cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Pro-internet Voters Debate forum

56ok
Novice III

If you were going to base your federal and state and local votes on what is best for you for the internet this is the topic to do it in.

 

I eventually found out later that I was screwed by the regulations put into place of the federal 2010 Broadband Act which was Obama and Democratic House and Senate legislation.  At around 2007 we went out from dial up to the only choice we had other than dial-up and satellite,  Sprint 3G.  Yes we were using our cellular internet as a home internet connection to power my Xbox 360 and Wii online.  Yes it was not quite enough to be legally compatible,  namely one Meg in 250k out.  But they said I could play some games just not every game.  So I thought why not establish a website as a less than Broadband users guide to video games, hence 56ok.org was born.    Then Sprint was promising WiMAX and then suddenly went silent about about it around 2010.  Little did I know that some probations in the 2010 Broadband act classified certain isps as land-based and must follow the regulations.  If the cellulars wanted to offer home internet then they'd be subject to the same regulations that the land-based ISPs are.  But that killed off any prospect of the WiMAX idea working.  Eventually Sprint went out of business and got bought up by T-Mobile.  

 

Between that time and the T-Mobile Sprint merger internet companies were doing everything possible to seal up loopholes for home users like me.

 

At around 2015 I asked all four cellulars I try to get your plans the people say they believe my ideas work but they never implement them at a higher level.  They're only two possible explanations why all four cellular companies say these are great ideas you choose not to implement them, either anti-trust collusion, or regulations by the federal government against such service.  Three of the four said major cellulars it was government.  The fourth  AT&T I believe was silent on the issue.

 

When the T-Mobile Sprint merger happened in the Trump Administration they were told that Sprint tried to bring high-speed internet to rural areas by using WiMAX and his predecessor regulated them out of business.  Since then the government allows more flexibility to allow helping truly unserved areas using cellular phones in creative ways.

 

One of those creative ways I suggested to visible after they won me as a customer by saying they give me unlimited hotspot bandwidth, but the only thing that's limited is the speed at 5 meg in 5 meg out.  To most people that would be a sacrifice but to me if that's the penalty for going over your cap is going five and five in speed, then call me a hockey goon.  Or in the spirit of Dr Martin Luther King call it accepting your punishment when punishment is actually better than your "law abiding" status quo.

 

Visible was actually helping people like me with this five Meg speed limit to make it actually worth coming over from DSL which has 1.6 Meg in, 400k out for a household of four to share.

 

So yes it does matter who you vote for.  And unfortunately you can't vote issue by issue like Ross Perot's idea of a direct democracy using postcards?!?  You could only choose from menu A or menu B.  But since Visible, is my internet ISP, this site is only about politics as it relates to Visible Wireless and other data issues.

 

And now we got biting in the Democrats federally however there is a second front to cover.

 

This one particularly deals with Ohio and how the Ohio Republicans have been trying to hinder a quasi government fiber optic company locally called Medina Fiber in Medina County Ohio, because it should be safe for Private industry.  Or more accurately it should be saved for one private company per region.  

 

I have a choice of federal senators since each state has two.  I chose the one that was more willing to listen to me which was the Democrats in the federal Senate, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, my lifelong state of residence.    And my Ohio state representative for my geographical district is Sharon Ray, a Republican.

 

So I told both of them about my situation how this one Street I live on is a data desert.  We had some shenanigans with the DSL company saying we get 6 to 12 Meg in and when we talk to Frontiers FCC representative she said there was no box she could mark to indicate sub-broadband speeds.

 

Then there's the issue about the cable company being kept out by the DSL company in power company working together.

 

My point that is even though they wear the jerseys of the teams that are keeping the internet away,  underneath the jerseys they're actually pretty sympathetic to my cause.

 

Now practically living under these conditions for 20 years, I wrecked my brain and thoughts how do I get internet to people in data deserts without giving it to typical tourists in Driveover Land.

 

I thought since the cellular companies have car hot spots which require movement why not have data deserts plans which require stasis in such a data desert to activate the data desert clause.  I can  prove both stasis and geographical location with a GPS.

 

However because this is a federal internet issue Federal law requires that all plans must be available to all people regardless of geographical billing location.  I argued since cell companies can give different roaming terms based on the fact that there are no home base towers in your area and that's considered usage zip code discrimination which is legal, make this plan not based on billing zip code but uses zip code.  Other visible customers might have someone in a day to Desert they'd like to use their hotspot in.  Likewise it would be flaunting it if I could get actual 4G speeds or higher on a hotspot while in motion or in the city where there is a current Internet connection.  I don't truly need it in those cases.  Therefore we established it's based on geographical usage data not geographical billing data.

 

Everyone I talk to Visible likes my idea, enough to the point where everyone tells me that a) I uniquely came up with the specifics of this plan (if someone concurrently came up with similar ideas I'll be willing to share credit but I hope the people at Visible aren't lying when they say I'm the unique one who came up with this.). And the math people and data traffic people all figured out that that plan would help data desert dwellers well and accurately Target them without bestowing the same benefits on tourists on the interstate.  This would also be available to everyone in the country but will only be usable in areas that truly need it.  Visible said they do it but they need permission from both Verizon the place where they buy their Network bandwidth from and the FCC the government agency who handles the cellular industry.

 

Both the federal and state legislators' offices are helping me deal with the FCC about this plan and seeing if it meets FCC criteria for "not hurting the network adversely" as well as the state Monopoly issues dealing with the quasi government fiber company.

 

The funny thing is the two people would wear the jerseys of "my internet enemy", yet wear opposite colored jerseys respective to each other, yet they appear to be jumping onto my side when they hear my story.

 

I want to get opinions from other Visible users.  Especially the opposite side of this proposed data desert plan.

 

This might be a weird year where no matter what happens in 2022 I'm voting a split ticket.

 

If the Federal Democrat senator and the State Republican representative both seem to help me out, I'll be voting for federal Democrats and state Republicans.  However if the current Visible is the best I could hope for, I may have to vote for federal Republicans and Ohio State Democrats.

 

I'm not necessarily saying the federal Democrats of 2020 are like the federal Democrats of 2010 in terms of internet policy.  I understand that Washington speak is very cross referential referring to other laws and other words in specific sentences and feels very complex.

 

If anyone understands the original 2010 Federal Broadband Act, and what the positive reason for limiting cellular internet being home internet was, I'd like to hear it.  If I can't be happy about it, at least I like to hear who would be happy about it and say "good for you."

0 REPLIES 0