Net Neutrality --- For Once, Everyone Wins

Agreed. Neither do I. Of course.I'm just giving an opinion based on how weaselly big companies are. Sure. But they can do even more of it if they can blame it on the government; and they might create a few Rediculouscans in the process. I don't know if they should expect it, but I can see it happening. It also depends a lot on one's idea of what 'worse' is in regards Internet access. Increasing competition is one way to go; it is definitely preferable to the current system. Alternatively, a system similar to how utilities are run (with heavy regulation in the form of price controls and service standards) might not be too bad either.The new rules are likely a good thing overall.But being good overall doesn't stop ISPs from jacking up rates just for fun and blaming the government for it.

Probably. But other people might have different opinions on it.Either way, it seems a possible scenario. Do you disagree with that?

quote:

---

Researchers Achieve Record-Smashing Wireless Connection Speeds

​

Do you know what wireless speeds of one terabit per second gets you? One hundred full-length movies downloaded onto your phone in just three seconds. Researchers in the U.K. are now saying that they’ve achieved just that: 1 Tbps over a 5G connection for the first time ever. That's the fastest wireless speed to date.

​

This is the same capacity as fiber optics but we are doing it wirelessly, Rahim Tafazolli of the 5G Innovation Centre (5GIC) at the University of Surrey tells V3. Their tests were carried out under lab conditions over a distance of 100 meters (328 feet) using transmitters and receivers built at Surrey.

​

The speed is more than 65,000 times faster than average 4G download speeds (that’s just 15 megabits per second, or Mbps). And it also smashes the previous 5G (or fifth generation) speed record achieved last October in tests: Samsung's 7.5 gigabits per second (Gbps), BBC reports, is less than one percent of the Surrey team's speed.

---

This is why satellite (or solar powered drone dirigibles) will beat out wire\cable\optic systems -- they can upgrade easier without having to replace transmission lines.Enjoy.

I already explained to you that all you have to do is call them up and bitch a fit and then they'll lower the cost.You might have to threaten cancelling your service, that one always gets them - "oh look, I just found a promotional package that will cut your bill down by X%"

I just noticed my (old) name...I've always supported net neutrality.(BTW, I'm not a Republican)

quote:

---

Their tests were carried out under lab conditions over a distance of 100 meters (328 feet) using transmitters and receivers built at Surrey.

---

They have a long way to go to get to Satellite transmissions distances. I realize that Satellite is on the map for 5G but until we see some real world results it is all pie in the sky. There have been lots of technologies that started out well in the lab but were unable to exist in real world applications. Remember LightSquared?

There are lots of problems with satellite; they're expensive, hard/impossible to maintain and upgrade (software apart), they don't scale (they're tiny in comparison to a data centre), power, resilience and redundancy are problems and because of the round trip distance from satellite to earth station, they have very high latency which makes real time applications like telephony and multiplayer games unworkable. (Until we find a way to send data faster than light speed, this can not be fixed.)Their strengths are in delivering asynchronous media using single transmissions to many points simultaneously - ie broadcast. Using them for many individual, independent, streams ie narrowcast is very inefficient. I don't see satellite as a credible solution.

Okay. That might all be true, but I don't see how it relates to my claim that ISPs might try to raise their rates and blame the government.

Well, it was a way for you to fight back and get those rates un-raised.But honestly, why does it even matter that ISPs might try to raise their rates and blame the government?Is it the raising rates? Or the blaming the government? Or both?What about it am I supposed to care about?They've been raising rates left and right already. And what does it matter who they blame?

quote:

---

John Oliver Wants You to Flood the FCC Website to Save Net Neutrality, Again

​

The Internet is the repository of all human knowledge and goats singing Taylor Swift songs, said John Oliver on Last Week Tonight, rejoicing in the fact that the Internet is an incredible place. However, according to Oliver, that is threatened by the Trump administration’s decision to roll back protections for net neutrality.

​

Net neutrality could be protected by an act of Congress, but Oliver does not trust this Congress or any Congress to handle such a complex and technical issue. Instead, Oliver believes that anyone who loves the Internet needs to speak up and make sure the FCC knows that net neutrality is important. To make that easy, Oliver bought the website GoFCCYourself.com which leads directly to the FCC’s public comment area.

---

Go to GoFCCYourself.com and click on the [express] link on the right side.Keep the internet under Title IIps you need to hit enter after each name you enter

I sent in my petition. Now let me get this straight----basically, the internet is one of the last bastions of free and unguided media (or data) correct? As it should be. Free to publish Faiths rants, my rants, RAZD lengthy posts, and even porn and propaganda...as it now exists. The Republicans want to change that specifically how, again?Hmmmm this reminds me of my request to Percy to clean up the archive. I suppose that my inner republican wants to make EvC Forum all neat and tidy, while a proponent of free information would leave every last bit of spam and worthless posts in the database. Given PC vs Free Information, I guess I'm voting for free information.

Trump wants to undo everything Obama, and that includes undoing protecting the internet under Title II so that the ISPs can't charge different rates for different speeds provided, or even exclude some sites because they don't pay a fee to be available.Before Obama the internet fell under Title I, and Netscape sued the FCC and won to have tiered service. The judge told the FCC that they needed to be under Title II to protect neutrality, and congress and Obama made it so.It may be the last straw before people get together and form a crowd internet, certainly in urban areasFirechat Enables the Crowd to Become the Internet --Bypassing Central Powers | Jeremiah OwyangEnjoy

Im really confused now...looks like even The Conservative View supports net neutrality! Where does Trump get off? He is acting more and more like an authoritarian oligarch every day! Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

And who seems to be a biggie, for preserving net neutrality?The Significance Of Sen. Al Franken's Call To Impose Net Neutrality On Google, Facebook and Amazonhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-wants-to-turn-it-on-themetc.Al "Lips" Franken MooseABE:or it that Al "The Tongue" Franken Edited by Minnemooseus, : ABE.

This article from the Verge includes the text of letters from the two dissenting FCC commissioners, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, objecting to net neutrality repeal: Long, but worth reading. What we see described is the same duplicity seen in the Trump administration taking over the FCC.The vote is today. Net neutrality is expected to go down by a 3-2 vote along party lines. The issue then moves to congress and the courts.Oh, vote's over, net neutrality is dead.--Percy