Why Super-Fast Internet Is Coming Super Slowly

[ChumpDumper]

I have no idea, and I bet they wouldn't tell me (truthfully) if I asked.

Are they a Big Corp?

[boutons_deux]

The state of city-run Internet

the Federal Communications Commission, nation’s top Internet regulator, will vote on whether to overturn a state law that prevents Tennessee cities that operate their own broadband networks from expanding to other towns.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, N.C. each filed pe ions with the FCC challenging their states’ respective laws. There are almost 400 city-operated broadband networks nationwide. But their expansion is limited because 20 states currently restrict the ability of municipalities to offer or expand Internet service.

If the laws are struck down, Jones could look forward to homes and businesses in Manchester hooking into Tullahoma’s network, which is one of the fastest in the world. Tullahoma has been considering doing just that for years, but has been blocked.

Jones has a message for the five FCC commissioners who will vote on pre-empting the state laws.

“I would like for the officials there to actually come to a community such as ours and see what’s happening,” Jones said, tears in her eyes. “It seems like sometimes that we’re almost in a third-world country because we are isolated, we have no voice, … and the [FCC] needs to start getting us all the means we need to get our community to grow.”

The Center for Public Integrity first reported on the requests in July. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler appears amenable to the requests.

Wheeler has repeatedly said he would pre-empt state laws that ban or place barriers on cities that want to build or expand broadband networks if he were asked to do so.

President Obama weighed in on the issue last month in a speech in Cedar Falls, Iowa.\

“If there are state laws in place that prohibit or restrict these community-based broadband efforts,” Obama said, “we should do everything we can to push back against those old laws.”

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/...eid=3b8f64cce8


another case where "supply side" HIGH BARRIER to entry: politicians OWNED by BigISP

[ElNono]

Do you think Google -- an advertising company -- isn't collecting their users' data to customize advertising?

lol

To be fair, Google collects user data only while using Google's services. AT&T on the other hand, wants to collect your entire online activity (places you went to, links you clicked, stuff you bought, etc)...

I suspect they'll have a browser plugin or extension to do that, as HTTPS would preclude from sniffing on the connection.

[ChumpDumper]

To be fair, Google collects user data only while using Google's services. AT&T on the other hand, wants to collect your entire online activity (places you went to, links you clicked, stuff you bought, etc)...

I suspect they'll have a browser plugin or extension to do that, as HTTPS would preclude from sniffing on the connection.

That's a little naive I think. Google pretty much tracks what it wants while you are signed in. And when is one not signed in?

I'm fine with AT&T's being upfront about the whole thing. It's tough to compare services on price alone since Google could just subsidize the crap out of their service without feeling it. Guess I'll learn more when it comes to my neighborhood.

[ElNono]

That's a little naive I think. Google pretty much tracks what it wants while you are signed in. And when is one not signed in?

Actually, they track while you use their services. Signing in or not. Obviously, if an external page has google ads or double-click tracking (one of their companies), then you're obviously tracked too.

But if you actually go to a page without Google services on it (ie: Spurstalk*), then they don't track. Some companies take the time to go through your browsing history, etc, but Google doesn't do that.

I'm not sure what their policy is if you're using Chrome though.

* Spurstalk, while it has no ads, does have chartbeat.com tracking on the main page. I don't know if it's merely to catch usage metrics, or if they monetize.

I'm fine with AT&T's being upfront about the whole thing. It's tough to compare services on price alone since Google could just subsidize the crap out of their service without feeling it. Guess I'll learn more when it comes to my neighborhood.

I'm fine with it too, although I wouldn't personally take on the offer.

[boutons_deux]

"while you use their services"

.... includes google search, google chrome, google drive.

I use two RSS readers (not google). clicking on a link in the readers always goes through an intermediate link of "feedproxy. google.com", so the google tracking is deep and pervasive.

[Winehole23]

I use two RSS readers

to spam us with

[boutons_deux]

to spam us with

I'm casting pearls before swine

[ElNono]

"while you use their services"

.... includes google search, google chrome, google drive.

I use two RSS readers (not google). clicking on a link in the readers always goes through an intermediate link of "feedproxy. google.com", so the google tracking is deep and pervasive.

That's how the reader author set it up... if it bothers you, you should go with a different reader.

[boutons_deux]

That's how the reader author set it up... if it bothers you, you should go with a different reader.

I use one reader on windows, and another brand reader on android. both do the same. I don't want host-based reader, only web based.

[Winehole23]

I'm casting pearls before swine

take that back. it's insulting to pigs.

[boutons_deux]

take that back. it's insulting to pigs.

y'all pigs ain't too smart, ingest the pearls, may inform y'all

[ElNono]

I use one reader on windows, and another brand reader on android. both do the same. I don't want host-based reader, only web based.

If you're using feedburner, you can disable the feedproxy links...

http://w3guy.com/change-feedburner-website-permalink/

Then again, feedburner is owned by Google, so it doesn't really matter, I guess.

[TeyshaBlue]

y'all pigs ain't too smart, ingest the pearls, may inform y'all

*enlightened progressive post*

[boutons_deux]

*enlightened progressive post*

TB where ya been? thanks for stalkin me.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB where ya been? thanks for mocking me.

Fify

[ElNono]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local compe ion

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...l-compe ion/

[boutons_deux]

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local compe ion

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...l-compe ion/

Dems on FCC and Obama KICKIN ASS, while the Congressional Repugs kick each others' asses.

Let's hear the TX Repugs , whine, moan, outrage about "states rights".

[ElNono]

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-latest-votes/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans in Congress already trying to overturn FCC’s latest votes

US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today filed legislation to overturn the municipal broadband decision the Federal Communications Commission made earlier in the day.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-latest-votes/

To fail in the Senate. At very last, it would be vetoed by Obama. Repugs grandstanding for the redneck base.

[Winehole23]

like so many other in bent ISPs, Time Warner Cable has grown all-too comfortable with the lack of broadband compe ion it enjoys across most of its territory. Some markets are worse than others, usually not-coincidentally directly tied to the level of regulatory capture in a region. In the Carolinas, the company has worked tirelessly to protect its regional monopoly and duopoly, passing a bill in North Carolina (on the fourth try) preventing towns and cities from improving regional broadband. Company execs have also downplayed the rise of gigabit broadband, proudly informing users they don't really want faster, cheaper services.


Now Time Warner Cable is facing the worst-case scenario for a government-pampered duopolist. One, the FCC has moved to pre-empt Time Warner Cable's protectionist law in North Carolina, arguing it hinders the deployment of broadband services in a reasonable and timely basis. Two, Google Fiber recently announced it will be expanding $70, gigabit services (you know, the ones users don't need or want) into Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte sometime in the next year. The one-two punch of regulators thinking independently and increased compe ion has to be a nightmarish scape for company executives.


Time Warner Cable has of course responded by announcing it is increasing speeds in Charlotte and Raleigh six fold (to 300 Mbps) at no additional charge sometime this summer:

"Starting this week, customers will receive communications from TWC outlining the first phase of the project as the company begins the process of creating a 100% digital network..."With ‘TWC Maxx,’ we’re essentially reinventing the TWC experience,” said Darrel Hegar, regional vice president of operations, Time Warner Cable. “We will boost Internet speeds for customers up to six times faster, add to our robust TWC WiFi, dramatically improve the TV product and set a high bar in our industry for differentiated, exceptional customer service."

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...me-price.shtml

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...me-price.shtml

Yep, exactly what happened in Austin.

Funny thing is Google's merely considering San Antonio as a fiber market made TWC go ahead and increase internet speeds there.

[spursncowboys]

Time Warner

[boutons_deux]

TWC own enough NC Confederate Repugs!

and Repugs are ing about donations to Clinton charity affecting Hillary policies?

North Carolina Sues FCC To Keep Limits On Municipal Broadband

It’s been a big year for North Carolina in terms of improving the Internet connections for many of its residents. Google Fiber will bring new options to multiple markets in the state, and the FCC acted against a state law that limits municipal broadband providers from expanding their services.

But rather than acknowledge that maybe it shouldn’t let Time Warner Cable dictate state laws, North Carolina has sued the FCC.Last week, the state filed a pe ion [PDF] with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking review of the FCC order from February that allows the city of Wilson, NC, to expand its municipal broadband network outside of its home county.

Even though Wilson’s city-operated power company was selling service to six other counties, a 2011 state law, backed by Time Warner Cable, prohibited the city from offering its broadband service outside the county border. The city said it had been forced to deny multiple requests for service because of this law.

In February, the FCC voted to preempt that state law, and a similar one in Tennessee, saying that they were in conflict with the FCC’s statutory obligation to encourage the deployment of high-speed Internet connections.

The state’s pe ion alleges that the FCC “unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions,” that the Commission overstepped its authority, and that the order is “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

The FCC (or at least the three commissioners who voted in favor of this order) has maintained that federal law gives it the authority to intervene when a state or local statute inhibits the deployment of broadband.

Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act states that all state agencies in charge of regulating telecommunications “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans… by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote compe ion in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.”

That law also dictates that if the FCC finds that broadband is not being adequately deployed to all Americans, if shall take “immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting compe ion in the telecommunications market.”

http://consumerist.com/2015/05/18/no...pal-broadband/

[Winehole23]

public resource monopolies screw the public:

It raises the question of why prices for every major tech product and service have fallen, except cable and satellite television. The answer comes to us from Economics 101: it is a function of compe ion, of which there is very little in that industry. Add to that the cost in time and energy of switching providers; it's so aggravating to drop Comcast as your cable provider that a new service will spare you the pain and charge $5 to do it for you.


As a nation we do a very poor job of managing compe ion and adopting the needed standards to improve market efficiency. Television services are just one example. Consider how inadequate mobile-phone service is in the U.S. versus Europe and much of Asia. Instead of assuming compe ion would create better coverage and connectivity, those regions mandated a minimum level of quality in exchange for leasing public airwaves. The same is true for Internet service: it's much more reliable, faster and cheaper overseas. Because we don't fully grasp the limits of compe ion and the profit motive, we end up with inferior services in technologies that the U.S. invented.


It seems impossible, however, to have a serious conversation about this as long as rich companies buy off elected officials who grant special tax breaks, dispensations and exemptions. You can pretty much name any intractable problem in the U.S. and you can trace it back to the money corrupting the political process.


Compe ion is a wonderful thing, making most of today's products and services better and cheaper. But where there are monopolies, especially those that entail use of public resources, minimum standards are needed.


The alternative is what we have: Expensive, slow Internet connections, costly cable TV with unresponsive customer service and perhaps the world’s worst mobile-phone networks.


There's no reason we should be satisfied with any of it.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...ou-nice-things