Third Party & Independents Archives

Net Neutrality, Yaahhhoooo

Passage of Net Neutrality into law is about the greatest thing since canned beer, IMO. Being a good ‘centrist’ I see this law as the best way to police/regulate the Internet providers.

I recall the bad ole days when Internet speed was something like 2400bps. There were few pictures or advertisements as I can recall. As speed increased so did price and so did advertising. Today, I surmise that a good 1/3 of Internet bandwidth is used for advertising. You are paying for the service and suffering the unwanted ads.

Way worse for television xmsn via cable and satellite. I can order a movie directed to one channel of perhaps a thousand channels. But, I can't sign up to receive just a half dozen channels that I would prefer to watch. I don't need sports, movie, porn, QVC channels and so on - - - And, every channel one does watch is nigh 30-40% commercials.

If the customer had any control over the channels/ads received then required bandwidth would drop by some 50%. Then, we could agree to regulate less. There would be plenty of excess bandwidth for Amazon and other big corps to suck up.

So, I'm big on Net Neutrality. Without it the big players would claim all the bandwidth is bought up and you will have to pay a little more for a lot less. Corps treat data just like a commodity, a la gasoline, etc.

I don't know much about FO but I would think there is sufficient bandwidth for several 'Comcasts'. Same with satellites to a lesser degree. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 3rd party centrists gov't that would implement policy to get a larger number of providers into the mix? Why not let a small company use some FO bandwidth to send a customer 4 or 5 channels, and so on - - -?

Why must we keep perpetuating the .1% ?

Can we think of other situations where corps have to be regulated lest they do us in?

Pharma's that add some flavoring to an existing drug in an effort to provide a 'new and improved drug' to prevent that existing drug from going generic.

Telephone companies that charge you for unwanted text messages.

Corps buying cheap crap overseas, refusing to label it as to source and passing if off as a good quality product. Cloth, sewing thread come to mind. I just rounded off a China made lug nut on my Silverado today.

If corps weren't regulated to some degree they absolutely would kills a bunch of us, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at February 26, 2015 8:39 PM
Comment #390239

I predict higher prices, slower speeds censorship and ever increasing taxes. I predict everyone will pay to have fiber optics ran 3 miles to provide 5 or 6 people with what will be then considered “high speed” when DSL would be only slightly slower and affordable by the customer

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 9:07 AM
Comment #390240

Al Gore might have “invented” the internet, but Obama just killed it

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 9:12 AM
Comment #390258

pp 49 in this url gives a good example of xmitting several light freqs simultaneously through a light pipe. Each light freq could represent a different company/provider. Why does Comcast want to hog the light?

Would it not be possible for a small provider to send me 3 or 4 channels for less than what Comcast will charge me for a 1000 channels? Several small providers could get together and lease/rent and share one light frequency further reducing their cost to give me 3 or 4 tv channels and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 27, 2015 1:08 PM
Comment #390268

It don’t work that way Roy. I was a fiber optic technician for about 20 years. You don’t buy or rent one fiber “pipe” (technically called a strand) A strand is part of a fiber cable which is made up of several strands. Each cable goes between two specific locations, say a server owned by Comcast and their satellite dish. For two or more companys to share a cable they would have to have their server in the same or adjoining rack in the same room of the same building. We would typically run a 6 or 12 strand cable from one server to another server in the same building. Usually only 2 or 4 strands would be used. The others were “dark” and used for redundancy. Fiber is used two strands at a time. One strand for transmitting and the other for receiving.

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 3:23 PM
Comment #390272

Roy, Let me try to explain the technical side of how you get your programs. I have Verizon Fios, so I will use that as an example. The infrastructure is set up with satellite dishes coming from the suppliers of the shows you watch. Fiber optic cable carries these shows to their equipment and to their servers which determines which package I pay for and sends those signals to me thru another fiber optic cable to my house where a transponder changes the signal from light pulses to electrical pulses. It then goes thru a “CAT 5 or CAT 6” cable to my router and then to my TV and computer and phone if I had that service. So, to provide Comcast or Cox signals to me would require those companies to rent the infrastructure and servers to provide service to me. Cheaper to build their own infrastructure.

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 3:38 PM
Comment #390275

Thanks tdobson for a very good explanation. Although your remarks about Al Gore and President Obama are fiction. Al Gore never ever said the he helped invent the internet but he did say the Clinton administration helped facilitate the invention of the internet which is true. Oh and Obama did not kill it either, it will be around for a long time but probably not in it’s present state because things change. I think your knowledge of fiber optics is formidable however your knowledge of politicians always seems a bit slanted to the right. But thanks for the 30,000 foot view of fiber optics.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 3:54 PM
Comment #390276

From the above url: “”The fibering of America began in the early 1980s. At that time, systems operated at 90 Mb/s. At this data rate, a single optical fiber could handle approximately 1300 simultaneous voice channels. Today, systems commonly operate at 10 Gb/s and beyond. This translates to over 130,000 simultaneous voice channels. Over the past five years, new technologies such as dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) and erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFA) have been used successfully to further increase data rates to beyond a terabit per second (>1000 Gb/s) over distances in excess of 100 km. This is equivalent to transmitting 13 million simultaneous phone calls through a single hair-size glass fiber. At this speed, one can transmit 100,000 books coast to coast in 1 second””

Not strong in FO technology but it seems reasonable to me that COMSAT could lease one light frequency channel of one fiber to a small provider, to include a server dedicated to that small company. Why not make some money off all that ‘dark fiber’ and redundancy cited in your post?

Article in today’s papers that the FCC has over–ruled some state laws that were preventing cities from offering higher bandwidths and expanding Internet service beyond their existing city infrastructure. Lobbyists had put money on state pols for years to get such laws in place. Now corps are lamenting that they will have to rebuy these Internet roadblocks through lobbying federal pols.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 27, 2015 4:29 PM
Comment #390277


Posted by: roy ellis at February 27, 2015 4:32 PM
Comment #390282

Technology is advancing at lightspeed now. I retired about 10 years ago and we were installing fiber that was carrying 100gig at the time. Terabit is not out of the question. Let’s take a scenario Roy. Say I own the big company and have the infrastructure set up to deliver cable to a neighborhood that Speak4all lives in. You and I both buy programs from Disney. Disney’s signal is sent to us via satellite to our prospective dishes. Speak can buy my package which includes Disney for $50 per month. You have Disney at your satellite dish and you want to sell it to Speak for $40 per month. How are you going to get it to him? First if I lease a few strands of fiber to you that goes to his neighborhood, how are you going to get the signal from your dish to my equipment? What about the installation and maintenance of the equipment at Speaks house? If I provide that, who will pay for it? I wouldn’t want your employees working with my cable because of liability. Your employee could easily sabotage my cable to hurt my business or they might not have the level of training I think they need. Also why would I want to lease cable to you so you could sell the same programs that I sell? If Speaks had a problem, who would he call?

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 6:14 PM
Comment #390285

By the way, You remember the “bad old days” when internet speed was 2400 bps. Before you got your router that has speeds of 10/100gigs per second there were modems that went as high as 54 Kilobytes per second. Initially they were called data machines and they ran at 300 baud That is 300 characters per second. Only the larger companies could afford them. Isn’t technology wonderful?

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 6:25 PM
Comment #390286


If not for the fact that more than half of internet usage is via mobile phones you might have a point.

Yes indeed, technology has marched on.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 27, 2015 7:13 PM
Comment #390287

I have to admit I’m not too well versed on wireless technology. How will Net Neutrality affect wireless? Right now I use Straight Talk for my cell phone. I renew my service once a month without a contract. Service is provided by T-Mobile. I have internet access thru it but not sure who it comes from. I can’t see any benefits of Net Neutrality with it. I see slower speeds coming and worse service but no benefits

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 7:30 PM
Comment #390288

Thinking about how cell service works. I buy service from Straight Talk. Straight Talk leases service and uses the towers of T Mobile. When I access the internet, I am getting access from T Mobile. There are all kinds of small companies who lease service or tower space from the big companies. Isn’t that what Roy wanted from Net Neutrality?

Posted by: tdobson at February 27, 2015 7:47 PM
Comment #390290

Tdobson, yes, we should have thousands of small providers where some would be looking to provide your Internet/data service. We need anti-trust bad to break up the large telcoms and create way more competition.

Straight Talk and you should not want a big Telcom selling super sized bandwidth to some customers while putting you in the slow data lane and so on - - -

I do agree with you that our data rates will go down and prices will increase. Within a couple of years the lobbyist will have bought enough congresspersons to defeat net neutrality. That’s just the way it is in the fast lane!!

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 27, 2015 8:49 PM
Comment #390292


The internet in the US is not the fastest, nor is the least expensive in the world, and the home internet providers have a virtual monopoly in the areas they “serve”.
Korea and Japan have internet service that is not just 3 times faster than ours, it’s less than half the price.
Hell, Iceland has service that is faster and cheaper than ours.
We’re being screwed by the “free market” that buys up the little guys and raises our prices.
Do you understand that there are communities here in the US that regulate the speed of our internet? That have legislated to keep the speeds down?

My job is in the telecom industry, and I have worked on three of the largest and fastest data centers in this country in just the last year and a half.

And there are more to come on line.

Unless something changes, this country will never get to realize the potential of these centers.

We have the capacity, we’re just not able to use it.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 27, 2015 9:49 PM
Comment #390293

Time to throw in the towel, Tdodson, you’ve pretty much been blown out of the water.

What we’ve got for Internet/data communciations is the ‘trickle down down rate’. We get the leftover bits the telcoms don’t/kain’t use and so on - - -

Ain’t it so, Rocky Marks, that the US consumer gets the shaft in nearly ever instance, where it be big pharma, healthcare, big telcoms, big energy corps and on and on??

What we need is a new 3rd party with a centrist attitude, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve - - basically the .1%

Posted by: roy ellis at February 27, 2015 11:03 PM
Comment #390296

I get it Roy. You don’t like big business.
Rocky, Never have I claimed that we have the fastest nor the cheapest service. I’m not arguing those merits. What I’m saying, and maybe it’s what you want, it that it will be taxed, prices will go up and speeds will go down. We will have censorship on content. I hope you are happy with that.

Posted by: tdobson at February 28, 2015 9:45 AM
Comment #390297


“What I’m saying, and maybe it’s what you want, it that it will be taxed, prices will go up and speeds will go down. We will have censorship on content. I hope you are happy with that.”

How is it that when we have more choices the price goes up, and the speed goes down?

Right now I have a “choice” of only two internet providers in my area. Cox cable which I use, and Century Link which, when it was Quest, had the worst customer service on the planet, and for all intents and purposes still does.

Right now with all the folderol about the market place dealing with these issues, it ain’t happening.

Sorry, but where exactly is the consumer choice in that.

You are choosing to believe a worst possible case scenario, and calling it reality. All I see is a lot of hyperbole and not much fact.

Show us your proof.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 28, 2015 12:08 PM
Comment #390298

Proof is in the 300 pages of regulations which haven’t been released to the public yet. A spokesman for the FCC said that they will not tax it YET. You can bet your ass that taxes are coming. You don’t have to believe me, but those are my predictions. I hope you enjoy them

Posted by: tdobson at February 28, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #390300


With the right’s incredible record of accuracy that their prognosticating has shown us all over the last several years, please forgive me if I don’t believe you.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 28, 2015 3:26 PM
Comment #390304

tdobson, I want a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att - - -

A party designed to abolish corporate personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform.

It’s not that I don’t like this one or that one - - -

This greasing the skids for the 1% needs to be addressed. Today they own 40>% of everything and the curve is sharply upward. Are you all right with that?

Should we not question why Japan has a faster, cheaper Internet?

Why is it that folks can fly to Korea, have a medical procedure, recuperate in a beach front luxury high rise and return to the US cheaper than having the procedure done in this country?

Are you alright with the corpocracy working to get millions of foreign workers into the US to squelch US worker wages?

I digress - - - the NAU is still a work in progress, piecemeal, but moving forward.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 28, 2015 9:45 PM
Comment #390305

I would love to see a 3rd party elected. We have one already. It’s called the Libertarian party. Unfortunately, they have little chance of winning major elections.

I would be OK with eliminating corporate personhood laws IF we also at the same time eliminate ALL group political financing laws like unions. If we are going to do it, lets do it with a level playing field.

I haven’t researched it but I’ll bet Japan has faster and cheaper internet because their government subsidizes it.
I hope our government don’t.

There are several reasons why medical care is cheaper than it is here. We do the research and development of most of the improvements in the medical field and give the technology away to other countries for humanitarian reasons. We in the US have to pay for that research. Also I believe government restrictions and regulations increase the cost immensely. Did you know that if I let you clip my toenails and then gave you a dollar for doing so I would be guilty of practicing medicine without a license?

I’m more comfortable with corporations wanting to bring people in as I am our government bringing in illegal immigrants and giving them welfare

Posted by: tdobson at March 1, 2015 10:22 AM
Comment #390306

You offer some good points, tdodson. It is impossible to draw conclusions based on limited information - which is generally the case for the average ‘joe’.

IMO gov’t is subsidizing IP’s, big telcoms etc, through the tax code. If a telcome builds a datacenter they can write the entire cost off to the taxpayer. Ain’t that so?

We seem to agree on campaign financing. If corporate personhood were abolished I’d have no problem supporting non-taxation for corporations.

We need to take the money influence out of politics/gov’t. The money influence came about with the founding of political parties shortly after the gov’t was founded. Wealthy folks have used political parties to their advantage. Today, it’s only necessary to buy off one or two committee chairpersons to advance and expedite the passage of bills favoring the wealthy. Not all bad, but not all good, fer shure.

It’s clear, the only way to REAL CFR is thru a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att… If that fails to stop the money influence then perhaps the next alternative would be gov’t financing of elections. We do need to find a better way.

This AM CNN reported that the US ranks 25th in Internet download speeds, just below Hungary and Bulgaria. Stated that the US, in general, pays more for service than Europe.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at March 1, 2015 12:08 PM
Comment #390308

Even with a third party to your liking, it would not stop lobbyist from influencing legislation. People have the right to address their representatives to lobby for favorable laws. I don’t want to change that. The true problem that leads to your complaints is the tax system. Our politicians both left and right are selling their influence to favor corporations and other political groups through tax breaks and increased taxes for their opponent’s.

I think the cure for this is to abolish entirely the income tax. Without the income tax there would be no favorable tax treatment because there would be no tax. The government could be supported by a consumption tax. People under the poverty level could be spared paying any tax with a payment to everyone equal to the consumption tax up to the level of poverty. After that level, everyone pays a tax of appx 20 to 25 percent on all new purchases. Since wealthy Americans buy just about everything new and more expensive, they would naturally pay more than the poor and middle class. Used items would not be taxed since taxes were paid when they were sold the first time. That way everyone could control what kind of tax rate they wanted. Lobbyists could not get any tax relief for their clients so they would basically disappear. True campaign finance reform would happen because corporations could not get favorable treatment and it wouldn’t matter which party was in office. Think about it.

Posted by: tdobson at March 1, 2015 4:44 PM
Comment #390309

Td, agree that people have a right to lobby and that process should not be impeded. The 3rd party I’m proposing would work to implement REAL CFR reform. I’ll find and post some info on that later.

I should put this in BIG letters : REAL CFR will never, ever be implemented in this country until a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att becomes the major party.

Likewise for REAL tax reform: will take a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att to git er dun …

This 3rd party would opt for a flat tax in the range of 14-17%. THis tax would apply to income generated from all sources. Corporations would be tax exempt. A flat tax would be way more efficient, filed on one side of a post card, and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at March 1, 2015 5:39 PM
Comment #390310

Td, do you not believe it is the corporations bringing in the foreign workers? It is not the gov’t refusing to enforce border security. The Corpocracy wants the drug dividends, cheap labor and the ability to drive down wages. Gov’t is just the tool they are using to get the job done.

As I posted earlier, the NAU is still a work in progress, albeit piecemeal. One current effort is to create a tri-country energy policy for the US-Can-Mex.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at March 1, 2015 6:00 PM
Comment #390311

We started with a flat tax. It didn’t take long to subvert it with deductions. Some good but most not so good. If we developed a flat tax again, How long before home deductions would appear? How long before charitable exemptions would appear? and so on and so on until the back of a postcard became what we have now? I’m talking about doing away with the income tax entirely. If you pay no income tax, you can’t deduct anything from it. Instead of filing on the back of a post card, you don’t file at all. The government don’t know and don’t need to know how much you make. Tell me your problems with that.
Finally it seems we are having a discussion without throwing barbs back and forth

Posted by: tdobson at March 1, 2015 6:40 PM
Comment #390312

Yes I think a large part of our immigration problems are not only corporations, but small companies wanting imported labor they can get for a cheaper rate. I don’t think that is all of it. I think a big part of it is politics. I think Obama and the Democratic party want to import illegals and give them amnesty to secure a voting base for the future. I believe corporations support the President in his immigration policy in order to get those cheep workers. I also think the best way to stop that is through the tax system.

RE: A third party with a different political attitude I believe already exists to a large part with the Libertarian party. A Libertarian philosophy without an income tax I believe would give you what you want. Think about it.

Posted by: tdobson at March 1, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #390313

By Libertarian philosophy I don’t mean “no government” I mean a government that does the job of governing and leaves the people to lead their lives however they want so long as they don’t violate any one else’s rights.

Posted by: tdobson at March 1, 2015 7:00 PM
Comment #390369

My sense on net neutrality? I believe when you promise 2 or 25 Mb/s to somebody for a given rate, that’s what you deliver. I believe that if your network’s getting congested carrying all that new stuff out of Netflix and such, then it’s time for you to sink the investment into improving your infrastructure, rather than throttling bandwidth in order to make more money off of what already exists by slow rolling the service you promised them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 4, 2015 3:05 PM
Comment #390370

I agree Stephen. The internet companies generally guarantee a speed to a demark point, Usually that is to the point of entry into your house unless they installed your premise wiring, then their demark would be the last piece of equipment that they own. There are a lot of things that can effect your speed. I have Verizon Fios and I’m guaranteed 50mb upload and 50mb download. They installed my wiring to the router, so they are responsible for that speed to that point. I had a desktop that was connected to the router which was sitting next to my desk. I got 50mb upload and 50 download most of the time. My desktop died and I got a laptop to replace it. Sitting about 5 feet from the router using a wireless connection my speed dropped to about half what it was.
When I was a fiber technician, we installed fiber into a building to a server and connected server to server with fiber. We also installed premise wiring (CAT5 or CAT6) was the standard then. The biggest problem I encountered with slow speeds was connections in the premise wire. I have the equipment to test the speed of fiber and with fiber installed right with good polished connectors there is usually no problems with speed.
If you can prove the ISP is not giving you what you pay for, you always have the option of suing them.

Posted by: tdobson at March 4, 2015 6:51 PM
Comment #390374

I’m sure there are many, many ways to screw the consumer re datarates and charges. Most often the consumer has little or not information about the subject, as is usual in most any technical operation.

I wonder about these page ads that constantly flip back and forth. Is such an ad running up your minutes of use or is it downloaded one time and flipped by your computer or is it constantly being downloaded? Are such ads being ‘subsidized’ by the consumer? If so, who shares in the subsidy $?

Td, it’s as useless as tits on a boar hog to discuss a third party that is ‘just another third party’. I’m sure Libertarians are fine folks but they simply can’t do anything more than the demreps re real reform. Why? It’s exactly as you cite re a flat tax. Even where it is possible to get a good policy/law implemented the Corpocracy starts working on their particular, vested interest. The money influence will sink any party, reform, law, and so on - - -

Isn’t the ACA (rules not yet written) and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms (gutted, useless and half of regs haven’t been implemented) a perfect example of Corpocracy at it’s finest?

Just another party should never be allowed to reach mainstream, IMO.

No, it’s going to take a new 3rd party w/a/dif/pol/att, IMO. A party that is designed to, and can, shunt the money influence in gov;t/politics.

I will post on such a party real soon.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: roy ellis at March 6, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #390375

This report indicates that inequality is rising on a very steep ramp.

Posted by: roy ellis at March 6, 2015 1:06 PM
Comment #390386

I believe the 3rd party you speak of will be “just another 3rd party” Nothing you have said would lead me to believe they wouldn’t be corrupted just like the Democrats and Republicans. Libertarians already have a different mind set in that they believe in the freedom of individuals to be self governing to a large extent. They already have a different political attitude. Some may be influenced by greed like the others, however I think there would be less chance than the other parties.

As far as who is paying for the streaming ads, my guess is that we are. I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but I don’t see any way to send them to you without using your bandwidth. I don’t think they are stored on your computer and looped to you. But as I said, I’m not 100% sure.

Posted by: tdobson at March 7, 2015 6:42 PM
Comment #390834

td, I’m unable to log in to post articles for the time being. When I get that resolved I’ll put an article up with some details.

Posted by: roy ellis at March 24, 2015 9:25 PM
Post a comment