Didn't this only place limits on Hulu specifically? And once the agreement expires, what points to any expectation that Comcast will agree to further limitations?[/QUOTE] This is not just for Hulu specifically because Comcast is only a silent partner in Hulu. This applied to all traffic on their network thus the claim of them throttling Netfix is ridiculous. People dont do enough research and just believe what they want when they read an editorial. There's always incentive to negotiate with the FCC especially when you are in M&A mode. Good behavior goes a long way for a future acquisition of a Tmobile/Sprint.
Did I not say there were a couple ISP's before the WWW? TheWorld and Telenet were a couple for example. You're taking a sliver of fact and creating a falsehood of fantasy. You believe a dialup BBS operator who puts up his own content is the precursor to Comcast wanting to lock their users in Comcasts private web. I still dont understand what the creation of the WWW has anything to do with NN. When a person calls you out on your nonsense, you resort to childish temper tantrums spewing out insults. ISP's are not going to blacklist or disrupt legit sites. Customers will not tolerate it nor will the government.
Customers WILL tolerate it if they only have a choice of one or two service providers where they live. 2 choices isn't nearly enough as that can easily form a pseudo cartel where both ISPs have a mutual off the books agreement. The government will tolerate it if there are no regulations in place that specifies that those actions are not allowed.
There are always multiple choices. You can choose wireless hot spots or satellite if you dont want a cable company or the ILEC. It costs billions to build infrastructure. If a giant like Google failed, who else is willing to invest that type of money so you can have another "choice" since you dont think there are enough? Nice conspiracy theory on ISP's working together. If two can partner together to screw you, why cant 3 or 4?
It's ironic you say that. Yes, it costs billions in infrastructure... Financed by tax payers. That means it's more of a utility than a free market service. And lol if you think wireless hotspots and satellite internet is a viable permanent replacement for a hard line fiber optic or cable line.
Conspiracy theory? Half assed barely legal cartels have always been apart of our free market and stems from the prisoner's dilemma.
Wireless will never catch up to fiber unless there is a significant discovery. Wireless will never be as fast or efficient as a good ol hardwired connection. Data demands are far outpacing what wireless can handle. 5G will open up new products and markets, but it will not be the end all solution.
The Eisenhower interstate system was one of the best government programs out there. We are long past due for a similar system for communications/utilities. A public right of way should be created along side every road in this country. Instead of communication companies paying power utilities to string wire on their poles, they all should pay the government to use the right of way which would be maintained by the government. Point to point wireless solutions can be used just as effective as fiber, however you are limited to line of site issues.
MSO infrastructure is not financed by the government and one of the main reasons they will not be classified as a utility company. The current ruling that they are a utility will go to the Supreme Court. My point in mentioning the satellite and wireless options is to point out that there are other choices. Whether you think it is viable or not is subjective.
Exactly. The incorrect assumptions years ago was that wireless can provide competition. Pipe dream. Not going to happen. It's not that wireless doesn't get faster, just that the needs also grow as fast if not faster.
you are the one who stated that compuserve was birthed out of the WWW. then I called you out on the ridiculous statement and you instead accuse me of fantasy? just admit you have no clue what you are talking about. ISP's are going to control the content to maximize profit. This is the model they operate other services. Why you think it will be different is unknown. Even the founder of WWW is fighting for NN to prevent the ISPs from destroying his creation. Come back when you are ready to be honest.
How has Google failed? We had our neighborhood wired for Google Fiber not that long ago. Our download and upload speeds rose one hell of a lot, and our bill dropped considerably, even though we have more premium channels than we had before. The equipment is much more sophisticated than what we had had with what used to be Time/Warner. We had been with T/W Cable since 1980. No longer. We're getting damn good service from that "failed company."
This is why I can't take your posts serious. You think just because you have it means a rural rancher in Montana should be able to get it too. Just because you're able to get it doesnt make it a success. Its a failure because they have changed their plans in rolling it out in other cities and they have no intentions on expanding the service than their current markets. If every house in your neighborhood got it but you couldn't get it, you would be the first to call it a failure. Your perspective stops at the tip of your nose. This is on par with all of your posts.
kinda like how you make up that compuserve was born out of the www? Deckard at least states facts and doesn't pull crap out of his ass
You can watch Netflix on wire https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time...oogle-fiber-new-ceo-more-job-cuts/?source=dam That is the definition of failure in business terms. Personnel and budget cuts, low revenue with high costs, no future deployments with a shift in products.
How will this affect Clutchfans.net? As long as LakersGround and Spurs Talk has their bandwidth throttled in favor of here, I'm actually ok with this plan.
