- 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 3:12 pm to Korkstand
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:12 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Korkstand
Why are you the only one who sees the danger to our freedom and economy with this shite?
Say I want to open a home improvement store, small business in my hometown to compete with Lowe's or Home Depot. Wouldn't one of them just pay extra to have their website be great, while mine loads 1995 AOL style? Small business won't compete without internet these days. That's a fact.
5
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:15 pm to Moustache
quote:
Small business won't compete without internet these days. That's a fact.
+1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:19 pm to Moustache
He's not the only one who sees it...
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:21 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:If all ISPs were available in all markets, this would work. Unfortunately, there is a severe lack of competition across the majority of the country.
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.
On top of this, ISPs have been lobbying very hard to get states to ban municipal broadband networks, and it's working. There are many advantages to a city building its own fiber network: smart electricity grids that are more robust and have fewer and shorter outages, smart traffic lights, and of course they can actually generate revenue by offering broadband internet. There is pretty much no downside to a city going this route (provided it is economically viable), but the ISPs are fighting it tooth and nail. They are clinging to an outdated business model, trying to apply the TV model to the internet, and they could very well succeed considering the lack of competition and the amount of lobby dollars going toward keeping it that way.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:22 pm to Moustache
quote:
Why are you the only one who sees the danger to our freedom and economy with this shite?
The public seems to be on his side
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:31 pm to LSUAfro
quote:Well, to be more fair, much of our population is densely populated, as well. Also, the backbone runs that connect these individual areas are much cheaper per mile than the last mile runs. All told, the cost to connect each household is likely pretty similar.
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.
Also, we had quite a bit of a head start on everybody else, and have now fallen way, way behind.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:37 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Its the biggest threat to personal freedom we have seen in the last 50 years.
Late response, but considering the age we're in and society's ~100% dependence on the internet, this is the largest single threat to personal freedom and marketplace freedom we've ever seen.
This is a direct challenge to "unregulated markets are the true free markets" as this is the perfect example of what that means.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:
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.
Why should I subsidize you constantly streaming Netflix espn etc? That's what the cordcutters want...nothing but a bunch of leaches. It's like uninsured people showing up in the ER. It drives up the price for the rest of us. Same people who hate on this hate on data caps etc. why should I pay for you to torrent 20 movies?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:57 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Why don't the big ISPs already offer "netzero" plans?
well if they're corporate sponsored and allow superior access to sites associated with sponsors, that would violate N/N
quote:
Comcast contracting with Netflix to the detriment of other services is anti-competitive, no doubt about it.
if it gives Comcast an advantage over Turner or Cox or SuddenLink then that is teh definition of competitive
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.
companies do what consumers demand of them
Posted on 5/19/14 at 3:59 pm to Hu_Flung_Pu
quote:
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.
this will happen, but it will take time.
ETA: this will happen if we don't allow more government intervention, which will lead to crony capitalism that got us in this mess in the first place. it may hurt for a bit, but long-term it will work itself out
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:00 pm to Moustache
quote:
Say I want to open a home improvement store, small business in my hometown to compete with Lowe's or Home Depot. Wouldn't one of them just pay extra to have their website be great, while mine loads 1995 AOL style? Small business won't compete without internet these days. That's a fact.
this is one potential possibility. it's not the only one, and it's a short-term view
i'd rather wait to see what happens and have a discussion with data than have an emotional-based argument that boils down to (1) worst case scenario or (2) N/N status quo
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:03 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Why should I subsidize you constantly streaming Netflix espn etc? That's what the cordcutters want...nothing but a bunch of leaches. It's like uninsured people showing up in the ER. It drives up the price for the rest of us. Same people who hate on this hate on data caps etc. why should I pay for you to torrent 20 movies?
the people who have abused the system seem to be the ones yelling the loudest. "power users" are a very, very small % of the market who use up an insane amount of bandwidth. they refuse to see the opposite spectrum of casual consumer use (which this theoretically will help a great deal)
power users are going to have to pay a lot more money for the internet the way they've been using it, and they're not happy
watch: ask them why we can't wait and see what happens. they will say it will be "too late" because the mass of consumers will have adopted to the new system and accepted it.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
companies do what consumers demand of them
quote:
well if they're corporate sponsored and allow superior access to sites associated with sponsors, that would violate N/N
quote:
if it gives Comcast an advantage over Turner or Cox or SuddenLink then that is teh definition of competitive
Next year AT&T is going to offer their own service like Netflix, but provide access to their own service in the "fast lane" while keeping Netflix in the "slow lane" and you will be here arguing how this isn't anticompetitive
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
companies do what consumers demand of them
The threat of competition and buying an alternative is the leverage consumers use to demand things of companies. The government created lack of competition is a big problem in this space that shouldn't be dismissed just because there is some minor level of competition between the oligopoly. But I do think people are greatly overestimating how much this will actually affect things.
It's not like people are literally running their garage business out of their garage with a home web server and couldn't get to customers without negotiating deals with ISPs themselves. Most people use web hosts who will do the negotiating for them. Does this mean cheap webhosting will be less cheap? Yes, but it's not like it will double in price. Something like SquareSpace going from $25 per month to $30 per month isn't going to kill small startups. Even if it doulbed, if you can't handle an extra $300 in start up costs, you probably weren't going to change the world very much.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:16 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
The government created lack of competition is a big problem in this space that shouldn't be dismissed just because there is some minor level of competition between the oligopoly.
i am not dismissing it. i'm saying that long-term, using government (N/N) to fix the problems of government (the crony-capitalist way the system has been built and exists current) is pretty much never the solution
is this the extremely rare exception? perhaps. we have yet to see what a non-N/N world is like. we can't judge until we see what happens. that's my position that pretty much everyone ignores. like i said, the emotional, histrionic black/white argument has dominated this discussion. (1) worst case scenario or (2) N/N. people trying to dominate this conversation as experts state these options without any other option. their proof? nothing (it's in the future, so there can be no proof)
quote:
But I do think people are greatly overestimating how much this will actually affect things.
thank you
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:16 pm to jeff5891
quote:
Next year AT&T is going to offer their own service like Netflix, but provide access to their own service in the "fast lane" while keeping Netflix in the "slow lane" and you will be here arguing how this isn't anticompetitive
SFP is a smart guy, but he's so blinded by his ideology that he's gotten pretty hacktastic over this and a few other issues.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:17 pm to jeff5891
quote:
Next year AT&T is going to offer their own service like Netflix, but provide access to their own service in the "fast lane" while keeping Netflix in the "slow lane" and you will be here arguing how this isn't anticompetitive
sounds like Netlfix needs to make some deals with other ISPs so they can compete with AT&T
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:18 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Why should I subsidize you constantly streaming Netflix espn etc? That's what the cordcutters want...nothing but a bunch of leaches. It's like uninsured people showing up in the ER. It drives up the price for the rest of us. Same people who hate on this hate on data caps etc. why should I pay for you to torrent 20 movies?
Let's get a few things straight here, first. Data caps and customer pricing have absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. If an ISP feels the need to put caps and charge for overage, that's fine. It is a total rip-off for consumers, but it's still fine. If you feel that you are getting ripped off because others are getting more use out of their bandwidth than you are, then take it up with your ISP for not offering a level of service at a price you like, or for not charging heavy users more for their service. They can even go to metered billing, which is also fine as far as net neutrality is concerned (though there are a lot of other problems with metered internet billing).
Somehow you have been convinced that ISPs charging users extra for access to Netflix (or whatever) is the only solution. But, while it certainly would solve some issues with bandwidth constraints, it is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. The reasons why it is wrong and the problems it presents have been discussed already in this thread.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:19 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
but he's so blinded by his ideology that he's gotten pretty hacktastic
saying, "let's wait and see what happens" so that we can make a decision based on data is now being "hacktastic"?
and as my post above this states, that's a competitive move. is it anti-competitive when companies only make apps for the apple universe?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 4:20 pm to Korkstand
quote:
But, while it certainly would solve some issues with bandwidth constraints, it is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.
based on what, exactly? your preferences? your fears?
you're making a very opinionated and subjective statement as a factual statement
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News