The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Tulsa not among them

http://www.metro.us/news/local-news/net-neutrality-50-cities-letter-fcc-democracy

 :(

So I am supposed to support net neutrality at the cost of higher internet rates?

You think Cox is going to pass those earnings on to you? That's funny.

We have among the highest internet costs in the world because there's so little competition and no regulation to speak of.

Highest rates, and crappiest service levels.   

I posted this once before when it came out in 2015, I"m posting again so you can get a primer on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

Here's his followup from this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak

I don't care if they pass the earning on, as long as they don't raise my prices due to network congestion.

And surprise, a content provider (HBO) puts out a funny video supporting its own position.

If you think the service providers will break down why they will raise your prices, then come see me about some beachfront property I'm selling in northern Alaska...they've been raising rates for the last 15 years at breakneck speeds.  It needs regulation.  Title II needs to remain where it is.

The internet model works like the telephone model - estimated oversubscription.  (ie. If you think everyone in Tulsa could pick up the telephone at the same time and make a call, you are sorely mistaken.)

The problem is, most ISPs don't make much money per subscriber and backbone connections cost a lot.  In a couple of years, it is estimated that 80% of traffic will be video.   The problem with video is that it is data intensive and isn't happy with hiccups or "buffering."

So, if you push for net neutrality, expect lower data caps.  (Which Cox is already implementing.)

And many other ISPs implemented data caps even WITH NN.  Cox was one of the last of the holdouts.

That argument doesn't hold water.

Since the 60's at least.  My grandparents had 'cable tv' in mid 60's.  Kept jacking up the prices so they got rid of it after just a few years.

It isn't entirely Cox's fault the prices keep going up....   Look at the content providers as well.


Despite the loss in subscribers, ESPN is just as popular as ever, if not more, and we can see this in their monthly subscriber fees. ESPN now charges $7.21 per subscriber, by far the most expensive cable network, and up 54% from what they were charging in 2011, when it cost $4.69 per subscriber. And that is just for ESPN's main network.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3

And now we have circled back around to the fact that I cannot buy the channels I want and leave the rest of that carp alone.  Cox Basic has a LOT of music channels way up high in the numbers - maybe 2 or 3 out of dozens that are worth listening to.

And ESPN?  I think there are at least 3 versions of that on basic - I don't want any of them.  Let me pick the 10 or 15 I want and just keep the rest...

So somehow the prices are going to go down because you want more regulation?    Yeah, that's how that works.

You obviously haven't read up enough on what this is.

NN..or the lack of it I should say, would give content providers leverage to throttle certain vendors.  Say you have a content provider with an exclusive agreement with a streaming service for whatever reason.  Say Hulu.  Removing NN would effectively allow ISPs to throttle the content of the competing vendors (in this case, say Netflix).  How is that fair?

To be sure this likely won't reduce costs at the consumer level.  What it has the potential of reducing though is a level playing field for everyone using data.  So while you might be paying a pretty penny for something, there's also the possibility you won't be getting a fair shake on your preferred method of watching video.

Capiche?

Still doing the Kook-Aid shots, huh??   If past experience has shown us anything, it is that deregulation has NOT resulted in lower costs.  Only more competition has a glimmer of hope in helping that.   But then, you probably still believe that cutting taxes will more than pay for themselves in increased economic activity....

Net Neutrality isn't about cost-of-service or increasing regulation.

It's about keeping the "it's illegal to censor internet traffic" regulations in place.
The regulation that says your service provider (be it home or cell-phone provider) can't censor the net.  Or charge you more to be able to visit certain websites.
And/or charge content providers to get preferential service on their network.

Network neutrality stops ISPs from charging the cost causers (ie. Google, Netflix, Amazon) a higher price for the delivery of their content.   The cost causers have not contributed anything to very ISPs that allow them to provide the services (and make a tidy profit).   Large, for-profit companies should have to contribute to the installation and maintenance that enables them to sell subscriptions to customers.

It isn't going to "censor the internet" or anything else stupid.   It is going to force the people who cause the ISP to increase back haul to pay their fair share.

The solution is simple:  the end user could pay for the amount of data they consume.

Usage isn't like water or electricity. It isn't a finite resource. The infrastructure for bandwidth is costly but only incrementally so and actual usage doesn't cost anything at all to the ISP.

And since I have a good idea of where you work (or at least worked) I'll trust your judgement on that.

Costs on equipment really aren't that big in the overall scheme of things...especially when compared to revenues generated by the monopoly they enjoy.  Labor is a big chunk, but even that pales in comparison to the money coming in. 



Such a bargain compared to the first small cable assembly I made many years ago - about $15 a foot for cable;

http://store.cablesplususa.com/dx144dwls9kr.html?utm_source=dx144dwls9kr&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=googleproducts&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsJLjyqqW1QIVFNwZCh2QqwnnEAYYASABEgLfePD_BwE

I wish that was the case...   I am not talking about the infrastructure...   I am talking about the port and connection fees.  

The cost of backhaul does go up rapidly.  (Rather it starts expensive and the price per meg goes down slowly.)

That's what happens when you live in a non-capitalistic society that caters to the highest bidder for each and every Congressman. 

It's a capitalistic monopolism system.  An oligarchy.

What?   No, its what happens when regulators force companies to lower rates to customers and make up for it by billing businesses (who then are forced to raise rates to customers.)

Do you have any idea what it costs to get a 1Gbps Ethernet circuit?  (Hint:  Over $2k/month.)   If you promise customers 100 Mbps that is only 10....   But then you have to count on some not being home, not using the full pipe, etc...   So you sell that same service to 30 or 50...    

At $2k/month that is $40-$66 a month without ANY infrastructure costs....  

Wow!   What a shame you don't really understand how the system really works...!


As for the access, well those are the internet equivalent of overbooking as seen in airline industry.  AT&T showed the world how that is done...and they are arguably still the best at it.

Retail $2k a month.  Price gouging all the way....

It's a system that pays my salary.    Sad I don't know anything about it.

Then it's not surprising you have the stance that you do....

Yes, it is.

Yes, I know what circuits cost. I was just working on a new contract for a 10g circuit. A bit over $7k per month. Oh, and earlier I was working on a storage array upgrade but had to order some 10g fiber cables from CDW.

Former FCC head dismantles case for abandoning net neutrality.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40445949/ex-chair-tom-wheeler-dismantles-fccs-argument-to-abandon-net-neutrality

Internet access and speed and cost is another one of those places where we are way down past the "middle of the pack" in terms of developed nations - we are right in there with developing nations like Romania!  Uh, oh...sorry Romania - they are actually way ahead of us!!

All because we sit back on our fat backsides letting the so called "regulators" collude with and strike 'sweetheart' deals with the remaining 3 cable companies.  (Out of the more than 40 or so that existed just a few short years ago).  We let them be one of the most obvious and heinous examples of capitalistic monopolism that everyone can see, everyone complains about, but won't hold the representatives responsible for letting us get to this sorry state!   'Murica...!!

Romania is also smaller than the state of Michigan with more than double the population.   When you have a population density of 251 people per square mile, it is easier to serve and make money.   Try making money in rural Oklahoma or Kansas when the population density is hovering around 3 people per square mile.


Cite for you:
https://www.infoplease.com/world/population-statistics/population-density-square-mile-countries
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/population-density#map

Rural access, while important, has zero to do with Net Neutrality. The big ISPs that are fighting against Net Neutrality don’t even provide service to rural areas except in the case of LECs (AT&T/Verizon) offering DSL service in rural areas that are close enough to the local central office. The big cable companies have been dumping rural area systems for decades. That’s why in Tulsa we have Cox and in Okmulgee and Muskogee they have Suddenlink. Companies like Suddenlink and CableOne have been buying up rural systems that the big operators don’t want. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Cox and the like don’t even exist in rural areas. Even the big LECs lately have been dumping rural phone systems.

Your population density argument is invalid as to price/quality.

The problem is, and this is a big reason for Net Neutrality, is consumers don’t have enough options. Even in large cities most people just two options for broadband. The have whichever LEC is the local phone provider and they have the franchised cable provider. No one else exists and those two operators are very good at keeping out any more competition. Companies that build new networks to compete with the local phone or cable company, known as Overbuilders, have a very tough time and are not common. Even Google tried and failed at becoming an Overbuilder.

Japan.  Korea.  Belgium.  UK.  Germany.  France.  Canada.  Plus others of widely varying population sizes and densities.

We pay twice as much and on average theirs is 8 times faster.  Solely due to lack of competition.

In addition, if we as a society are going to play the game where we claim to be interested in STEM topics and education, and use the internet as much as we do for learning aids as an integral part of the nations school curriculum, then internet is NOT a "luxury" - it is a required utility.  And should be provided by cities/towns or at the very least allow more operators to participate.  We do it with telephones - no excuse not to do it with internet.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/internet-u-s-compare-globally-hint-slower-expensive/

It is a valid argument when you consider NECA and the rates that are mandated to rural ILECs.   It makes it difficult to offer service at an affordable rate and there is no competition as there is not enough population to make it worthwhile. 

Rural regulations have zero impact on the price or service for the vast majority of Americans that are serviced by just two major player ISPs, one LEC with FTTH/FTTN and one cable company using DOCSIS via HFC. And since there are just two options for most Americans there's very little price or service pressure on the ISPs, which means regulation is needed to protect consumers.

The public thinks the AT&T and Verizon compete, and their wireless subsidiaries do, but the parent companies on wired side do not. The same for cable, Cox does not compete with Comcast or Charter.

It may sound like there are lots of ISP options because lots of names get tossed about, but in real world, most people have a total of two options which isn't real competition.

That is the plaintive bleat of the "Harvard School of Business" MBA-world view - difficult to offer "service" !!  Same crock-o-carp used in the 30's by corporate America to resist universal electrification of the nation.  And universal telephonification of the country, too!   (Like my new word??)   Rural water took much longer, sadly, but especially in NE Oklahoma, it is mandatory since the oil companies were allowed to trash the water table throughout this quarter of the state with no recourse or consequences - you can't get a water well anywhere here that's fit to drink!

That's why there were co-ops and vital, necessary utilities like that ended up getting done by municipalities, counties, states, and Federal govt.  As it should be today with internet !!

The lack of population densities is why most rural telephone companies receive high cost support (That USF surcharge on the bottom of your phone bill)   I guess I look at it skewed as the industry I am in supports these little telephone companies.  I also realize that they can't charge the customers what it truly costs for service. 

It just seems that more and more of the costs keep getting shifted over to the consumer and that the Netflix, Amazon video, and Youtubes of the world keep finding ways to line their own pockets. 

It has always been the consumer that pays for goods and services and ALL taxes and fees...ALL costs!!  Corporations NEVER pay taxes!!   Let me repeat that - Corporations NEVER pay taxes!   It IS the ultimate consumer of whatever goods or services are sold that pay taxes!   ALL of them!!  Corporations act as the pass-thru agent.   Simple 5th grade economics that most just don't seem able to grasp.  Because they are not as smart as a 5th grader!


Related to this is the corollary RWRE Big Lie that poor people don't pay taxes - like income tax and property tax.   They do pay - at a vastly disproportionately higher rate than richer people.  Because it is embedded in every rent check and every retail purchase from gas to groceries to cigarettes or whatever, it is easy for the RWRE to divert attention from the truth by spewing the falsehood with continuous repetition.

Support??  Supply equipment??

That pretty much, in a kind of back-handed way, makes the case for public utility status of these functions.  Co-ops, city systems, county systems.  Would much rather add this to the 'water bill' than to be stuck with something inadequate - and really, truly a joke in today's world - such as Totah Communications!   There really is no excuse for that kind of operation to exist without changing to a modern functionality.  IF they cannot or will not fix their system, they deserve to be out of business.  Replaced by a public utility system.  Like a rural water district....

Universal fiber should be the minimum standard wherever copper exists today.  And should be installed within MONTHS from now - NOT YEARS!!    And the lame RWRE BS about how much it would cost - well, the copper lines cost proportionately much more than fiber at the time they were installed.  You can buy 6 fiber direct burial for under a buck a foot or so....   1,000 fiber direct burial is available in the $15 to $20 per foot - in fairly small quantities!  And different varieties/prices between...  It is a one time installation on the order of copper, so will last just as long with much better quality.    ( 40km single fiber single mode - $3,800.   About 5 miles. )   Don't know what the long haul, trunk fiber costs, but it isn't much at all compared to copper!

No excuse except for capitalistic monopolism.  Which is the direct antithesis of Capitalism!

Small rural providers serve so few people they are a statistical blip.

In Q1 2017 there were about 92 million broadband subscriptions in the US.

60 million from cable providers. 57 million of them are served by Comcast, Charter, Cox and Altice. These companies never compete with each other.

32 million subscriptions from phone companies, 27 million of those are from the big three LECs: AT&T, Verizon and Centurylink. These companies never compete with each other.

91% of the broadband market is controlled by seven very large companies that rarely serve rural customers and no one household ever has access to more than two of them.

Net Neutrality protects the consumer from a lack of competition due to an effective duopoly on broadband service.

It could protect them. 

What we really need is less monopolism.

I'd love to see municipal broadband like many municipalities have done.  Not large (I think the largest is likely Chattanooga TN) but still.

Problem is that the big telco lobbying arms get involved in getting states to pass laws restricting or outright banning munis.

Electric companies can provide broadband too, on their existing electrical lines.

Wireless is probably the future, but we have allowed our wired telcos to control nearly all the wireless spectrum. A Sprint/Charter merger would make that only more true.

http://bgr.com/2017/08/01/sprint-charter-merger-2017-sources/

What's next Cox and T-Mobile?

How about AT&T merger with Time Warner??   Even more monopolism.  Bad for us.  Bad for US.

And how about that CEO of AT&T - President of the Boy Scouts...  yeah, I know - "fulfilling a tradition" in inviting Trump to talk.  But mostly sucking up so this merger will go through better/faster.

Time Warner is a content company, they spun off Time Warner Cable a few years ago, which was then swallowed by Charter a year ago along with Brighthouse and is now called Spectrum. I'm not saying the merger is a good thing, but it's not really related to Net Neutrality.  It's AT&Ts play to become more like Comcast.

I think it will all be moot in a few years when we all use drones or satellite for our interwebz.   (I'm sure all the microwaves will also give us superbabies.)


https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/23/15861658/ajit-pai-fcc-oneweb-approval-satellite-launch-space-internet

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/02/facebook-drone-aquila-internet-test-flight-arizona

More monopolism/oligarchy.  Less capitalism.

We will see if it works. The old AT&T, before they were bought out by SBC, tried to be an everything media company and went down in flames. The Comcast that exists today really started when Comcast bought out the spun off AT&T Cable about 15 years ago.

I was there when AT&T lost control and ended up dying. I ran the first group that tried to sell consumers cells phones, internet, cable and phone services all at the same time by one person. It was a nearly impossible feat that we somewhat pulled off. But it was too costly to do and AT&T then was too dysfunctional.

They understood wired telephones and really not much else - after the Bell system breakup, they floundered dramatically.  You must have really enjoyed THAT ride..!!   Not!!   SWMBO was SBC for 25 years and STILL getting hosed by that company - as all retirees are - years after being forced into retirement...

Their horrendous lack of management is what sent T down the tubes.  And the raping/pillaging on long distance...it's no wonder Verizon came along and grew so fast!   I still have a long distance prepaid card I carry just as reminder - there are still about 600 minutes on it...I called about two weeks ago and checked!

After the SBC guy - can't remember his name - started stitching Bell back together, it was SBC that pulled all the Bells along and got it working again.  He had already gotten a few of the baby Bells before going after T.   I think it was a kind of 'paternal' emotional thing for him more than good business sense - all he had to do was wait and T would have disappeared in a few years anyway and they could have scooped up the remains for nothing.  They did get a lot of fiber and long lines, so maybe that was worth $16 billion...or close to it.

Whitacre.  Ed Whitacre...  funny how little triggers can get you to remember 20+ year old stuff...

My company was just a vendor in the project, but one that was majority owned by AT&T. The conference calls were epic. 40 people on the call and they all hated each other and cared for more about protecting each of their little fiefdoms than success. You could watch the company dying in real time.

Then as part of the AT&T meltdown, we were sold off to be majority owned by Newscorp. Which was even more fun.

TV Guide?

Yes, at that time it was called United Video and then TV Guide. United Video bought TV Guide Magazine from Newscorp and we renamed ourselves TV Guide. That deal was also how our majority ownership changed from AT&T to Newscorp. It was something like a $5 billion deal.

When we sold the magazine years later we sold it for $1.

Wow.  I had quite a few co-workers down through the years who had previously worked for TVG...hell, even when I worked at Bender Direct Mail we did a lot of you guys' mail and I remember we got confused during the sell off when we'd get work orders with United Video on them and then almost the same orders with TV Guide.  I remember a division (maybe I'm mistaken) called Superstar that got written up on work orders and I remember writing an FTP script for you guys so you would no longer have to courier 9-track tapes to us.  That ages me.

Yes, I worked for Superstar and for TV Guide Enterprise Solutions. Many years ago. Superstar is still there, kind of, it was sold to Dish Network as the old C-Band dishes died. I used to manage the relationship between TV Guide/Superstar and Dish.