Net neutrality update

[Undertoad]

Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?

[fargon]

Eventually world wide satellite internet. I'll see if I can find the story.

[fargon]

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...524-story.html
I found it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

When Nixon wasted all that money on Nam in and after 1968, when did the resulting recession occur? Mid and later 70s.

The oil embargo might have had a little effect there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Do you know what they're going to do with those low-orbit satellites?

So you know it must be a solution because it never worked previously. And since innovation means maybe nine failures until something finally is successful, then this one solution must work right the first time.

Previous satellite solutions came with similar promises and did not succeed. Irridium was only one of many - that also used low earth orbit satellites.

So the magic solution means we should continue subverting free markets by entrenching and enriching the duopoly? Maybe finally admit that destructive of net neutrality has always been a bad thing.

Why did we finally get broadband after it remains stifled and unavailable for 15 years? Because Federal Laws were created that made it possible for competition to enter the market. Including net neutrality. Suddenly restricting markets to only two providers is now better - according to UT reasoning? Even when the numbers say otherwise.

UT feels we can protect harm to free market competition by launching LEO satellites - even though that did not work previously.

Eventually it may work. But UT knows it is a solution so as to deny harm to free markets by destroying net neutrality.

Its called fixing the problem. Protect and restore net neutrality and other provisions from 1996 that made free market internet successful, innovative, and growing.

Data transporters only transport data. Without any regard for that data content. Then congestion even does not exist. Content providers are a separate industry that innovates when it does not service (is part of) the data transporter industry. Then free markets, innovation, lower prices, and better service all thrive.

[Undertoad]

Yeeah. Land a rocket right on its launching pad? Impossible.

Tunnel under LA and Las Vegas? Impossible.

Build an electric car that does 0-60 in under 3 seconds and sells for five figures? Impossible.

Test launch 60 satellites at once, without a hitch? Totally impossible. (Even Musk expected it to fail first time.)

It's not needed to prevent net neutrality problems - because obviously, we don't have any of those right now, as you admit when claiming it would take time to implement.

But bet against Elon Musk? That, sir, is a losing proposition.

[Undertoad]

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services? You certainly believe they've had the software to do it for 7 years.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Looking back at the big successes in business there was quite often others on the market with the same service who failed or were struggling along. Then one company offering pretty much the same service suddenly takes off because people believed it would. They believed the face of that company, in this case a man with a track record of making ideas come to life and the money to get it going.

When Musk makes an offhand casual remark there are enough people who will take that as gospel and are willing to put up money, become early adopters, and spread the word to friends. So when Musk makes a firm commitment people listen. That's often the difference between and idea becoming a successful business, or dying on the vine.

After the Musk satellite network captures 90% of the internet market and Comcast et al file for bankruptcy, he can strangle HBO and Netflix providing his own content. Why? Because there is no net neutrality.

[Undertoad]

Just like the wireless networks did not cause the wired network to disappear, so it will be with the satellites.

The wired network will still be useful. There are advantages to a wired network. The signal doesn't have to travel off into space and back again, so wired is always lower latency. The low-earth orbits will bring that way down from what satellite internet does for us today, but still. They will have bandwidth limitations as well, I expect... and more importantly, they will have competition.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Jesus H Christ, I can make a fortune charging these satellites using my airspace(spacespace?) rent. If they don't pay, shoot 'em down.

[sexobon]

Come and listen to a story about a man named Musk
A rich entrepreneur, giving man in space some thrust
He says a satellite network is the way it ought to be
Who's going to run a cable to a Martian colony⸮

The Red Planet that is. Stay a spell. Take your spacesuit off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services?

Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.

Tunnels under LA or Las Vegas? Been there. Done that thousands of times elsewhere. Two because water sources for NYC over 100 years ago.

60 satellites at once? It has been done repeatedly previously. Only difference - a few more satellites. That is not the technical challenge. That is simply an upgrade of existing technology.

Land a rocket on a launch pad? How many times was it attempted both before SpaceX and by Spacex? Multiple times before they were able to do what was being done on a smaller scale successfully elsewhere.

You are rationalizing to deny a reality. Hatred of net neutrality apparently comes from spending too much time being educated by Fox News and other extremists. Over a generation ago, hatred for destruction of net neutrality would have been the other UT.

Net neutrality made the internet successful (forced the entrenched communication companies to innovate) and created free market competition. Attacks on the free market eventually caused the demise of all but the entrenched two providers - who just happen to be the bigger campaign donors.

Nobody said wireless would make wired disappear. Due to 3G wireless, the business school graduates in Verizon finally conceded to and let fiber optics be installed. AT&T even sold the nations biggest ntwork to Comcast by sell it for half the price they paid for it.

Wireless did result in the demise of obsolete technology wired devices such as 56k modems and the hatred of packet switched technology. And forced the wired networks to start replacing obsolete circuit switched with packet switched.

Before 3G, even the chief scientist in the Bell Labs was ordered to be silent because he kept saying the smart network must be replaced by the dumb network. Wireless even resulted in those neanderthals to be replaced or concede.

We have been over this again and again. You just refuse to hear or remember it.

Satellites do not justify or make acceptable the destruction of free markets and net neutrality; as you keep trying to claim.

Gotta love everything that Musk attempts. We do need more like him. And, of course, he is an immigrant. So he must be evil - according to Fox News, et al

[Undertoad]

Now, again, why is Comcast NOT blocking other voice services, right now?

Don't talk about me, don't talk about children, don't talk about history, don't talk about emotion. It's a simple question, and you can either answer it in a single paragraph, pertaining only to the question, or you can say "I don't know" followed by nothing. Go.

[sexobon]

The silence is golden.

[Undertoad]

Comcast was skewing packets and got caught. That does not change no matter how many times Fox News says otherwise.

Thanks for the reminder. You have failed to give us a link to any article showing this actually happened.

If you provide a link to a news article proving that Comcast did actually skew voice packets, I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice.

If you provide a link to a Fox News article saying despite protestations that they did, they actually did not, I will donate $300.

Go.