What more access could you need from home to work? I would think that checking mail and accessing a VPN would suffice.

 

[VaBusa]

Anyway...I walked down a different path Sorry guys...FCC what?

 

[zukracer]

I do not consider satellite and/or "air-cards" to be "competition" to cable/DSL/FiOS. Both of them have very low upload speeds and they limit how much one can download, either by throttling or hefty "overage" charges.

I have a sprint broadband card on the grandfathered "unlimited data plan" for $60/month ... dont use it though (forgot to mention I also have a broadband router that supports VPN )