Comcast has completed the upgrade of its footprint to DOCSIS 3.1 with gigabit offers to all of its customers. What sort of capex makes sense for them to take on today?
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting you misread my statement about The World being the first consumer-facing Internet service in the US.
Just as you misrepresented my claim about The World, you've misread the legal definition of Information. So let's go back to the original statement before it was transformed into swiss cheese:
The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications ...but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
This does not say Information Service must be provided over a telecommunications "Service" with the trappings thereof, such as its own SKU and price tag. In the real world, Internet service is provided over a number of distinct and different telecommunications/transmission facilities (DSL, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, LTE, et al.) None of these facilities define the Internet Service, but they all help make it available. The Title II lobby wants the transmission facility to swallow all the bits that move over it. That's certainly one reading of the law, but the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court, and the FCC have said there's another reading that's at least as good.
So there you have it, you've proved you can't read, that you lack manners, and that you have too much time on your hands. Good luck finding work, and you have now have the last word.
I find it useful to read entire sentences before drawing conclusions. I said The World was the first consumer-facing ISP in the US. Wikipedia says The World was the second commercial ISP *in the world" after some outfit in Australia. Wikipedia does not say Telenet was the first; only you hallucinate that.
And no, DSL doesn't reach "the Internet"; it reaches an ISP who reaches the Internet via its own lines. Thus has it ever been. But if you want to redefine DSL to mean "swiss cheese" not only does it become part of a ham sandwich, it resembles your thought process.
LOL, look up The World in Wikipedia, the authority on conventional wisdom. Telenet never connected consumers to the Internet, it connected them to service providers.
DSL (as a transmission method, not the overall service) is, indeed, similar in function to DOCSIS. However the term is also used to generally apply to a specific type of internet access.
This thread is about a court case. In law, as in engineering, words are used according to their precise and actual meanings. In reality, AT&T offered a DSL service to its customers before it offered any kind of Internet service.
So Telenet was a consumer facing ISP in 1974 BEFORE THE FUCKING INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED? Wow, that's a level of stupid unsurpassed in human history.
Telenet was a packet-switched data network that provided a business service, chiefly for computer time-sharing. In the 1990s, it was used by the so-called dial-up ISPs to bypass telco long distance service. AOL customers dialed a local number owned by Telenet; it carried data to Reston, VA, where the AOL servers were locating.
DSL is simply a layer 2 data link, equivalent to DOCSIS. Both can be used as part of an Internet service, but they have other uses as well. DOCSIS, for example, also carries phone calls and data for security services offered by the cable companies.
The Internet architecture has three layers: the IP layer, the TCP/UDP transport layer, and the telnet/ftp/email/http layer. That's it. Three is not seven.
LOL, this is such a clueless question I don't even know where to start answering it. Ever since America's first consumer-facing ISP (The World) opened its doors in 1989, ISPs have been classified as enhanced facilities/information services exempt from telecommunications regulation. This was the case when the 1996 Telecom Act was written, and the only references it makes to ISPs acknowledges this well-understood status.
When DSL was introduced, it was simply a transmission service that did not include any ISP functionality. It was actually created for VoD, a market that failed to materialize as it was conceived in the 1990s. Cable modem was different because it was conceived as the transmission layer for an ISP service.
While telcos offered DSL as a pure transmission service connecting the customer premise to the telco CO, cable modem service was never offered that way. Broadband Internet Service is a unitary offering that includes the DOCSIS transmission component, but it is more than DOCSIS because it interconnects with the Internet, provides DNS, caching, anti-virus, PC tech support, and other bells and whistles.
This is elementary history that is easily verified.
It's also well understood that the IETF model of protocol layering doesn't follow a 7 layer model like OSI just as it's understood that a cable connector is not a telephone pole.
It occurs to me that the definition of Information Service I cited here is incomplete. Here's the whole sentence from the DC Circuit's opinion:
"The term “information service” means the offering of
a capability for generating, acquiring, storing,
transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
making available information via telecommunications
* * * but does not include any use of any such
capability for the management, control, or operation
of a telecommunications system or the management
of a telecommunications service."
Thank you, drive through.
In general, only DSL is unbundled across Europe. Shared access to cable modem is technical infeasible and exclusive access to FTTH is commonly offered as an inducement for ISPs to invest.
You should read my paper, G7 broadband dynamics: How policy affects broadband quality in powerhouse nations, 2014. It documents the effects of policy choices in the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, UK, France, and Italy.
Since you're struggling to understand network architecture and have got a number of wrong ideas about it (the OSI model doesn't have a layer for wires, of course), let me recommend a good book for you: John Day, Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals, 2008.
It's the single most definitive text on the subject ever written. Professor Day is a co-author of my Amicus brief (the one that you don't understand).
My, what an intriguing comment/question you construct, dear Coward. Amici for both sides of the question agree that DNS is fundamentally independent of the transmission component of broadband Internet service, yet you disagree. What is your authority and what is your reasoning?
Internet service doesn't use OSI protocols, it uses the IETF stack: IP, TCP, UDP, BGP, HTTP, and DNS. This is explained in excruciating detail in amici for the petitioners and for the respondents. The transmission component of the Internet - and of the broadband Internet service offered by ISPs - is provided at the Data Link layer by systems such as fiber and copper Ethernet, DSL, DOCSIS, Wi-Fi, LTE, and xPON.
The order explains that the deciding issue in the definition of telecommunications service is the role played by the transmission component. ISPs offer a service to the public that includes a transmission component as well as an information service component. The legal definition of an Information Service is “generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
retrieving, utilizing, or making available information”; ISPs offer transmission only to process information and make it available.
Internet Protocol itself is simply a routing function; IP depends on actual transmission technologies to move information from point A to point B because it cannot perform transmission on its own.
The court says who's right and who's wrong in the portion immediately preceding what I've already quoted; it starts on page 29.
"Finally, an argument made by amici on behalf of
Petitioners as to DNS arguably aligns with claims made by the
Commission’s amici and so may work in the agency’s favor.
Petitioners’ amici assert in the context of functional integration
(an issue to which we turn in Part I.C.4) that broadband Internet
access is not functionally integrated with DNS because
broadband access works perfectly well without DNS. “Internet
architects deliberately created DNS to be entirely independent
from the IP packet transfer function,” Jordan/Peha Amicus Br.
17, and “a BIAS provider’s DNS is an extraneous capability
not required for the core service,” id. at 17–18 (emphasis
added)."
The court is saying that Peha/Jordan (both former chief technologists for pro-NN FCCs) characterize DNS the same way I do; the court takes the consistency of our views as evidence of their correctness.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be silly. Regulation has a lot to do with investment, but so does technology, user demand, and a few other things.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, definitely high.
Broadband investment follows a ten year cycle where R & D is followed by spending followed by recouping invest; rinse and repeat.
Following RIF, Comcast invested in providing universal gigabit. They've now moved into the R & D phase for 10 gigabit.
You have to explain every little thing to the Techdirt kids.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
Odd comment. I can only surmise that Coward is high.
On the post: Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality
OK boomer
Comcast has completed the upgrade of its footprint to DOCSIS 3.1 with gigabit offers to all of its customers. What sort of capex makes sense for them to take on today?
On the post: House Overwhelmingly Votes To Empower Copyright Trolls And To Bankrupt Americans For Sharing Photos
I did not write this
The sociopath side of Techdirt is showing again.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re:
My G7 broadband report (mentioned above) provides evidence that ISPs in the US and Canada deliver the best broadband service in the G7.
Read it.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a lot of words to avoid admitting you misread my statement about The World being the first consumer-facing Internet service in the US.
Just as you misrepresented my claim about The World, you've misread the legal definition of Information. So let's go back to the original statement before it was transformed into swiss cheese:
This does not say Information Service must be provided over a telecommunications "Service" with the trappings thereof, such as its own SKU and price tag. In the real world, Internet service is provided over a number of distinct and different telecommunications/transmission facilities (DSL, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, LTE, et al.) None of these facilities define the Internet Service, but they all help make it available. The Title II lobby wants the transmission facility to swallow all the bits that move over it. That's certainly one reading of the law, but the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court, and the FCC have said there's another reading that's at least as good.
So there you have it, you've proved you can't read, that you lack manners, and that you have too much time on your hands. Good luck finding work, and you have now have the last word.
LOL!
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it useful to read entire sentences before drawing conclusions. I said The World was the first consumer-facing ISP in the US. Wikipedia says The World was the second commercial ISP *in the world" after some outfit in Australia. Wikipedia does not say Telenet was the first; only you hallucinate that.
And no, DSL doesn't reach "the Internet"; it reaches an ISP who reaches the Internet via its own lines. Thus has it ever been. But if you want to redefine DSL to mean "swiss cheese" not only does it become part of a ham sandwich, it resembles your thought process.
LOL!
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
LOL, look up The World in Wikipedia, the authority on conventional wisdom. Telenet never connected consumers to the Internet, it connected them to service providers.
This thread is about a court case. In law, as in engineering, words are used according to their precise and actual meanings. In reality, AT&T offered a DSL service to its customers before it offered any kind of Internet service.
LOL!
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
The laughs keep on coming...
So Telenet was a consumer facing ISP in 1974 BEFORE THE FUCKING INTERNET WAS EVEN INVENTED? Wow, that's a level of stupid unsurpassed in human history.
Telenet was a packet-switched data network that provided a business service, chiefly for computer time-sharing. In the 1990s, it was used by the so-called dial-up ISPs to bypass telco long distance service. AOL customers dialed a local number owned by Telenet; it carried data to Reston, VA, where the AOL servers were locating.
DSL is simply a layer 2 data link, equivalent to DOCSIS. Both can be used as part of an Internet service, but they have other uses as well. DOCSIS, for example, also carries phone calls and data for security services offered by the cable companies.
The Internet architecture has three layers: the IP layer, the TCP/UDP transport layer, and the telnet/ftp/email/http layer. That's it. Three is not seven.
Come on, give me some more laughs!
LOL.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL, this is such a clueless question I don't even know where to start answering it. Ever since America's first consumer-facing ISP (The World) opened its doors in 1989, ISPs have been classified as enhanced facilities/information services exempt from telecommunications regulation. This was the case when the 1996 Telecom Act was written, and the only references it makes to ISPs acknowledges this well-understood status.
When DSL was introduced, it was simply a transmission service that did not include any ISP functionality. It was actually created for VoD, a market that failed to materialize as it was conceived in the 1990s. Cable modem was different because it was conceived as the transmission layer for an ISP service.
While telcos offered DSL as a pure transmission service connecting the customer premise to the telco CO, cable modem service was never offered that way. Broadband Internet Service is a unitary offering that includes the DOCSIS transmission component, but it is more than DOCSIS because it interconnects with the Internet, provides DNS, caching, anti-virus, PC tech support, and other bells and whistles.
This is elementary history that is easily verified.
It's also well understood that the IETF model of protocol layering doesn't follow a 7 layer model like OSI just as it's understood that a cable connector is not a telephone pole.
LOL.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, that's totally what happened here.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
LOL!
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Information Service
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL!
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
Layer 1 of the OSI model encompasses bit encoding.
Get back with me after you've done your reading.
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Error!
In general, only DSL is unbundled across Europe. Shared access to cable modem is technical infeasible and exclusive access to FTTH is commonly offered as an inducement for ISPs to invest.
You should read my paper, G7 broadband dynamics: How policy affects broadband quality in powerhouse nations, 2014. It documents the effects of policy choices in the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, UK, France, and Italy.
Does this help?
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
How cute!
Since you're struggling to understand network architecture and have got a number of wrong ideas about it (the OSI model doesn't have a layer for wires, of course), let me recommend a good book for you: John Day, Patterns in Network Architecture: A Return to Fundamentals, 2008.
It's the single most definitive text on the subject ever written. Professor Day is a co-author of my Amicus brief (the one that you don't understand).
Does this help?
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
The OSI stack?
My, what an intriguing comment/question you construct, dear Coward. Amici for both sides of the question agree that DNS is fundamentally independent of the transmission component of broadband Internet service, yet you disagree. What is your authority and what is your reasoning?
Internet service doesn't use OSI protocols, it uses the IETF stack: IP, TCP, UDP, BGP, HTTP, and DNS. This is explained in excruciating detail in amici for the petitioners and for the respondents. The transmission component of the Internet - and of the broadband Internet service offered by ISPs - is provided at the Data Link layer by systems such as fiber and copper Ethernet, DSL, DOCSIS, Wi-Fi, LTE, and xPON.
The order explains that the deciding issue in the definition of telecommunications service is the role played by the transmission component. ISPs offer a service to the public that includes a transmission component as well as an information service component. The legal definition of an Information Service is “generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing,
retrieving, utilizing, or making available information”; ISPs offer transmission only to process information and make it available.
Internet Protocol itself is simply a routing function; IP depends on actual transmission technologies to move information from point A to point B because it cannot perform transmission on its own.
Does this help?
On the post: Court Says FCC Can't Stop States From Protecting Net Neutrality
Read Page 29 of the opinion too
The court says who's right and who's wrong in the portion immediately preceding what I've already quoted; it starts on page 29.
"Finally, an argument made by amici on behalf of
Petitioners as to DNS arguably aligns with claims made by the
Commission’s amici and so may work in the agency’s favor.
Petitioners’ amici assert in the context of functional integration
(an issue to which we turn in Part I.C.4) that broadband Internet
access is not functionally integrated with DNS because
broadband access works perfectly well without DNS. “Internet
architects deliberately created DNS to be entirely independent
from the IP packet transfer function,” Jordan/Peha Amicus Br.
17, and “a BIAS provider’s DNS is an extraneous capability
added)."
The court is saying that Peha/Jordan (both former chief technologists for pro-NN FCCs) characterize DNS the same way I do; the court takes the consistency of our views as evidence of their correctness.
Next >>