- 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 5:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
my argument is to see how this affects the market and then make the policy decision. we have the N/N market example. we don't have a non-N/N market example to compare to. we can't really evaluate the 2 policies without data from both policies
You obviously are trolling. This isn't a marketing offer where we can just do an "experiment" and see what happens. This will impact everyone who uses the internet. and once the rules are removed, they are gone forever. 
2
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:36 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
The internet is such a core part of our life, I don't think we should be making decisions through unelected committee.
2 responses here
1. who is it going to be made by? and i don't think the FCC can really do anything except remove N/N due to a court ruling anyway
2. i agree. the fate of the internet should not be left to government at all. i don't think that's what you meant, but it's a poignant time to make that point.
quote:'so does possible change
Technology scares a lot of people.
quote:
Giving corporations more control of your life is a non-starter in my opinion.
most of the great things in my life, outside of personal relations, are from corporations
look around at all the shite you own/lease that corporations made, and think about how shitty the offerings were when you were a kid. corporations made that change happen.
quote:
I cannot foresee how they can actually impact my internet activities. It may cost me a bit more money but I don't pay for that anyway.
Its others I worry about.
a prevailing issue i have with liberal-progressive thought is their assumption that average-normal people are too stupid to make their own choices. this is one of those examples.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:37 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
This isn't a marketing offer where we can just do an "experiment" and see what happens.
it basically is just that
that's how policy works
quote:
and once the rules are removed, they are gone forever.
wait...why?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. who is it going to be made by? and i don't think the FCC can really do anything except remove N/N due to a court ruling anyway
2. i agree. the fate of the internet should not be left to government at all. i don't think that's what you meant, but it's a poignant time to make that point.
1) its should be legislative, so congress
2) I would be 100% for this! But you can't have the gov't half in/half out. And that is what you are suggesting.
quote:
look around at all the shite you own/lease that corporations made, and think about how shitty the offerings were when you were a kid. corporations made that change happen.
actually for the most part, it was people that created these things that were then taken advantage of by corporations.
quote:
a prevailing issue i have with liberal-progressive thought is their assumption that average-normal people are too stupid to make their own choices. this is one of those examples.
well they are too stupid. But honestly I think if you explained net neutrality in simple terms to the everyman, they would probably side against it 75% of the time. Its just a guess, but if you phrased it -
You have three choices:
- Your favorite website remains the same
- Your favorite website stays the same but you have to pay more
- Your favorite website take 3x longer to load but you might be eligible for a discount
Which do you think a consumer is going to pick?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't think the vast majority of consumers care
there is a great deal of elitism in these arguments. i didn't want to really get into it, but it's true
y'all are ignoring the average person and how they use the internet. these people dominate the market. how the market works for these people is what is going to shape the market. for far too long, we (i include myself) "internet elitists" have lived a subsidized live on the internet. we're probably going to have to start paying our fair share, while the typical internet consumer lives a subsidized internet life.
if you want to divide the discussion up like this, you can: what percentage of the population must benefit, compared to what percentage of the population will face detriment? i'd wager right now the current policies benefit a small % of total users (your "internet elites" or "power users"), to the detriment of a much larger % (your typical/average user)
you can ask why they must subsidize our behavior patterns, especially when they're in the majority
And you continue to ignore the real implications of no net neutrality. It's not about what the consumer pays for internet access. It's about how much internet companies will have to pay (and to whom) to gain access to these consumers, and how these contracts will impact the economy.
Let's say we eliminate all regulation on ISPs, and they decide what websites can be visited, what TV channels we can watch, and what advertisements we can see on each. Are you saying they should be allowed to deny a startup ISP any ad space/time? Will this startup have to rely on billboards and newspaper ads to convey the advantages to switching to their services, considering all TV and internet in the region is controlled by the incumbent? How deep does the corporate "oppression" have to go before you feel government intervention is warranted?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and once the rules are removed, they are gone forever.
wait...why?
$$. this is all about dollars. This is why despite overwhelming negative reaction to it (just like TARP), the gov't will continue with the policy. The FFC, congress, and president are bought and paid for.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:44 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
actually for the most part, it was people that created these things that were then taken advantage of by corporations.
wut
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It's not about what the consumer pays for internet access. It's about how much internet companies will have to pay (and to whom) to gain access to these consumers
it's about both. we can simplify this even more. it's about the total cost to consumers
consumers will choose the option that offers comparable services/goods at the lower price
quote:
Let's say we eliminate all regulation on ISPs, and they decide what websites can be visited, what TV channels we can watch, and what advertisements we can see on each.
this is the problem. your argument assumes they will all act in accordance with each other and will just stop competing
yeah, it's very likely some of the ISPs will enact restrictive policies. it's also very likely some of the ISPs will not
quote:
Are you saying they should be allowed to deny a startup ISP any ad space/time?
are we to assume if the startup can pay more for the ad space, they'll still get rejected? because if not, that's how ALL ads work
quote:
corporate "oppression"
scary words!
you're not going to find many persons willing to engage in a discussion on this topic with you who will treat you with respect after you refuse to leave the emotional trickery at the door. just letting you know
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wut
individual people are the ones that invent these things. And most of the time, they do it on their own and its harvested by the corporation.
Do you work in R&D? I do. Innovation is not something a corporation does, its something an individual does. And then the corporation that he works for monetizes it. And most of the the time, the person that has the good idea has to convince a gazillion other people to complete it. They usually get a nice bonus for it. So while they are paid by the corporation, its the individual. This is why poaching is good sport in silicon valley, everyone knows its one or two engineers that come up with the good shite.
And in actuality, its not the large corporations that actually bring to market innovations, its usually smaller companies. They get bought or more likely have their ideas stolen. Most of the ipod and iphone were stolen from other firms.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's about both. we can simplify this even more. it's about the total cost to consumers
consumers will choose the option that offers comparable services/goods at the lower price
why consumers go with subsidized phones when by almost any measure they are more expensive?
quote:
are we to assume if the startup can pay more for the ad space, they'll still get rejected? because if not, that's how ALL ads work
Without net neutrality, an ISP could examine packets and say "well this gif is for a competitor, we are going to put that in the very very very slow lane"
Even if they paid for the ad, the consumer might not even see it.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:58 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
why consumers go with subsidized phones when by almost any measure they are more expensive
Short term vision and "how much a month?" mentality.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:58 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
Short term vision and "how much a month?" mentality.
basically they are idiots then?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 5:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
your assumption is that all ISPs will act the same
since all ISPs will act the same, why haven't all ISPs restricted the use of google wallet?
AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile partnered for the ISIS payment system, and all three blocked Google Wallet at one point. I think AT&T may have backed off since (whether due to public outcry or legal action, I'm not sure), and I'm not sure about the other two. What I'm saying is that every carrier that had their own offering made the same exact move of blocking a competing product, simply because they could. This is a fundamental, smart, and effective business tactic, as long as it's legal. It is also anti-competitive and bad for consumers.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:02 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Do you work in R&D? I do. Innovation is not something a corporation does, its something an individual does.
an individual...working for a corporation, receiving the paycheck and using the resources of the corporation
if they could innovate in the same manner outside of the corporation, i suggest they do so (honestly)
quote:
So while they are paid by the corporation, its the individual.
corporations are nothing more than groups of individuals
quote:
This is why poaching is good sport in silicon valley, everyone knows its one or two engineers that come up with the good shite.
those engineers should start their own company (again, seriously)
quote:
And in actuality, its not the large corporations that actually bring to market innovations, its usually smaller companies. They get bought or more likely have their ideas stolen. Most of the ipod and iphone were stolen from other firms.
ignoring the monetary aspect (which is fricked up and i'm not saying i agree with stealing, like an caps) and speaking strictly in terms of innovation, it doesn't really matter for the consumer as long as innovation happens and it makes goods/services more affordable
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:03 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
basically they are idiots then?
The general public? Yeah.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
What I'm saying is that every carrier that had their own offering made the same exact move of blocking a competing product,
but not every carrier did, is what you ignore
your arguments are all built on this assumption that ISPs will work together and forget competition...while ATT, Verizon, and T-Mobile did engage in this, Sprint and other carriers didn't.
quote:
What I'm saying is that every carrier that had their own offering made the same exact move of blocking a competing product,
the product would have to figure out a better deliver method
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:05 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
basically they are idiots then?
quote:
The general public? Yeah.
and there is that elitism
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
those engineers should start their own company (again, seriously)
they do, and this is why most of the innovation is not done by the big boys. The big boys can't innovate and they know it. who wants to work for a corporation if you have good ideas (i unfortunately have never had a good idea), when you can go make 10x the money yourself?
They used to be able to, bell labs and xerox but they days are long over. Apple is probably the best innovator of the group, and its really seeing good ideas and applying the apple method to it.
quote:
ignoring the monetary aspect (which is fricked up and i'm not saying i agree with stealing, like an caps) and speaking strictly in terms of innovation, it doesn't really matter for the consumer as long as innovation happens and it makes goods/services more affordable
Innovation is good, I don't disagree. But I don't really credit corporations for all the great things in my life. They just saw a way to make money, and did it. 90% of the time, they frick it up too.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:09 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
who wants to work for a corporation if you have good ideas (i unfortunately have never had a good idea), when you can go make 10x the money yourself?
security
and for many areas outside of tech, cost
quote:
But I don't really credit corporations for all the great things in my life. They just saw a way to make money,
a great way to make money...while serving your interests. i don't care if they make money as long as they keep serving me
quote:
90% of the time, they frick it up too.
is that why our consumer goods keep getting so much better and cheaper? constant failure?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is far from a stretch of an assumption, considering it happens all the fricking time.
this is the problem. your argument assumes they will all act in accordance with each other and will just stop competing
quote:If it's legal, the dominant ISP would reject any price for ad space for a competitor. They could also replace any ad for a competing service with an ad for their own, completely transparent to the user. The startup could pay Google tons of money to show ads, and Cox or whoever could just nullify that and show their own shite. Who's going to stop them with no government oversight? Would the startup have to pursue costly legal action? Would the public catch on and voice their opinions or speak with their wallets?
are we to assume if the startup can pay more for the ad space, they'll still get rejected? because if not, that's how ALL ads work
quote:They're supposed to be scary.
scary words!
quote:No trickery, just following a scenario to its logical conclusion.
you're not going to find many persons willing to engage in a discussion on this topic with you who will treat you with respect after you refuse to leave the emotional trickery at the door. just letting you know
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News