- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Net Neutrality -- What You Need To Know
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:06 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:06 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I have yet to hear a good argument on why net neutrality is a good idea.
what if it makes the internet cheaper for poor people?
what if it allows the continuation of "unlimited usage" plans?
i mean i can create some really evil scenarios on the flip side, like a 5-10 GB data cap on all plans (to keep costs in line)
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what if it makes the internet cheaper for poor people?
Well it would be a good way to keep poor people poor. Educate people, who are in general not poor, will do a better job of critically analyzing information heading their way. We need them to be informed IMHO, and this is the opposite way to do it.
And how exactly is this going to reduce the cost of internet for them? By a subsidy from netflix? HA. The internet providers have almost a monopoly, they control pricing power and they will not lower their prices. This is why we pay 2-3x for internet vs europe.
quote:
what if it allows the continuation of "unlimited usage" plans?
those are toast anyway. Personally I think data caps are a good way to solve the problem the cable companies claim to have (I don't believe them). I don't require my unlimited internet. Even though I am a heavy user I rarely hit my 250gb soft cap on comcast.
quote:
i mean i can create some really evil scenarios on the flip side, like a 5-10 GB data cap on all plans (to keep costs in line)
Sure, that would suck for a lot of people. But I would rather have data caps than deal with my information being filtered.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:15 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Its the biggest threat to personal freedom we have seen in the last 50 years
Agreed
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:20 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Well it would be a good way to keep poor people poor. Educate people, who are in general not poor, will do a better job of critically analyzing information heading their way. We need them to be informed IMHO, and this is the opposite way to do it.
so no access to internet is better than a very slightly slanted access to internet?
quote:
And how exactly is this going to reduce the cost of internet for them?
well even the fake ads showing the tier-system for N/N starts out small (like cable). limited access for less money is better for people who don't have access to the internet due to its current price point
quote:
The internet providers have almost a monopoly, they control pricing power and they will not lower their prices.
if they can expand their customer base while (1) having the plans subsidized by power users and (2) have the plans corporate sponsored, there is a major incentive to offer cheap plans. that's typically what happens in these models
remember netzero? was that a terrible model? what about the super-cheap kindle (with ads)?
tech companies have shown quite often that they will offer cheap, subsidized devices if possible
quote:
those are toast anyway.
doubtful. they will just cost more
quote:
Sure, that would suck for a lot of people. But I would rather have data caps than deal with my information being filtered.
i'll almost bet you that you'll have this option with a more free internet. it may take time, but there are going to be a multitude of plans, from the apex/most expensive (unlimited usage/sites) to very cheap (very limited use/limited sites) plans...and all the shades of grey inbetween.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:22 pm to Korkstand
quote:
And it is an extremely scary thought that our only source of unfiltered information might also become filtered
So it is extremely scary that something that was basically not around 20 years ago may be filtered? It's a wonder that people were able to survive for hundreds of years.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yes, there is. for example, the model where poor people get cheaper, less open internet. that is rarely discussed
It is rarely discussed because it has little impact on the discussion. It is one level of one example of tiered internet plans. Is this your attempt at contriving an example of how the elimination of net neutrality could be "good"?
quote:And there are a million ways that allowing ISPs to shape traffic as they see fit are bad for consumers, and we have yet to hear one valid way that it can be good.
we are talking about the effects and company policies that emerge
quote:I am not shifting the argument, I am framing the argument in a way that you might be able to understand. Apparently, it still isn't working. Understanding the difference between TV and the internet is vital to understanding why we can't allow ISPs to turn the internet into TV.
again, you're shifting the argument. comparing how tv and the internet have been implemented is irrelevant
quote:It's not about "cost", it's about "pricing" via anti-competitive practices.
i doubt it will become filtered, as much as the filterless internet will just cost more. in theory, this is only an argument about cost
quote:A success for ISPs, no doubt, but you continue to ignore the obvious consequences of making it perfectly legal for an ISP to degrade or cut off access to Netflix, making the ISP's own video on demand offering more attractive. Or any number of similar business decisions that would be perfectly legal, but decidedly anti-consumer.
if power users pay more, middle users make choices based on cost/tiers, and poor people get more access to cheap internet, that can easily be argued to be a success.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:29 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
So it is extremely scary that something that was basically not around 20 years ago may be filtered? It's a wonder that people were able to survive for hundreds of years.
Yes, it is a perturbing thought, because never before has the entire wealth of human knowledge been a five second Google search away.
Just because you can survive without that luxury, doesn't mean it isn't very valuable.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:34 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
So it is extremely scary that something that was basically not around 20 years ago may be filtered? It's a wonder that people were able to survive for hundreds of years.
quote:
ssgtiger
One of the worst posts in the history of TD
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so no access to internet is better than a very slightly slanted access to internet?
I do not believe it will be slightly slanted, I believe it will be within 5 years very slanted.
And 81% of the population has internet access. To give you comparison (91% have a cell phone, 83% have cable).
I don't know if making it more affordable will actually increase penetration that much. I am going to bet some portion of that 19% that doesn't have it, doesn't want it (i.e. old people).
quote:
if they can expand their customer base while (1) having the plans subsidized by power users and (2) have the plans corporate sponsored, there is a major incentive to offer cheap plans. that's typically what happens in these models
While the telcos aren't quite monopolies, they are pretty close. Most markets only have one or two options for internet, the telcos have almost total control of prices (thus why internet costs so much in the US). Monopolies are not known for inventive pricing schemes, instead they generally do one thing - raise prices.
To think if we just give these telcos the right to discriminate traffic and they will lower our prices is just absurd. Look at the margins on these telcos!
quote:
tech companies have shown quite often that they will offer cheap, subsidized devices if possible
Telco!=high tech. They are not the same at all. First off, most high tech markets have some competition in them. So offering subsidized devices makes sense, since you can lower the acquisition costs.
And the cable companies could offer ad supported services now to lower prices and they don't.
quote:
i'll almost bet you that you'll have this option with a more free internet. it may take time, but there are going to be a multitude of plans, from the apex/most expensive (unlimited usage/sites) to very cheap (very limited use/limited sites) plans...and all the shades of grey inbetween.
Sure there will be plans, but the telcos are going to go after every part of your digital life and try to squeeze providers. They will be a defacto tax that all businesses have to pony up to reach consumers. Its a bad thing for everyone but telco shareholders, and even then I think its of dubious value. The telcos are lining up for a blockbuster style flop. As soon as people have another option they are going to bolt.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:37 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
So it is extremely scary that something that was basically not around 20 years ago may be filtered? It's a wonder that people were able to survive for hundreds of years.
Do you realize how much of the world's economy depends on the internet?
Do you realize how difficult it will be for small businesses to ever achieve success when some of the largest companies in the world have the ability to control and/or cut off their customer base?
Have you thought about how warped markets could be, and how big a threat to capitalism it could be, to allow ISPs to essentially run the internet and decide where consumer dollars go?
So, yeah, it is very scary. Get out of here with that smartass shite.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
And reality is if customer service mattered to these fricks, they would have decent customer service. Call ATT, or comcast and see what the experience is like. Its scary.
As someone who has had zero problems in many years with both Comcast and AT&T I gladly welcome their world domination. Will cut down on my junk mail and my bill when they decrease cord cutters that are freeloading off my bill.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:50 pm to Korkstand
So again no one was able to succeed or do anything before the internet?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:55 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
So again no one was able to succeed or do anything before the internet?
I can't tell if you're trolling or if you are an idiot. Please advise so I know how to respond.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:55 pm to ssgtiger
quote:
So again no one was able to succeed or do anything before the internet?
Did you ride a horse to work today, or did you use a vehicle with an internal combustion engine?
How do goods arrive at your local store? Is it delivered via wagon?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:08 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It is one level of one example of tiered internet plans. Is this your attempt at contriving an example of how the elimination of net neutrality could be "good"?
obviously. this may become widely popular for people we don't know how consumers will react to these choices
but it's very likely that a "NetZero" plan will be offered, which will be VERY good for poor people
quote:
It's not about "cost", it's about "pricing"
pricing = cost to consumers
quote:
via anti-competitive practices.
so companies contracting with each other with competition in mind = anti-competitive?
quote:
A success for ISPs, no doubt, but you continue to ignore the obvious consequences of making it perfectly legal for an ISP to degrade or cut off access to Netflix, making the ISP's own video on demand offering more attractive.
we all know the "worst case scenario". you don't have to repeat it as every response to every argument
this is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed by any means.
quote:
but decidedly anti-consumer.
this is all in the eye of the beholder
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 2:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why don't the big ISPs already offer "netzero" plans? Considering Americans already pay much more for internet service than most of the developed world, exactly how much will our rates have to go up before they can start subsidizing these cheap plans?
obviously. this may become widely popular for people we don't know how consumers will react to these choices
but it's very likely that a "NetZero" plan will be offered, which will be VERY good for poor people
quote:"With competition in mind"? Wtfrick does that mean? Comcast contracting with Netflix to the detriment of other services is anti-competitive, no doubt about it.
so companies contracting with each other with competition in mind = anti-competitive?
quote:This "worst case scenario" is the smart business move if it is legal and there is a serious lack of competition. We already see it happening with AT&T and others blocking Google Wallet on mobile in favor of their own payment system.
we all know the "worst case scenario". you don't have to repeat it as every response to every argument
quote:Just keep ignoring every time companies do this stuff, and imagine you live in a world where companies do the "right" thing even though the "wrong" thing increases profits.
this is a possible outcome, but not guaranteed by any means.
quote:
this is all in the eye of the beholder
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:00 pm to Korkstand
So....nobody has addressed whether there will be a porn package or if porn websites will be filtered or slowed.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:02 pm to McLemore
quote:
McLemore
I listened to the entire No Agenda show, and just as I suspected they never even discussed what the debate is actually about. Their conclusion is that bandwidth costs money, and somebody has to pay for it. Yeah, no shite guys. They even suggest metered billing as some sort of solution, which is fine, but has absolutely no bearing on the topic of net neutrality.
Considering it was a 45 minute podcast about "net neutrality", there was a complete lack of discussion about the topic. If I recall correctly, they never once discussed the consequences of allowing ISPs to discriminate against packets based on their origin or destination.
The No Agenda guys should bite the bullet and create an agenda, and the first item on it should be to educate themselves on a topic before attempting to discuss it.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:05 pm to SG_Geaux
I have a theory that will probably be horribly incorrect. If just one ISP will follow the old ways, everyone will flock to that one ISP and the other ISP's will have to follow to get business. It would seem Google will be this one ISP and may partner with someone else to expand their network faster because of this.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:09 pm to Korkstand
quote:Well to be fair, many of the developed countries with cheaper internet are much more densely populated allowing considerably less infrastructure necessary to reach the masses.
Considering Americans already pay much more for internet service than most of the developed world, exactly how much will our rates have to go up before they can start subsidizing these cheap plans?
I think Net Neutrality is something that we all have to be cognizant of and pay careful attention to, but I'm not ready to put my tinfoil hat on just yet.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News