Managed Broadband Solutions for Fiber, Cable, Telephone, and Muni Providers including bandwidth management, remote spectrum analysis, broadband diagnostics, email hosting, network and device management and 24 x 7 end-user support.
I tried to combine my 10 a month (Comcast) internet essentials with free ACP benefit with their mobile plan. Saving 10$ a month. While being quite sick at the time I was being pushed to make the switch. Email after email text after text. So I did. A month went by I never left sight of my router. Apparently my mobile data went over the limit. Even tho again my router was right there and I never should have used mobile data. Before data was throttled so I was never charged like this. After a month I had an overage bill of over 300$. I changed back to my original provider. Now I'm being sued for over 500$. For a free service. Can you offer some input?
BREAKING: Supreme Court Decision on Chevron Deference Threatens FCC Net Neutrality Regulations Net neutrality is a joke considering section 230 cancels any equality with discriminatory preference of blocking of content, throttling of content, and paid prioritization of content that all the big tech companies do. Section 230 allows censorship. Under section 230 moderation is only allowed if the content is illegal but this has expanded to arbitrarily any content not favorable to the political agenda of the platform resulting in full blown censorship. "good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."" Platforms now remove content that is "objectionable" to the political agenda of the platform, not objectionable/illegal material. This is a big tech political monopoly in violation of anti trust laws. Administrative national government agencies do not even have the Constitutional right to exist let alone have any authority and they are a violation of Article I representative government. By Constitutional law only legislative Congress can make or change law, not executive branch agencies. Separation of powers of the branches of government. The creation of national agencies was not only a violation of Article I representative government but also a violation of Article VI paragraph 2 supremacy clause because Congress cannot make any law that is Contrary to the US Constitution or that law is invalid.
I have a question If these fisherman had to pay for an inspector and didn't they get to get a tax write off and still raping the seas? WTF?? Sorry for being so foul. Im a Bay area kid of the 70ties. It was the one thing Republicans got right. Again Butternuts to that third part of a cows stomach I call Cowsack MTG face next to the word!!!
This will lead to a patchwork of regulations across the states. This will be a nightmare for the utilities to administer. Each state will have their own regulations which may not match any bordering states. Expect rates to go up.
It was a government overreach right from the start. 3 Letter agencies don't get to make laws for citizens... That's the job of Congress. They should only be able to make the rules they have to live by. (Government)... Also why would rates go up? Net Neutrality wasn't even a thing 15 years ago. If anything rates would go down because companies would have less regulations to follow not more.
Interesting question. Nothing was mentioned about AI, and it may be too soon for that to be having an impact for Charter and others. But, AI chatbots and other AI-based support tools could be a factor moving forward as companies look to the future. It won't be long before they will be helping improve the efficiency of support representatives in their troubleshooting, which will reduce average call times and improve first-call resolution. That will decrease the number of representatives needed in the Call Center to support a certain size subscriber base. They could also eventually replace the need for a support representative on some basic support calls. Good for the companies, but not good for workers.
I went from DOCSIS to FTTH for free from Cox. Definitely saw the speeds go symmetrical, latency drop and reliability increase. It’s super nice. They installed a XGS-PON Calix ONT in my closet.
Before I went FTTH I think they might’ve done a mid-split for my DOCSIS. Then shortly after my internet was going down daily which made me go FTTH instead of potentially replacing the coax cable.
They can be as confident as they want, they're simply wrong. If they aren't outcompeted by fiber on speed, they're almost universally outcompeted on price, reliability, latency, stability, support, and informed customers. All of this is just excuses to investors hiding what is really a huge cost saving measure that will bite them, just as the phone companies tried to do and were forced into bankruptcy and/or to simply 180 and go 100% into fiber.
It will be some time before broadband networks funded by BEAD will be deployed. It will depend on the State, and at the earliest it likely would happen would be early to mid 2025. The good news for you is that Louisiana has been ahead of every state on the process of getting approved for funding, so they will likely be one of the first to choose the ISPs that will get the funding to build the networks. It's also always possible that funding from another program will be allocated to your area before the BEAD funding is released. You can view the FCC's National Broadband Map (broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home) to confirm what the FCC has down for your address as far as the service available. And, you can view the Louisiana Broadband Challenge Map (register.la.gov/register/bead/map) to confirm what they show for your location.
Wow; thanks for the instant education. Subscribed! SciFiNetwork is in the middle of equipping out Kenosha, WI, with T-Mobile as 1st provider (T-Fiber!). Nobody! Not even the local T-Mobile employees know how big this is going to be. K-Town has 100k population and T-Mobile isn't even hiring new folks to sign them up. They can, like you said, package in the phones and grow there, too.
This program is VERY important and NECESSARY, not only to families with limited income, but especially to elderly and disabled people, who cannot get out easily and rely HEAVILY on their phone and/or internet to contact their doctor, get medications, call for transportation, contact family members, and many other things. This program includes PHONE and /or INTERNET services, which MOST people now REQUIRE to keep up with LIFE !!! Congress think twice before cutting the people off or we will consider cutting your political career OFF !! We will not consider you for re-election. YOU are to help and LISTEN to your constituents, wealthy or poor, which you are NOT doing! YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB !!! $95 Billion for OTHER countries, but NONE for US citizens ... WRONG !! Rememer, just because we may be broke, doesn't mean we cannot get to the polls and VOTE YOU OUT !!
Government passed a $95 billion legislative package providing "security assistance"( Weapons) to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan but doesn't have 8 billions to assist its own people with a basic service such as internet access.
ISP throttling. It's old data, but netflix was basically blackmailed into signing a deal with Comcast to stop them from limiting traffic to the site. After the deal was signed, netflix saw their traffic from Comcast increase by 65%. I'm not a fan of corporations in general, but ISP's are some of the worst companies on the planet, in America we are charged some of the highest prices for the worst service because they are basically a cartel partitioning off sections of the country. This is why we often see prices drop when Google fiber enters a new area. Net neutrality is the idea that all data be treated equally, whether it comes from Forbes or netflix, amazon or twitter( I refuse to call it X, makes it feel like a porn site). I'm anti corporations being unregulated in general as well.
@@JGamer415 That's not what most people are concerned about as far as Net Neutrality. They were being told that suddenly the Internet would stop working or they wouldn't be able to go to legal content they wanted to get to. That was a paid peering arrangement between Comcast and Netflix, a business deal between two companies delivering services to a common customer. Part of the impetus for that was the result of ISPs going through growing pains when the amount of video that consumers were using took off, greatly increasing bandwidth use over a relatively short period of time. All of the costs for that increase in bandwidth use by the consumer falls on the ISP, not the streaming companies. Comcast was trying to recover some of that. Someone has to pay for that higher usage, either the ISP or the streaming company, but either way it rolls down to the consumer in the form of higher fees for broadband, or a higher fee from the streaming company paying for prioritized access. I wasn't a fan of that, but it has not happened again. ISPs have now adapted to the bandwidth floor being much higher for the average subscriber, which may be why we haven't seen the "fast lanes" again.
@@JGamer415 Yeah, that was a while ago, and not what most people think of when they hear "Net Neutrality". They've been told that the Internet will stop working, and they will not be able to get to certain content if there aren't Net Neutrality rules in place (basically, that ISPs will control what they can and can't get to). ISPs are in the business of providing full access to their customers to any legal content. There were some early issues with a few providers throttling access to competing services (like to a streaming service because they provided cable TV). That was all handled by the FCC without Net Neutrality regulations. The Comcast / Netflix thing was a paid peering agreement, so it was a deal between two companies providing services to a common customer, which would have benefited Netflix customers using Comcast because Netflix traffic would be prioritized over other streaming services. They were called "fast lanes". At first Netflix was okay with that, but then realized other ISPs would want to do the same thing. There was also a question of whether that would disadvantage up and coming streaming services that couldn't afford to pay for prioritization. In other words, would creating "fast lanes" mean that other content providers would be in "slow lanes". This all started to come about when streaming video began to take off. That greatly increased the costs for ISPs because of the huge uptick in bandwidth as more and more subscribers started streaming. To make matters worse, the streaming platforms would use as much bandwidth as was available for a stream, so as ISPs increased bandwidth for subscribers, the streaming services just ate more of it up. The ISPs took the full brunt of that. It didn't impact streaming companies at all, because they got paid by every streaming customer and didn't have to pay for the bandwidth to the ISP's network. Someone has to pay for increased costs, either the ISP or the streaming company. And either way, it is always going to roll down to the consumer in the form of a higher Internet bill, or a higher streaming bill if the streaming company had to kick in some for the bandwidth costs through paid prioritization. Today it's a different environment. ISPs have gotten used to a much higher bandwidth floor as most of their subscribers now stream, and many cable companies are abandoning their pay TV offering and/or providing bundled deals that include streaming packages with their TV interface. During the pandemic those ISPs (those who were able to) stepped up and invested a lot to keep the quality of services high as their customers started to do work and school from home. Those who were not able to keep up were providing service over older technology, primarily DSL, which would require a much more significant upgrade from DSL to fiber. And, those ISPs tended to be in rural areas where it is very costly to provide service because of far fewer customers, many more miles, and challenging terrain in places. That's why so much federal money has been put towards bringing better service to those areas. The U.S. actually compares very favorably to other countries, and it's getting better every year now that the cost of fiber has come down and there have been federal programs to bring broadband to unserved and underserved areas. It's just harder here because we are a very big country, with a lot of people who are very spread out over a lot of wide open spaces. That makes the cost of deploying and maintaining internet infrastructure much more expensive in vast areas of our country than it is in densely populated areas.
we need more competition. I have the choice between adequate broadband at high and ever increasing prices. poor broadband for a few dollars less, and starlink and a few fixed wireless lan setups at huge prices for low bandwidth and tiny monthly caps. And I'm doing much better than most who have 1 or two outrageously priced choices, one is dsl and the other cable.
This might have been a good video if you actually explained what you meant by “there’s a difference between net neutrality and net neutrality regulations “. How are those regulations burdensome?
At this point the bill has only been introduced. It still needs to get out of committee, then be voted on by the Pennsylvania House and Senate, and if it makes it through those steps, the Governor would have to sign it for it to become law. fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/pa/2023-2024/bills/PAB00032931/
Hola, muy educativo su contenido gracias , una consulta a nivel de PLEX como se solventa una afectacion en T3 o T4 , teniendo descratado ya que el tema no sean las MER ni los TX ni el SNR UP mas sin embargo se siga viendo alarmado los T3 o T4 gracias
I have been a cableon customer for over 20 year and yes I will switch to Allo because its Fiber and will help with making latency a lot better, Gamers will be so happy now that fiber is coming to Joplin.
They recognize that, and are moving in that direction. They would prefer to go fiber to the curb, and most do that when deploying broadband in a new area, but it is much more expensive to rip out the last mile of coax in areas where they are already providing service versus upgrading their existing cable plant (like ten times more expensive). With the technology available with DOCSIS 3.1 and 4.0 upgrades, they can still provide speeds that will be more than enough to meet most residential consumer needs for the foreseeable future. The very fast fiber speeds available today with XGS-PON (10 gbps) and 25G PON are way beyond what most consumers would need now, and probably will be for some time.
@@ZCorum I wouldn't use the word "moving", more like "being dragged, kicking and screaming". High-split is proving to be far more expensive than anyone's press releases. (plus, _significantly_ longer to complete.) The DAA & D4.0 pivots will be orders of magnitude more expensive as they will be replacing everything with a transistor in it. (and some of the passives, too.) Meanwhile, as the glacier that is cable slowly melts, those that ran fiber will move from 10G (that they _CURRENTLY_ do) to 25G, 50G, and probably 100G. (active optical networks can already do 400G) True, few people currently - or in the foreseeable future - need that kind of bandwidth, that's not the point... once you have fiber, your infrastructure (that expensive fiber) will print money for many decades. Those speed increases come from changing relatively cheap components at each end. The higher the available network bandwidth, the more customers you can support per port. (I'd think cable execs would be old enough to remember the days when their one-way network had thousands of connections behind a single node, but the broadband era brought that to an end.) [Lest we forget all those years of cable competing with DSL. Cable besting DSL speeds just by changing a number in a config. Ah, those were the days... Then D3.0 (bonding) allowed that number to grow orders of magnitude more than DSL. DSL providers surviving that far, went to fiber that is now absolutely killing cable. To match fiber today, cable needs D4.0 (FDX), a 3GHz plant, and hardware that can do 10 channels... well, that got impossibly absurd quickly. To match 50G PON... 6GHz, and 26 channels. For the record, _neither_ is possible with existing coax networks - the attenuation is murder at those frequencies.]
Maybe docsis/coax has a long future ahead "in a lab" but so did DSL. In the real world cable companies are losing to fiber companies and are replacing their own copper with fiber. Maybe theoretically by the time Docsis can hit 1terabit speeds the single person left with a cable connection can get it. By then the other 99% of people on fiber or whatever could be "next" if there is anything will be rocking petabit speeds
Both the customer and the service provider will be out of money. Millions will drop their service provider and these service providers will lose more than just $30.00. Multiply $30.00 x millions of customers who would drop their service providers. There will be no winners or losers here, only losers! Service providers will lose millions of dollars with the result of millions of customers dropping their providers.
Yea they cut my own next month. Only those who just apply will have it those who applied before feb. April end. So i guess i will just have unlimited talk for ten dollars. An see if i can get another internet.
Combination of harsh inflation, Wi-Fi 6e being replaced by WiFi 7, Docsis 3.1 being replaced by Docsis 4.0, modems not getting certified for large vendors, and fiber/FWA expansion
And if this does it up and any chance for the FCC to bring back net neutrality what would it mean for TV and radio broadcast with this limit FCC censorship across TV or radio broadcast? I really am curious how this would impact them the most Or this would up and FCC censorship ending censorship from the FCC? Since the Fcc cannot regulate What would it mean for the FCC‘s rules in regulation for TV radio and broadcast?
I've been running IPv6 since May 2010. Initially I used a 6in4 tunnel, but my ISP has been providing native IPv6 for over 8 years. Prior to that, they had 6rd and 6to4 tunnels.
But people won't do that. It is a relative handful of republican lawmakers who won't support further funding of the Affordable Connectivity Program, and those lawmakers NEVER feel any heat from their constituents.
Application Deadline Extended: Note that the USDA has extended the Application Deadline to May 21st, 2024: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/26/2024-03844/amended-notice-of-funding-opportunity-for-the-rural-econnectivity-program-for-fiscal-year-2024
Great Video! The NOFO states the application window ends April 22nd but the Reconnect 5 FAQ and Program Guide both say May 21st, do you know which is the case?
I would go with the NOFO. Do you have a link or links where the April date is listed? I don't see that. The Fact Sheet on the ReConnect site under "When are applications due?" says: "The application deadline is determined by the latest funding announcement", and it refers you back to the ReConnect site, which has a link to the NOFO. The Program Overview link on that site doesn't mention the due date.
