BlackDynamite
Android Expert
EarlyMon for President! You've got my vote!
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Net Neutrality?
- Thread starter jaywigz311
- Start date
lmfa0!
I don't even want to be king.
I don't even want to be king.
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
How so? I don't see how all these big corporations getting what they want and screwing the general public is an example of socialism. Quite the opposite.
I can guarantee you, if Obama put his foot down and put a stop to this, and forced wireless carriers to follow real net neutrality, all the Republicans would be saying that is socialism.
I swear, most of the people screaming socialism have no idea what the word even means...
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
I know what socialism is, and if it can be kept honest and un-corrupted then it is good, problem is that is an impossibility thanks to human nature and you are a half-a-hair away from communism at that point.
At the core of the matter is somebody wants to control what you see and hear, doesn't matter who does it, business or government it is wrong. If our government won't step up to protect our rights then we need to exercise our constitutional rights and install a government that will.
Mark my words, this country will go one of two ways if the people don't step up, socialism or rule by corporation (it is already pretty damn close to this now).
If Obama put his foot down and said I am going to have eggs for breakfast there would probably be cries of socialism, that is what is now tied to him irrevocably. But there are Republicans who are on the side of Neutrality, as well as Democrats opposed to it.
At the core of the matter is somebody wants to control what you see and hear, doesn't matter who does it, business or government it is wrong. If our government won't step up to protect our rights then we need to exercise our constitutional rights and install a government that will.
Mark my words, this country will go one of two ways if the people don't step up, socialism or rule by corporation (it is already pretty damn close to this now).
If Obama put his foot down and said I am going to have eggs for breakfast there would probably be cries of socialism, that is what is now tied to him irrevocably. But there are Republicans who are on the side of Neutrality, as well as Democrats opposed to it.
Obama understood the issue clearly and campaigned in favor of it.
Upon election, he put a fox in charge of the henhouse on this one, and he fully knew it.
That's another case of it being that simple.
Upon election, he put a fox in charge of the henhouse on this one, and he fully knew it.
That's another case of it being that simple.
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
lmfa0!
I don't even want to be king.
"It's good to be the king!"-Mel Brooks, History of the World Part 1
Hate that -
It's a binary and there's no third way.
Everything else is hijacking the term for FUD and RDF purposes.
Having some form of net neutrality is like having some form of pregnancy.
It's a binary and there's no third way.
Everything else is hijacking the term for FUD and RDF purposes.
So there is an agreed upon definition of 'net neutrality' set in stone somewhere? Wikipedia lists four:
Network neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm saddened that you might think that when I announced earlier that I was busy today that I might expect anyone to use a bit of humor as a source for something this serious.
The EFF is simply something to be aware of in any case, they're the only organization I'm aware of in any actual legal battles over this issue.
When I have time, I may visit wikipedia and see what the confusions are.
All I was saying still applies - words mean things. Net neutrality is a simple thing with a simple meaning.
I challenged the idea that Google is for "some form" of net neutrality because earlier in this thread, I specifically called them out for claiming that content filtering and throttling is ok. Schmidt said that in his net neutrality rant in a single sentence defining for the sheeple what net neutrality is.
And be very aware of what's happening, because it's simple: Google and Verizon had a closed door session with the FCC and we still do not know what was discussed to this day - other than both saying they were partnering in their concept and were happy that the FCC understood.
I don't understand the need to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in this issue.
Net neutrality was the term that those of us who began protesting at the beginning used to simply say - leave it alone.
Content or protocol filtering or throttling - not ok.
Quality of service - ok.
That I'm required to externally define something I've been a part of for years is ok by me - but it's going to have to wait.
Instead of asking me to repeatedly define something simple, how about getting on the horn with your congress critter and demanding to know what happened in that closed-door session with the FCC, Google and Verizon?
The app I recommend is called Congress, it's free in the Market.
The EFF is simply something to be aware of in any case, they're the only organization I'm aware of in any actual legal battles over this issue.
When I have time, I may visit wikipedia and see what the confusions are.
All I was saying still applies - words mean things. Net neutrality is a simple thing with a simple meaning.
I challenged the idea that Google is for "some form" of net neutrality because earlier in this thread, I specifically called them out for claiming that content filtering and throttling is ok. Schmidt said that in his net neutrality rant in a single sentence defining for the sheeple what net neutrality is.
And be very aware of what's happening, because it's simple: Google and Verizon had a closed door session with the FCC and we still do not know what was discussed to this day - other than both saying they were partnering in their concept and were happy that the FCC understood.
I don't understand the need to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in this issue.
Net neutrality was the term that those of us who began protesting at the beginning used to simply say - leave it alone.
Content or protocol filtering or throttling - not ok.
Quality of service - ok.
That I'm required to externally define something I've been a part of for years is ok by me - but it's going to have to wait.
Instead of asking me to repeatedly define something simple, how about getting on the horn with your congress critter and demanding to know what happened in that closed-door session with the FCC, Google and Verizon?
The app I recommend is called Congress, it's free in the Market.
You're missing the point. There is only so much bandwidth. Only so much spectrum. At some point it doesn't matter WHO you are using, the airwaves will be saturated, and you won't be able to make a phone call, because people are trying to watch movies.
No, it doesn't. a finite resources has a limit. Once you reach that limit... there's nothing else more that you can do with it. There is a limited amount of data we can bandy about over the air. Once we reach that limit...we're done with wireless...
I have to sincerely disagree. Providers don't make the innovations, they just take advantage of them.
Customers leave. Customers are expected to leave AT&T in droves for the Verizon iPhone (as their contracts expire) because they are NOT happy with AT&T.
Verizon works pretty hard to keep customers happy, BTW.
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
Speaking of legal battles over this, these guys have been fighting for net neutrality since day 1, and they have a campaign going to get the Senate to enforce net nuetrality right now:
SaveTheInternet.com | Defend Free Speech on the Internet
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
No, you're missing the point. You keep arguing the theoretical problems of tomorrow, against the technology of today. By the time we reach the theoretical limit of 4G, 5G (probably 7G) will have long since been implemented. And with that comes much greater limits to the number of users and the amount of data the limited spectrum can handle. But nobody will work to discover/implement such technologies if they can just force everyone to make the technology of today last forever.
Bull. If that were the case, we would have been done with wireless many years ago. Instead of being done with it, new technologies were invented that made the limited amount of spectrum work for more users, with more data, at faster data speeds. Again, the number of people and the amount of data on wireless today was not possible in 1993.
Providers don't make the innovations now, true. They just ask for legislation that allows them to stifle use instead. But back in the day there was a Bell Labs that used to turn out all kinds of stuff. Remember those AT&T commercials predicting the future?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8
Nowadays AT&T is locking down their phones, limiting data, preventing certain apps, etc.
Yes, Verizon got the iPhone and gave customers plenty of reasons to sign a new 2 year contract with Verizon (with the new, higher ETF). That is not an example of Verizon making people want to stay. If they were so confident that people wanted to stay, they wouldn't be raising ETF fees. Their job is to get you to sign a contract. After that, their job is to get the next guy to sign a contract. And eventually their job is to get you to sign another contract. The time in between is of no concern to them.
I see what you are saying, but you are failing to grasp something very important.
We can send no more data over 4G than we could over 3G. Each user can take up more of the overall limit of what can be sent.
5G, 6G, 7G, all the same. We will be allowing individual users to use more and more of the limit, but we aren't moving the limit of what can be transmitted over the airwaves.
Hence, how you are missing the point.
You are right. Wireless digital communications weren't possible in 1993.
We have not reached a saturation point, and likely won't for a couple of years, but once we do... we've reached it, and we can't invent more spectrum.
Providers have never been wireless digital communication labs. That's something that research firms create and license to the providers. That's always been the case.
Look around this forum. Read the threads regarding complaints about Verizon. Most of us have dealt with Verizon customer service at one point or another, and the majority of users on this forum are happy with Verizon. That doesn't happen by accident. The fact that the majority of users ARE happy with Verizon should tell you that they are working to make it that way.
Verizon has the highest customer satisfaction rating of ALL of the US wireless carriers. That should say something as well.
I guess, that's just a happy accident?
Verizon leads carriers in customer satisfaction | Wireless - CNET News
Ok, maybe that one wasn't popular, but this is a must read:
Mobile network 'guilty' of 'charging for stuff' ? The Register
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
You are wrong. 4G can absolutely handle more data than 3G or 2G. I saw this whole presentation on how Wimax can handle more data than HSPA+ a while back. Wimax could handle more users, at faster speeds, with the same spectrum. You really need to do some research on this because you are wrong.
Exactly. And who is to say we will be using digital communications in 15 years? Maybe some new technology will be invented if the industry is forced to innovate.
Again, this is not true. You are speculating about the problems of tomorrow with the technology of today. You don't need more spectrum in order to get more use. Adding spectrum is certainly one way to expand, but it isn't the only way. Going from analog to digital is a prime example of this. So is going from 2G to 4G.
Again, you're wrong. Bell Labs was a major innovator back in the day. They later changed their name to Lucent, and are currently a major player in wireless equipment (and even have news from this years MWC).
The majority of people on this forum were also happy with Sprint's customer service over the last several years, while Sprint was dead last in customer service rankings. That doesn't mean anything. What does Verizon do to keep customers? I can bring up several examples, such as when customers were over charged for data and had to class action sue to get it back. Or when Verizon started putting caps on their supposedly unlimited data plan.
It doesn't say anything, lol. All the other carriers practice the same business model- lock them into a contract. Compare Verizon's customer service to say, Red Lobster's, or any other "top of the line" place in any industry that doesn't lock their customers into a contract. No comparison.
Not an accident, just an example of you comparing Verizon to a bunch of other companies that don't care about customer service either. They all practice the same business model- lock the customers into a contract. Compare any of them to the customer service you get from companies that actually care about customer service- you know, where there is plenty of competition and you are not bound by contract to keep coming back (like a fine restaurant, a chartered or first class flight, a 5 star hotel, limo, etc). For being at the top of their industry, their customer service sure is a long way behind the other leaders of their industries in customer service. Verizon is the most expensive, the 5 star, of carriers. Don't act like they are so great just because they are better than the others (who are also pretty bad).
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
Wow, I can't believe AT&T was shortsighted enough not to predict the end of pay phones and phone booths with everything else they got right!?!?!
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
Wow, I can't believe AT&T was shortsighted enough not to predict the end of pay phones and phone booths with everything else they got right!?!?!
lol, if it were up to AT&T we'd still be using phone booths and pay phones.
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
Anyone who believes Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, TMobile or for that matter any other company out there is in it to keep the customers happy is deluding themselves. There is one basic drive behind all companies, greed, and the ability to control the pipeline and what goes over it is a major cash cow for them. This is neither fair or right for the customers who are paying for internet access, not internet control. The big business attitude is we are here for them, not the other way around and they will use whatever is at their disposal to squeeze every possible cent out of us they can.
Nor is it fair to the business trying to reach those customers. I'll give an example of what the companies are being accused of that will put it in perfect light. You own business X, your competitor who has deep pockets owns business Y. For arguments sake lets say you do 99% of your business on the phone, how would you like it if all of a sudden the telephone company says "Guess what, we are going to artificially control the number of calls you can receive in a day, if you want to receive more calls then you will have to pay this much money. On top of that, only calls of a certain context or from a specific group or region will be allowed." You produce the same product, but yours is vastly superior, the only difference between the companies is he was a "lucky sperm" trust fund baby, and by the telco's policy that gives him more right to customer access than you.
How is this a positive thing? How will this promote creativity, growth and new technology? Really, somebody tell me, because that is exactly what is going on here and all it is going to do is make small business and consumer choice disappear faster than it already is.
If you are foolish enough to think that given the power companies won't use it to their benefit and our detriment then count yourself among the sheeple, or a hopeless optimist, not sure which is worse.
Nor is it fair to the business trying to reach those customers. I'll give an example of what the companies are being accused of that will put it in perfect light. You own business X, your competitor who has deep pockets owns business Y. For arguments sake lets say you do 99% of your business on the phone, how would you like it if all of a sudden the telephone company says "Guess what, we are going to artificially control the number of calls you can receive in a day, if you want to receive more calls then you will have to pay this much money. On top of that, only calls of a certain context or from a specific group or region will be allowed." You produce the same product, but yours is vastly superior, the only difference between the companies is he was a "lucky sperm" trust fund baby, and by the telco's policy that gives him more right to customer access than you.
How is this a positive thing? How will this promote creativity, growth and new technology? Really, somebody tell me, because that is exactly what is going on here and all it is going to do is make small business and consumer choice disappear faster than it already is.
If you are foolish enough to think that given the power companies won't use it to their benefit and our detriment then count yourself among the sheeple, or a hopeless optimist, not sure which is worse.
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
I have to admit I'm nostalgic for those big blocky rotary phones.
In my opinion, byteware's right - hopefully, I can explain from a different direction that clarifies (not re-state with different words).
My supporting argument will be perpetual motion and technology vs. politics.
I've worked in and managed R&D for decades. Early on, I found what others had - some things were wildly successful, other things were failures - and the failures often seemed to have nothing to do with whether the R&D quality was good or bad. This issue plagues R&D management.
Over time, I found my answer - never use technology to solve political problems, never use politics to solve technological problems. IOW - before taking the steps to outline a solution - challenge the validity of the problem. Don't dispatch to sales or support what is really a product problem, don't fix a product when it's a support problem.
And problems are like wolves in sheep's clothing - often not what they seem on the surface.
Let's take 3/4/5/6/7G, satellite and land-based broadband.
Why?
This all started as a technology problem.
The more that the internet was used, the more uses were found for it. This led to demand for better speed. Buh-bye dial-up, hello broadband, technology to the rescue.
But now - it's different.
People are no longer grateful for broadband. They're upset because it's not broad enough with all the new shiny stuff - like movies, like virtual business management. This appears to be a technology issue and so better technology should solve this. But it's not a technology problem. It's a political problem.
The expectation is being fostered and managed in terms of speed and bandwidth.
The truth is that while no one predict the specifics, this is the new common denominator: the more it gets used, the more uses will be found, and there can never be enough bandwidth. The bandwidth model is broken.
To ignore this and push for bandwidth is to attempt to build a perpetual motion machine - not only will bandwidth never exceed demand, it will never catch up.
Managing it, legislating it - marketing it - all dead ends. So - 3G, 4G, 5G - all the same - will never move more data, or to be precise - will never move more APPARENT data.
How to solve? For the suppliers:
- Stop setting false expectations.
- Stop expecting technologists to give you throttling tools - because you'll get what you ask for.
- Leave things alone for R&D to catch up.
What can R&D do?
- On-the-fly data compression / decompression. We've been doing that since the 9600 baud modem. We continue to improve that. We've been do that with source material (like h.264). In fact - we know more about data compression than the consumer has ever dreamed of.
- Exploit multi-core processor technologies to make that happen. Things you think aren't compressible (winzip said so) - really are. They've just been too computationally expensive to do before. Existing data streams can be compressed by factors of dozens - on the fly - and decoded on the fly at the other end.
- Exploit new memory technologies, without which point 2 above can't happen.
- Solve the copyright theft issue without listening to management's version of what it's supposed to be. Content ought be protected but without DRM. This is also achievable.
- Build distributed-process devices. Stop putting everything into central processors.
Utopia? Nope. Not at all.
The new content we keep facing comes from new software and advanced processors. So - solve the distribution problem by focusing on the end result with new software and advanced processors. Don't try to solve it with bigger intertubes.