Net Neutrality

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by stanger89

...

I utterly and categorically disagree with that, what's got us in the mess is the idea that "a few" can regulate an ideal society. We haven't tried the free market for about a hundred years, what's failed is over-regulation and economic and social engineering.

Yeah, robber barons and child labor were sooo much better than we what we have now.

S

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by sleonard

Yeah, robber barons and child labor were sooo much better than we what we have now.

S

You really think if no regs were passed we'd still have robber barons and child labor? I think the answer is no. Ultimately the market decides. Look what happened to shoe companies when it was discovered that the factories they were using in Asia used child labor. People stopped buying the shoes and the companies told the Asian producers to stop using child labor or they'd find another suppplier.

I'm not a big fan of regulation, I live with it all day long and can tell you that it does nothing constructive in my industry except add cost and burden to consumers. As a Financial Advisor I could probably follow every rule and regulation on the books and still do bad things to clients. It's sad how many people think the cure for every ill in the world is more regulation.

[Skirge01]

I think the problem stems from what was created via the original regulation. Sadly, we're trying to undo it via more regulation, rather than undoing the actual issue. What I mean is that phone, electric, gas, and cable companies have true ownership of the pipes going to your house. They own it because governments wanted to give them incentive to build the infrastructure in the first place. In order to get their ROI, they demanded exclusivity and got it. They've made back the money on their investment many times over by now, but they still have that exclusivity. Government can't take ownership of the pipes, but the new regulations should remove that exclusivity factor so that other companies can come in and compete. That's how the "free market" is supposed to work. Entreupreneurs have proven time and again that they are more creative than big companies. Even if the cost to access the pipes is slightly more expensive, the competitors can use alternate methods to entice customers.

If we allow the owners of the pipes to the internet to determine what traffic is more important, they will, essentially, have similar exclusivity to the pipes. Sorry, but the previously mentioned industries have proven what they do when they have exclusivity.

Consider this: If the ISPs are allowed to determine who gets priority, do you think it will be the type of content or the owner of the content which becomes the determining factor. How long do you think it will be before governments say, "We're first." Then, the companies with the biggest pockest will pay to be second. Note that the current Obama administration is trying to get a kill switch for the internet. It would seem they're already saying they're first.

Regulation isn't bad. BAD regulation is.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Regulation isn't bad. BAD regulation is.

Points taken. I'm not against ALL regulation because totally unbridled capitalism isn't a pretty picture either.

The problem with the point quoted above is that people don't often agree on what's good regulation and what's bad regulation. Some people will tell you that regulating health insurers is a good idea, others will tell you it's a bad idea. Everybody will tell you the current regulations are bad, and that's my point. We put in regulations with good intent, the regulations have unforseen negative impacts that we don't like so we put in more regulations, various groups hire lobbiests and we get more changes to the regulations, etc. Nobody starts out by saying "let's put some bad regulations in place and then later on we'll put in ever more bad regulations to fix the previous regulations." A bet nobody can provide a list of 10 regulations that the vast majority agree are good and without which industry X would be doing horrible things to consumers.

Let the ISP's do what they want with the pipes. If they do things that consumers don't like and end up with dusgrunteled customers, some other company will invent alternatives. Years ago everybody was screaming that TV airwaves needed to be regulated so the "big 3 networks" did not have a monopoly. All sorts of regulations were put in place to make sure local stations were broadcast. This was all done because "spectrum was in short supply, the broadcasting equipment was expensive, there was no way anybody could compete with the networks and if we don't do this we will be stuck with whatever those big stupid networks want to put on TV and the news that that control." Well, it's years later and broadcast TV has plenty of competition from places that nobody had even dreamed about when they were clammoring for the regulation.

For every good regulation there are many more bad regulations.

[eric3a]

You really think if no regs were passed we'd still have robber barons and child labor?

Yes.
UNICEF estimates there are about 158 million children 5 to 14 years old working around the world.
Really think that none of that work finds its way back to products we buy?

Without enforced regulations the natural order of things, via greed, is robber barons and child labor.
Eric

[Skirge01]

I agree with the principles of what you've said, but I don't think things will work themselves out on their own like you seem to believe. I truly wish I were wrong, but history seems to disagree.

Originally Posted by tmiranda

If they do things that consumers don't like and end up with dusgrunteled customers, some other company will invent alternatives.

Does this mean that everybody loves Microsoft Windows, since no one has come up with a viable alternative?

What alternatives do most people have for internet service?

What alternatives do we have to using gas in our vehicles?

What alternatives do we have to electricity produced by coal?

What alternatives do we have to Intel processors*?

I'd wager that, without regulation, we'd never have additional options.

The problem with letting things sort themselves out is that we have companies who take advantage of the situation by squashing competition and innovation. Then, we wind up with a company like Microsoft or Intel who is so entrenched in their respective industry that no one has a prayer if they try to take them on.

* You know how AMD came about, right? It wasn't because someone had an issue with Intel's processors.

[sleonard]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

You really think if no regs were passed we'd still have robber barons and child labor? I think the answer is no. Ultimately the market decides. Look what happened to shoe companies when it was discovered that the factories they were using in Asia used child labor. People stopped buying the shoes and the companies told the Asian producers to stop using child labor or they'd find another suppplier.

I'm not a big fan of regulation, I live with it all day long and can tell you that it does nothing constructive in my industry except add cost and burden to consumers. As a Financial Advisor I could probably follow every rule and regulation on the books and still do bad things to clients. It's sad how many people think the cure for every ill in the world is more regulation.

Yes, we would. No doubt at all because instead of stopping their use of child labor they just mounted effective and much cheaper PR campaigns. To do otherwise would have been to sacrifice legal profit. The only way to stop child labor is to make it illegal. With regulations. Wishy washy feel-good moral campaigns work only if they end with laws getting passed.

In the US, corporations must follow the path of maximum profit regardless of the social and moral consequences. The corporate officers are breaking the law if they choose the common good over legal profit and can be sued and removed. The only thing standing between the local chemical plant and your water supply is regulation. Period. Many of those regs may be poorly written and/or poorly implemented. They may be unnecessary in many situations. You won't find any argument from me on those points but sometimes even poorly written regulation is preferable to none at all.

Does this apply to NN as written? I have said all along I don't know. I am not an expert nor even an enthusiast in this area. I am not advocating for any regulation as written just for the concept of regulation and it's very necessity to protect free markets. Something pointed out by Adam Smith himself in 'The Wealth of Nations'.

S

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by eric3a

Yes.
UNICEF estimates there are about 158 million children 5 to 14 years old working around the world.
Really think that none of that work finds its way back to products we buy?

Without enforced regulations the natural order of things, via greed, is robber barons and child labor.
Eric

I did say that unbridled capitalism is not good either (read - some regulations are necessary.)

Maybe child labor is a bad example, but I think you could make a case that the laws have failed because there are still 158 million kids working. I doubt there would be many more if no such laws existed. (And no, I don't think we should ablish child labor laws.) OTOH making the regs stronger would not result in less kids working. So while this is not the perfect example I still believe that for every good regulation I can show you many, many bad ones.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I agree with the principles of what you've said, but I don't think things will work themselves out on their own like you seem to believe. I truly wish I were wrong, but history seems to disagree.



Does this mean that everybody loves Microsoft Windows, since no one has come up with a viable alternative?

What alternatives do most people have for internet service?

What alternatives do we have to using gas in our vehicles?

What alternatives do we have to electricity produced by coal?

What alternatives do we have to Intel processors*?

I'd wager that, without regulation, we'd never have additional options.

The problem with letting things sort themselves out is that we have companies who take advantage of the situation by squashing competition and innovation. Then, we wind up with a company like Microsoft or Intel who is so entrenched in their respective industry that no one has a prayer if they try to take them on.

* You know how AMD came about, right? It wasn't because someone had an issue with Intel's processors.

Internet service via Satellite - Most people don't choose this because they still feel they get better value from their local ISP.

Gas vehicles - No good alternative now, but lots of people working on it.

Electricity generation - Gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. People don't choose this because coal is cheaper and/or they don't like the negative aspects of the other options.

Processors - AMD is still an option regardless of how they came about. IBM, NEC, Siemens and many other companies are capable of producing processors. They don't because they figure Intel can produce their processors better and cheaper. The second these other companies see a way to sell chips profitably they will. This keeps Intel on their toes and prevents them from tripling the price of their CPUs.

Microsoft - They have competition coming from everywhere; Apple, Open source, Google. People choose MS because it comes on the PC that they buy. This will not be the case forever.

In the end competition does more to create new products and services than regulation can ever hope to create. Show me an example of a regulation that led to an innovation?

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Internet service via Satellite - Most people don't choose this because they still feel they get better value from their local ISP.

By that measure, dial-up is still an option, but I think most people would agree that's not exactly competition.

Gas vehicles - No good alternative now, but lots of people working on it.

Agreed, but why are they working on it? I don't believe it's due to consumers begging and pleading for the end of the ICE.

Electricity generation - Gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. People don't choose this because coal is cheaper and/or they don't like the negative aspects of the other options.

First, I don't have those options where I live. Second, I don't believe those industries came about because people were begging for alternatives, due to complaints about coal companies.

Processors - AMD is still an option regardless of how they came about. IBM, NEC, Siemens and many other companies are capable of producing processors. They don't because they figure Intel can produce their processors better and cheaper. The second these other companies see a way to sell chips profitably they will. This keeps Intel on their toes and prevents them from tripling the price of their CPUs.

That's not the reason. Transmeta tried and failed to come up with a chip to take on Intel and they had pretty big investors backing them.

Microsoft - They have competition coming from everywhere; Apple, Open source, Google. People choose MS because it comes on the PC that they buy. This will not be the case forever.

I definitely disagree here. I did specify Windows, not all MS products. Windows is the one which is quite entrenched and I don't think there are any viable options out there, which will ever take Windows down or even be on level ground.

In the end competition does more to create new products and services than regulation can ever hope to create. Show me an example of a regulation that led to an innovation?

Here's one I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread: When they forced phone companies to open their lines to 3rd parties, we had tons of DSL operators open up shop. I had different speeds to choose from, as well as price. I think I compared close to 15 different companies when I moved to DSL. This is what spurred dslreports.com.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

Does this mean that everybody loves Microsoft Windows, since no one has come up with a viable alternative?

No, it means Microsoft made a product that (no matter how much you may hate them) is good enough to become the defacto standard.

What about google? Should we regulate them because they've become a verb?

What alternatives do most people have for internet service?

Most can choose cable, DSL or satellite. Soon wireless (4G) will be an option as well.

What alternatives do we have to using gas in our vehicles?

Electric, propane, diesel. Though most people don't like these options because the technology has significant limitations (cost, availability) compared to gasoline.

What alternatives do we have to electricity produced by coal?

Nuclear (which has been regulated so much you can't build one), natural gas, biofuel, wind and solar (which are utterly impractical on the scale of our energy needs).

I'd wager that, without regulation, we'd never have additional options.

Yeah, it's a good thing there were regulations in place to create the light bulb, telegraph, telephone, car, airplane, refridgerator, washer, etc, etc. Oh wait, there weren't regulations, the free market created all that. It created cell phones that with more power in your hand than supercomputers of years past that took up rooms.

I challenge you to show me one thing where regulation has caused choice or competition.

Regulation has given us telephone monopolies, internet monopolies, tv provider monopolies, power monopolies. It stifles innovation, discourages entrepreneurship....

The problem with letting things sort themselves out is that we have companies who take advantage of the situation by squashing competition and innovation.

Yeah, Microsoft did a great job of squashing google, and Apple.

Then, we wind up with a company like Microsoft or Intel who is so entrenched in their respective industry that no one has a prayer if they try to take them on.

AMD's doing a pretty good job, they're shipping Dells now which was unthinkable not long ago. Google and Apple crushed Microsoft in the phone and portable multimedia markets.

Originally Posted by Skirge01

By that measure, dial-up is still an option, but I think most people would agree that's not exactly competition.

It is, problem is you can't regulate good competition.

Agreed, but why are they working on it? I don't believe it's due to consumers begging and pleading for the end of the ICE.

It's not regulation if that's what you're getting at. "Eco-friendlyness" is a big thing now, and without governement regulations.

First, I don't have those options where I live. Second, I don't believe those industries came about because people were begging for alternatives, due to complaints about coal companies.

Even in places where they are available, you can't pick whether your power comes from one or the other.

That's not the reason. Transmeta tried and failed to come up with a chip to take on Intel and they had pretty big investors backing them.

Then how did AMD get such a foothold?

I definitely disagree here. I did specify Windows, not all MS products. Windows is the one which is quite entrenched and I don't think there are any viable options out there, which will ever take Windows down or even be on level ground.

It's entrenched because just like google with search engines, they built a product that became the standard. Like it or not.

Here's one I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread: When they forced phone companies to open their lines to 3rd parties, we had tons of DSL operators open up shop. I had different speeds to choose from, as well as price. I think I compared close to 15 different companies when I moved to DSL. This is what spurred dslreports.com.

Which I believe we already established was essentially overturning the regulated monopolies that were originally in place. But even beyond that, they were still all using the same infrastructure that Qwest or whoever built, and were bound by the limitations of that infrastructure. All that "competition" didn't seem to bring about faster speeds.

I'm frankly amazed so many here think it's possible to regulate success and happiness, that seems to be what we're getting at here.

That government, through regulations, can induce good competition to happen. And that it can make good choices that lead to happen. I have no idea what history people are reading that gives them that idea. Especially not when there are countless examples to the contrary, Russia, Cuba, China, Greece, Spain....

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Internet service via Satellite - Most people don't choose this because they still feel they get better value from their local ISP.

Have you actually used satellite internet? The only player I know of is Hughes and carrier pigeons are a better alternative! My 14.4k modem was more reliable and faster in most instances. When I was reduced to using Hughes, if I was doing more than a simple text search (lynx) it was useless. It was faster to get in my car and drive to a coffee shop or restaurant to get free wifi.

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Electricity generation - Gas, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. People don't choose this because coal is cheaper and/or they don't like the negative aspects of the other options.

Stanger covered this quite well, but I'll reiterate it here. The most capable and eco-friendly way we can generate power is nuclear and no new plants have been built in 30? 40? years due solely to regulation.

"Renewables" are just a joke in their current state. Wind is great if you can get it from where the wind is to where the people are. The problem is all the NIMBYs that prevent the lines from being run. I've heard it said "there is [insert astronomical number] amount of power given to us by the sun every day." Fine show me the tech to take advantage of it. Current solar panels, while much better than they used to be, just aren't there yet. Magical solar panels that will make solar a viable option have been 5-10 years away for the last 25 years.

I don't have the stats handy, but as a nation we (the US) get more power generated by wood (seems like it was by a factor of 2 or 3) than all renewables combined.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Most can choose cable, DSL or satellite. Soon wireless (4G) will be an option as well.

Hopefully wireless availability will force the entrenched (by regulation) wireline providers to actually compete. As I mentioned above, satellite is really a non-starter unless you are in the jungle and there is absolutely nothing (including carrier pigeons) at your disposal.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Electric, propane, diesel. Though most people don't like these options because the technology has significant limitations (cost, availability) compared to gasoline.

Actually propane/natural gas would be much better than gasoline, we have huge NG reserves in the US. The only biggest problem is a distribution network. If it was easy to pull over and fill up the tank with NG it would be a major competitor to gas/diesel.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Nuclear (which has been regulated so much you can't build one), natural gas, biofuel, wind and solar (which are utterly impractical on the scale of our energy needs).

Yeah, it's a good thing there were regulations in place to create the light bulb, telegraph, telephone, car, airplane, refridgerator, washer, etc, etc. Oh wait, there weren't regulations, the free market created all that. It created cell phones that with more power in your hand than supercomputers of years past that took up rooms.

Yup.
Private industry and the market create wealth; government consumes it. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Government is a user/abuser, not a creator/provider. It has always been, and always will be that way.

Originally Posted by stanger89

I challenge you to show me one thing where regulation has caused choice or competition.

Regulation has given us telephone monopolies, internet monopolies, tv provider monopolies, power monopolies. It stifles innovation, discourages entrepreneurship....

And the fairness doctrine, and the housing bubble, and eugenics, and ...

Originally Posted by stanger89

AMD's doing a pretty good job, they're shipping Dells now which was unthinkable not long ago. Google and Apple crushed Microsoft in the phone and portable multimedia markets.

Actually Dell approached AMD in the 90's to provide chips. The only reason they didn't use AMD was they couldn't provide the numbers Dell required. It's nice to finally see 2 Austin companies get together

Originally Posted by stanger89

It's not regulation if that's what you're getting at. "Eco-friendlyness" is a big thing now, and without governement regulations.

Even in places where they are available, you can't pick whether your power comes from one or the other.

Eco-friendliness and green have become marketing terms, nothing more.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Which I believe we already established was essentially overturning the regulated monopolies that were originally in place. But even beyond that, they were still all using the same infrastructure that Qwest or whoever built, and were bound by the limitations of that infrastructure. All that "competition" didn't seem to bring about faster speeds.

I'm frankly amazed so many here think it's possible to regulate success and happiness, that seems to be what we're getting at here.

That government, through regulations, can induce good competition to happen. And that it can make good choices that lead to happen. I have no idea what history people are reading that gives them that idea. Especially not when there are countless examples to the contrary, Russia, Cuba, China, Greece, Spain....

Well said!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

"Renewables" are just a joke in their current state. Wind is great if you can get it from where the wind is to where the people are. The problem is all the NIMBEs that prevent the lines from being run. I've heard it said "there is [insert astronomical number] amount of power given to us by the sun every day." Fine show me the tech to take advantage of it. Current solar panels, while much better than they used to be, just aren't there yet. Magical solar panels that will make solar a viable option have been 5-10 years away for the last 25 years.

I will point out that solar and wind have a lot of promise, even today, but not the way they're most commonly being deployed, and also not at the current cost. What I mean is one of the big problems with our energy grid/system is that power is generated far from where it's used.

Local generation is a rather simple and elegant solution to the problem, if we were to place small wind/solar at each residence/business, we would distribute the generation, making the whole system more robust, plus with local storage individuals are more resilient to power issues, etc.

Of course it's not the be all end all, it doesn't work well for long spells of no wind or no sun, or night, but it would be a significant improvement.

Eco-friendliness and green have become marketing terms, nothing more.

True, but that's sort my point, it's taken off because people want it and it's a money maker, not because of any regulations.

[drewg]

Originally Posted by svemuri

See this link from CNET http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20024197-266.html

What I don't understand about this is that Comcast seems to be whining that the peering arrangement will become asymmetrical due to the new Netflix traffic coming in via L3, presumably forcing them to pay since they're terminating more traffic from L3 than they're originating to L3. Is this true?

But isn't the fact that Comcast terminates more traffic than they originate just a natural by product of their business model? Eg, they sell highly asymmetric service (10:1 or worse) to users, and then bar those users from running servers. So of course they're not originating much traffic beyond HTTP GET requests and TCP ACKs. How was it ever even remotely symmetrical, even before netflix?

Drew

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Nuclear (which has been regulated so much you can't build one)

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Stanger covered this quite well, but I'll reiterate it here. The most capable and eco-friendly way we can generate power is nuclear and no new plants have been built in 30? 40? years due solely to regulation.

I tried to stay out of this, but I find it ironic that the comments that regulations have prevented the building of eco-friendly nuclear power plants are posted on the same day that, on top of the double hit of earthquakes & tsunamis, some nuclear power plants have been shut in Japan and people evacuated from around them as a precaution because some of those plants have lost effective cooling. They had backup systems/generators & those were knocked out too (if what I'm reading is true; sometimes that's hard to tell). Hopefully, it really is just a precaution and/or the reporters are misinformed.

I think nuclear power plants are a poor argument for the need for less regulation. They sure operate just fine, except they have the potential to be huge disasters. And, they are eco-friendly, except for the radioactive waste that no one seems to know what to do with yet. Personally, I think nuclear power plants are a prime reason to argue for regulation. I don't think a loss of cooling at these plants could do anything like at Chernobyl, but I also don't think that a lack of regulations would have helped the history of nuclear power plants.

- Andy

[svemuri]

Originally Posted by drewg

What I don't understand about this is that Comcast seems to be whining that the peering arrangement will become asymmetrical due to the new Netflix traffic coming in via L3, presumably forcing them to pay since they're terminating more traffic from L3 than they're originating to L3. Is this true?

In typical paid peering arrangement, the party sending more traffic to the other (in this case L3) is expected to pay. And that is what comcast is demanding. Except, the peering is not "paid" at this point. Of course, L3 wants to avoid it becoming paid.

Originally Posted by drewg

But isn't the fact that Comcast terminates more traffic than they originate just a natural by product of their business model? Eg, they sell highly asymmetric service (10:1 or worse) to users, and then bar those users from running servers. So of course they're not originating much traffic beyond HTTP GET requests and TCP ACKs. How was it ever even remotely symmetrical, even before netflix?

Drew

Before this spat, traffic was still asymmetrical by 2:1. While I don't know the exact architecture of Comcast backbone, it is very likely that they are providing transit to a lot of non-cable modem customers to even get to this ratio. I actually know of ISPs (not comcast) that sell dirt cheap connections to companies that "host" content such as online backup providers to take advantage of the asymmetric traffic.

[Spectrum]

Originally Posted by Opus4

I tried to stay out of this, but I find it ironic that the comments that regulations have prevented the building of eco-friendly nuclear power plants are posted on the same day that, on top of the double hit of earthquakes & tsunamis, some nuclear power plants have been shut in Japan and people evacuated from around them as a precaution because some of those plants have lost effective cooling. They had backup systems/generators & those were knocked out too (if what I'm reading is true; sometimes that's hard to tell). Hopefully, it really is just a precaution and/or the reporters are misinformed.

I think nuclear power plants are a poor argument for the need for less regulation. They sure operate just fine, except they have the potential to be huge disasters. And, they are eco-friendly, except for the radioactive waste that no one seems to know what to do with yet. Personally, I think nuclear power plants are a prime reason to argue for regulation. I don't think a loss of cooling at these plants could do anything like at Chernobyl, but I also don't think that a lack of regulations would have helped the history of nuclear power plants.

- Andy

Interesting read from MIT Nuclear Science & Engineering Dept http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-a...lear-reactors/

The summary is, the plant survived remarkably well, there are multiple systems in place to deal with catastrophe, so far they are all working and there is minimal danger. We all know how our media (left, right, or center) loves a sensational story and "OMG problems at a nuclear reactor" is definitely a ratings maker.

As to regulation, of course something as dangerous as a nuclear power plant does need to be regulated. But the argument is about over regulation.

Yes there is the nuclear waste problem, to which there is no perfect solution, but fossil fuels have C02 as a by-product which is "killing the Earth" too. Nuclear and FF together account for almost 70% of US power generation and current renewables tech just can't compete. Nuclear costs much less to maintain than a fossil fuel plant => if nuclear energy wasn't over-regulated => more power would be generated by nukes => electricity would be cheaper && the Earth's "temperature" wouldn't be so high. Would the Earth instead be glowing green? Doubtful, but I guess there is a minuscule chance. There is also a chance that some bright researcher somewhere may have come up with a solution to the storage problem. More waste => more research into what to do with it.

I'll digress here and we can agree to disagree

[Clift]

Originally Posted by Opus4

I tried to stay out of this, but I find it ironic that the comments that regulations have prevented the building of eco-friendly nuclear power plants are posted on the same day that, on top of the double hit of earthquakes & tsunamis, some nuclear power plants have been shut in Japan and people evacuated from around them as a precaution because some of those plants have lost effective cooling. They had backup systems/generators & those were knocked out too (if what I'm reading is true; sometimes that's hard to tell). Hopefully, it really is just a precaution and/or the reporters are misinformed.

I think nuclear power plants are a poor argument for the need for less regulation. They sure operate just fine, except they have the potential to be huge disasters. And, they are eco-friendly, except for the radioactive waste that no one seems to know what to do with yet. Personally, I think nuclear power plants are a prime reason to argue for regulation. I don't think a loss of cooling at these plants could do anything like at Chernobyl, but I also don't think that a lack of regulations would have helped the history of nuclear power plants.

- Andy

Well said. I actually work at Nuclear Plant. In oversight, no less. For the Nuclear Industry, regulation is a good thing. And it's one that every Nuclear Professional embraces.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Spectrum

Hopefully wireless availability will force the entrenched (by regulation) wireline providers to actually compete. As I mentioned above, satellite is really a non-starter unless you are in the jungle and there is absolutely nothing (including carrier pigeons) at your disposal.

Pricing is going to have a lot to do with this, but I was just watching a review of the HTC Thunderbolt on Verizon's LTE (4G) network. They ran speedtest and got 13-14Mbps down and 33-45Mbps up off that thing. That pretty much kills any ISP around here. Though unfortunately 4G isn't around here and I think the tethering/mobile hotspot plans are kind of crappy right now.

[wrems]

Originally Posted by stanger89

They ran speedtest and got 13-14Mbps down and 33-45Mbps up off that thing.

Really? I wonder why so high on the up and mediocre on the down...