 | |  ?
| |
|
 LazarusSlavin AwayPremium
join:2002-06-18
Dickinson, ND | Good name I agree Goorizon is a good one. | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | I still like Verizioogle the best. | |
|
 | LazarusSlavin AwayPremium
join:2002-06-18
Dickinson, ND | Re: I still like Yeah but Goorizon sound like a nasty mess and that is what this is. | |
|
| |
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum If the CTIA members aren't willing to accept network neutrality rules then auctioning off another 120 MHz of prime UHF digital TV spectrum is definitely against the public interest. | |
|
| | | Re: If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum Yep... Bring in the international carriers or appropriate the taxpayer funded infrastructure from all carriers in opposition and open it up to new competition whereby ATT and Verizon will have to play by the set rules. | |
|
| |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum said by DenDen2010:Yep... Bring in the international carriers or appropriate the taxpayer funded infrastructure from all carriers in opposition and open it up to new competition whereby ATT and Verizon will have to play by the set rules. And return to the stockholders the billions the companies paid to lease spectrum?? Don't forget that.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | |  Re: If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum
said by Romney2012:And return to the stockholders the billions the companies paid to lease spectrum?? Don't forget that. When do the leases expire? | |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum said by Supervisor:said by Romney2012:And return to the stockholders the billions the companies paid to lease spectrum?? Don't forget that. When do the leases expire? It varies based on auction rules and when initially leased. But usually 10 yrs, with auto renewals if meeting lease terms.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | | said by Romney2012:said by DenDen2010:Yep... Bring in the international carriers or appropriate the taxpayer funded infrastructure from all carriers in opposition and open it up to new competition whereby ATT and Verizon will have to play by the set rules. And return to the stockholders the billions the companies paid to lease spectrum?? Don't forget that. Of course this is why up-front spectrum fees should be eliminated. It's nonsensical and anti-competitive to require all companies to pay multiple billions of dollars all at once for any spectrum. Allow companies smaller than a certain size (the top two) to pay for spectrum over the course of its lease, and we'll be much more likely to see some legitimate competition. | |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: If they don't need neutrality rules they don't need spectrum said by sonicmerlin:said by Romney2012:said by DenDen2010:Yep... Bring in the international carriers or appropriate the taxpayer funded infrastructure from all carriers in opposition and open it up to new competition whereby ATT and Verizon will have to play by the set rules. And return to the stockholders the billions the companies paid to lease spectrum?? Don't forget that. Of course this is why up-front spectrum fees should be eliminated. It's nonsensical and anti-competitive to require all companies to pay multiple billions of dollars all at once for any spectrum. Allow companies smaller than a certain size (the top two) to pay for spectrum over the course of its lease, and we'll be much more likely to see some legitimate competition. And that was the gov'ts choice. A good reason to keep gov't out of regulating the Internet.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | Don't "we the people" still own the airwaves? Since the people own the airwaves, unlike a cable or a strand of fiber, the carriers should expect more stipulations of neutrality and fairness not less.
Laters,
Jeff | |
|
| SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL | Re: Don't "we the people" still own the airwaves? Alas, no. The FCC auctioned them off to the highest bidder. | |
|
| | | | Re: Don't "we the people" still own the airwaves? said by SunnyD:Alas, no. The FCC auctioned them off to the highest bidder. Much like how our legislators make policies!
There is huge potential for cash at play here. With video apps at the door, the wireless carriers will make boatloads of paper. And this, they will collude on.
Maybe now would be a good time to encourage the tin foil hat crowd to start protesting just to screw the carriers.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | | | They leased them off to the highest bidder. They purchased nothing. Regardless, this does not relieve the company of the rules and regulations that are put on the spectrum. | |
|
|
|  KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC | Re: The handwriting on the wall. I don't get how there is a distinction at all. I need to do some more reading, I guess, but wireless or no, it still goes to the same damn internet, so why should different rules apply as to how I get there?
This is the major carriers way of making themselves relevant and not becoming the big, dumb pipe they're scared of. | |
|
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: The handwriting on the wall. said by Koil: but wireless or no, it still goes to the same damn internet, so why should different rules apply as to how I get there? Because wireless isn't ready for the firehose deluge of video that would clog up wireless spectrum if the same rules applied to wireless that apply to wired.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC | Re: The handwriting on the wall. said by Romney2012:said by Koil: but wireless or no, it still goes to the same damn internet, so why should different rules apply as to how I get there? Because wireless isn't ready for the firehose deluge of video that would clog up wireless spectrum if the same rules applied to wireless that apply to wired. I guess I am left w/ what rules are those?
No sarcasm, but please enlighten me or point me somewhere.
--
DSLR Mafia
My Blog - Raising Connor
WoW: Mal'Ganis : Aftershock : Krimdal
| |
|
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: The handwriting on the wall. said by Koil:said by Romney2012:said by Koil: but wireless or no, it still goes to the same damn internet, so why should different rules apply as to how I get there? Because wireless isn't ready for the firehose deluge of video that would clog up wireless spectrum if the same rules applied to wireless that apply to wired. I guess I am left w/ what rules are those? No sarcasm, but please enlighten me or point me somewhere. Net neutrality rules where the wireless vendors could not stop or throttle excessive video use from any web site that wants to send video to cellphones.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: The handwriting on the wall. Neutrality simply means you're neutral on what kind of data it is, the word neutrality doesn't say anything about caps on total bandwidth usage.
The carriers want to oppose any form of neutrality and shout 'We're bandwidth constrained, and it isn't our fault. It's local governments or the reality of wireless bandwidth that is at fault." Which sounds good until you realize that prioritizing one video site over another does absolutely nothing to alleviate any kind of bandwidth crunch. They're trying to distract people by talking about something unrelated, so that people say "Oh, that makes sense" without even realizing that the wireless industry has changed the topic. True neutrality simply needs to prevent the wireless industry from saying 'Ok, you can download from Google video, but not Yahoo video or this new upstart video site." | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: The handwriting on the wall. Thank you for pointing that out.
It is amazing how so many people here forget what net neutrality really is.
To recap:
Net Neutrality is not about preventing them from restricting user's bandwidth usage.
Net Neutrality is about preventing them from deciding which packets get a pass and how fast. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: The handwriting on the wall. said by Skippy25:Thank you for pointing that out. It is amazing how so many people here forget what net neutrality really is. To recap: Net Neutrality is not about preventing them from restricting user's bandwidth usage. Net Neutrality is about preventing them from deciding which packets get a pass and how fast. MMH didn't forget. He's well-educated on the topic. But he's a former railroad lobbyist and has no qualms about lying to others to confuse them about the real issues at hand. | |
|
| | hrm verizon
google
googlizon
verizle ---lol as in very little
goozon | |
|
| | | Re: hrm I'm sticking with Veroogle. | |
|
| | Funny Thing... "Largent said he does not think wireless carriers in FCC-led talks (Verizon, AT&T) are prepared to swallow tougher rules than those in the Verizon-Google proposal."
Last time I checked, when it comes to regulation...those being regulated didn't get to chose the rules...at least thats how it used to be | |
|
| DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: Funny Thing... "...at least that's how it used to be"
And that's all that need be said...*sigh* | |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | No Wireless Neutrality = Ditching Hardlines So, the main reason the Wireless carriers won't budge is because Wireless might be the future.
..which means they can ditch a ton of hardwired lines and go wireless and make the rules themselves.. Therefore no one can touch them since network neutrality would only cover hardwired lines.
Who can see this blowing out of proportion really quickly?
--
Bresnan 15M/1M
MyWS[E5200@3.75GHz,4GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2GHz,2GB RAM,120GB HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1GHz,512MB RAM,18GB HDD,SMC 8432BTA,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,Intel Pro/1000MT,IBM Gigabit Ethernet-SX,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,Gentoo Linux] | |
|
|  El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| Re: No Wireless Neutrality = Ditching Hardlines said by Simba7:So, the main reason the Wireless carriers won't budge is because Wireless might be the future. ..which means they can ditch a ton of hardwired lines and go wireless and make the rules themselves.. Therefore no one can touch them since network neutrality would only cover hardwired lines. Which is a pretty lame strategy that would only really work while hard-lines still existed... assuming there's a mass exodus towards wireless, after the various wireless issues are sorted, then the FCC (and other federal regulators) will want to impose some type of net neutrality because the bulk of the market will require protecting.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. | |
|
| | They should be calles Goozerizon
"Gooz" in Farsi language means fart | |
|
|
|
The handwriting on the wall.
Anyone that cannot see the BIG PICTURE may have Feces for Brains. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton simply replied, "Because that's where the money is". The reason that the companies that own the wireless spectrum are so opposed to Network Neutrality and any form of regulation is: Because that's where the money will be. They already can see the handwriting on the wall. They know that anyone that is given the choice between hard wired internet access and wireless internet access of the same speed and quality would have feces for brains if they chose hard wired. With wireless they can take it with them. The corporations that provide wireless voice service for the most part also provide wire line voice service. Those corporations can see that many wire line customers are abandoning their wire line voice service in favor of wireless voice service. The same will hold true once the wireless broadband service matures.
