Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Net Neutrality Vote

Why hasn't there been significant investment in the infrastructure that supports the internet since the feds got involved in 2015?

Lot's of fiber being laid around here, and we're not in the big city. Got a source for your information?

First person here to get it right.

Also, companies like Comcast have decided they'll do their own "new neutrality" anyway since that's what consumers want. The right and left define "net neutrality" differently. We had net neutrality before the government (Obama admin) stepped in in 2015 and we were doing just fine.

The left is trying to sell "net neutrality" with the line of "equal access for all to the internet, it's a first amendment thing." That's complete BS. There are guys on here who don't have high speed internet because it isn't available in their area. How's that for "net neutrality" under the Obama ruling? Yeah, not so equal.

What the left really is selling as "net neutrality" is access to certain types of websites will cost more via government fiat. Say you want to access this site, theconservativetreehouse.com, the Blaze, Daily Caller, Breitbart, FOX, etc websites. That will be in the "conservative media" tier and providers can charge whatever they want for each tier. Lefty providers that donate to the dems will charge you a lot more for the conservative media tier.

See this:



You see today 1/3 of all internet traffic is people streaming Netflix. Yes, 1/3. Under "net neutrality" as the liberals want you would have your "equal access" by needing to pay for the Hollywood (streaming) tier. Consumers don't want this. Consumers want full access to all websites in all internet subscriptions. The only thing that varies is the speed you pay for. The left is selling net neutrality as everyone gets equal internet speeds but that's not really what it is.

There hasn't been any real investment in internet infrastructure since the Obama mandate of "net neutrality" in 2015. Why? Because the free market companies that invest in the infrastructure (companies like Comcast investing in things like fiber optic) because of the uncertainty of what would happen with net neutrality. Like I stated, Comcast and others have promised to remain neutral simply because consumers want that. They might throttle you, but you're not paying for a tiered internet service.

It's a bunch of liberal scare tactic whoo haa. Prior to 2015 the net ran fine.

As for fed involvement, well who do you think created the internet? Who do you think applied Net Neutrality up until today?

It's a bunch of liberal scare tactic whoo haa. Prior to 2015 the net ran fine.

Your numbers are actually low.

From the time Americans begin arriving home from work, until they go to bed, 80% of all internet traffic is Netflix and YouTube. The exception to this in when Game of Thrones is on, and it causes a huge spike in internet traffic.

As for fed involvement, well who do you think created the internet? Who do you think applied Net Neutrality up until today?

Yeah but Scott is worried something MIGHT happen. ISPs MIGHT try and provide a product no one wants that won't sell. So we need to government to step in and protect us from our right to not buy chit we don't want.

from the fiber-to-the-press-release dept

A few years ago, AT&T realized something amazing: you don't have to build a cutting edge, fiber to the home broadband network, when it's relatively easy to fool the press and public into believing you're building a cutting edge, fiber to the home network. So as AT&T was actually busy reducing its fixed-line broadband spending and quietly walking away from DSL users it didn't want to upgrade, it launched a service it calls "U-Verse with Gigapower." Basically, AT&T's delivering gigabit speeds to high-end housing developments, then pretending the upgrades are much, much larger than they actually are.

Case in point: AT&T this week breathlessly announced that the company was deploying gigabit fiber to 38 more markets, bringing the grand total of its gigabit fiber deployment to an amazing 56 total metro markets:

"AT&T announced today it is planning to expand the availability of ultra-fast speeds through AT&T GigaPower to homes, apartments and small businesses in parts of 38 additional metros across the United States – which will total at least 56 metros served. With the launch of our ultra-fast Internet service in parts of 2 of these metros today – Los Angeles and West Palm Beach – AT&T GigaPower is now available in 20 of the nation’s largest metros.

Note a few things about the announcement, however. Nowhere does the company state when these connections will be delivered. Similarly nowhere does the company make clear that it's targeting mostly high-end housing developments where fiber is already in the ground, making costs negligible (the only way you could technically accomplish a deployment of this kind and magically have your CAPEX consistently drop). And while AT&T claims these improvements will reach 14 million residential and commercial locations, AT&T gives no timeline for this accomplishment. That means it could cherry pick a few hundred thousand University condos and housing developments per year and be wrapping up this not-so-epic fiber deployment by 2040 or so.

Nowhere -- now or ever -- will you see AT&T specify precisely how many users have, or will be able to get gigabit speeds from AT&T. That's because, in reality, users in these "launched" markets will almost always find it difficult if not impossible to sign up for this gigabit service. And, in some cases, by a "launched" market AT&T actually means a few dozen homes sitting on a hill in a single housing development.

Now take a minute and look at the press coverage of AT&T's announcement, and try to find one news outlet that could be bothered to note the limited nature of these launches. Whether it's the Shreveport Times or the pages of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, AT&T's convinced the entire country that it's on the cusp of getting gigabit fiber that -- for the vast majority of them -- is never going to actually arrive. Even technology news outlets that should know better (if they'd spent five minutes studying AT&T's history on this front) are busy bandying about quotes how AT&T is "outpacing every other competitor."

To be clear, some AT&T customers will certainly get fiber. If you live in one of the few areas where AT&T has to actually compete thanks to Google Fiber, or in locations where it's possible to upgrade to fiber with the least amount of effort and cost possible, you may be upgraded -- eventually. Granted it won't be cheap, and you'll have to pay a steep premium if you don't want AT&T to spy on you, but you'll get fiber. More likely than not, however, you live in a DSL or U-Verse (FTTN) market that AT&T not only won't upgrade, but may be walking completely away from in order to focus on more profitable (read: usage capped) wireless.

The press and public aren't the only ones being conned. AT&T has consistently used its phantom fiber deployment as a carrot on a stick with regulators, at one point threatening to stop making these barely-there investments unless regulators walked back net neutrality. AT&T backed off the claim when the FCC asked for hard data, but this kind of telecom theater works exceptionally well in state legislatures. Last week AT&T claimed net neutrality prevented them from innovating, and this week they're portraying themselves as the innovator of the century (even though the only actual innovation here is in misleading PR).

And AT&T's not alone when it comes to bogus gigabit bravado. Most of the major phone and cable companies have similarly responded to Google Fiber by cherry picking the nation's most affluent housing developments for gigabit deployment, then pretending they're keeping pace with the nation's broadband needs. Even Google Fiber has made a habit lately of getting oodles of press attention for fiber deployments that may or may not actually happen. In reality however, two thirds of homes lack the choice of more than one ISP at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. And as AT&T and Verizon walk away from unwanted DSL markets, cable's monopoly power is going to grow, making broadband less competitive than ever in many markets.

None of this is to pooh pooh the actual gigabit fiber deployments that are occurring. While it only has an estimated 100,000 subscribers now, there's every indication Google Fiber's going to eventually have a major disruptive impact. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on at the grass roots level, whether it's municipal broadband, or companies like Tucows taking the reins and upgrading small towns, one at a time. But on the meta scale, an uncritical press is contributing to an epic case of delusion when it comes to the pace of broadband progress.

That's why we're not living in the age of fiber to the home -- so much as we're living in the age of fiber to the press release.

By John Patrick Pullen December 14, 2017

A day before the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality vote, AT&T announced trials of its Project AirGig, a technology that aims to provide internet over power lines.

However, the announcement may have undercut FCC chairman Ajit Pait’s claim that rolling back the Internet regulations would encourage investment in internet technologies, since it has been in development for months, if not years. AirGig was first revealed in September 2016, before the presidential election and Pai’s nomination as FCC Chair.

Describing AirGig as a “first-of-its-kind system,” AT&T claims that the technology could one day deliver blazing-fast internet speed of more than 1 gigabit per second. The technology is currently in two trials — one with an electricity provider outside the U.S. that began this past fall, and another that recently began in rural Georgia. If successful, AirGig could improve broadband speed for people across rural America, where cable companies and fiber-optic networks haven’t yet reached.

In the wake of Thursday’s FCC vote, the question of how much will internet services will cost without net neutrality is weighing heavily on households’ minds, and AT&T has not yet mentioned anything about AirGig’s pricing.

Instead, the company is highlighting the technical details. Rather than sending data through the power lines, AirGig uses low-cost plastic antenna attached to the power lines to relay data to homes from the web. That means it can attach to existing infrastructure, wherever electricity is already flowing.

Will it work? Perhaps. With 5G wireless data slowly plodding to market, AT&T may be hedging its bets in order to assure the success of its DirecTV investment and plans for future video-streaming dominance with DirecTV Now. There is also the matter of AT&T’s merger with Time Warner, which the U.S. Department of Justice has sued to block.

Then again, there’s a lot of schemes to wrestle the crown of high-speed internet from cable companies, including Google Fiber (which has paused its rollout), Facebook’s internet drones, and SpaceX’s internet satellites. In other words: Don’t sign any long-term internet contracts.

"AT&T Has Fooled The Press And Public Into Believing It's Building A Massive Fiber Network That Barely Exists"

Let's take a survey... who here has fiber optic speed internet? I'm talking direct to your home?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Last_mile

Scotty? How's abouts yous?

I pay for 50 megs. I get maybe 6 download. Uh, should I sue the feds? They control everything, right?

Let's take a survey... who here has fiber optic speed internet? I'm talking direct to your home?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Last_mile

Scotty? How's abouts yous?

I pay for 50 megs. I get maybe 6 download. Uh, should I sue the feds? They control everything, right?

Since most of the providers are liberal, the first to go are the gun sites, pro republican, 2nd amendment loving sites.

Click on 24hourcampfire, go make a coffee, drink said coffee, make another one and hopefully the site is fully loaded. Then restart when you click on a topic.

So this was happening before your marxist president stuck his nose into the private sector to "save us" from big business"? you're an effing moron