- 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 6:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
security
and for many areas outside of tech, cost
the people with good ideas all leave. I have seen it repeatedly. Good ideas get funded pretty easily, and they have a solid security function. Plus with unemployment in tech under 5%, you can get a job really quickly.
The only time I see them stick around is if they have a sick kid or wife.
quote:
is that why our consumer goods keep getting so much better and cheaper? constant failure?
To a certain, yes. Creative destruction and what not. But what I was referring to was large companies buying small cool companies and totally ruining their products. The list is quite long.
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:So do I, but the companies you want to turn loose are actively fighting it, and winning.
i want to see municipal fiber.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and there is that elitism
Do you really think the general public sits down and says "hmm I can pay $200 now for this phone or $350 over to 2 years? I'll pay now!"
I'm not arguing for NN....but the public is generally retarded. I was just commenting on a single question.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:16 pm to Korkstand
quote:
considering it happens all the fricking time.
when was the last time all major competitors in a market engaged in cooperation to snuff out competition? honest question
quote:
If it's legal, the dominant ISP would reject any price for ad space for a competitor.
i don't think that model would work out too well in the end
this would be companies choosing to generate less revenue
quote:
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?
other than the insanity of such a proposal, i don't even see why this would be a big deal it would just shift the internet from company-centric ad model to another revenue-generation model
quote:
No trickery, just following a scenario to its logical conclusion.
more like your subjective, preferred conclusion for this individual argument. if you're going to continue to insert your opinions as facts, there is no point to discuss this with you. i cannot debate your preferences
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:quote:the product would have to figure out a better deliver method
What I'm saying is that every carrier that had their own offering made the same exact move of blocking a competing product,
There is no better delivery method. Mobile phones are by far the most ideal way to implement tap&pay. A carrier blocking mobile payment solutions is anti-competitive, and there's no way to talk yourself around that. That is just what happens when one company controls the delivery of another's competing product when there is no regulation: anti-competitiveness. This behavior presents itself at every opportunity. I don't know why you choose to ignore this and keep saying "let's just see what happens".
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:18 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
the people with good ideas all leave. I have seen it repeatedly. Good ideas get funded pretty easily, and they have a solid security function
good
quote:
Plus with unemployment in tech under 5%, you can get a job really quickly.
well i was specifically talking about innovation outside of tech. tech innovation is cheap as shite with the right group of brains working together to code. coding is mostly man-hours and sunk costs (education/studying resources already used to learn languages/systems)
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:19 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I don't know why you choose to ignore this and keep saying "let's just see what happens".
I would actually be completely shocked if this change doesn't go through. It might die here, but it will go through. there is way too much money to be made by the telcos.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:19 pm to Korkstand
quote:
but the companies you want to turn loose are actively fighting it, and winning.
again, by using federal and state government to engage in crony capitalism. my argument is against that sort of government intrusion
i'm all for localities acting as experiments outside the regulation of non-local governmental bodies
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well i was specifically talking about innovation outside of tech. tech innovation is cheap as shite with the right group of brains working together to code. coding is mostly man-hours and sunk costs (education/studying resources already used to learn languages/systems)
I don't see much innovation outside of STEM related fields. Care to elaborate?
I would generally agree, its easier to get a product launched in the tech space. But almost all the innovation I see is driven by technology.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:24 pm to Korkstand
quote:
There is no better delivery method.
you're right. we have found the apex of humanity. we no longer need to work to create better delivery methods
how could i ever be so ignorant?
quote:
. A carrier blocking mobile payment solutions is anti-competitive,
if you ignore the fact that they're competing with EVERY mobile payment solution (including that of other carriers), i suppose
quote:
That is just what happens when one company controls the delivery of another's competing product
again. this is a flaw in the delivery method and system as a whole. it has been subsidized via government regulation (net neutrality)
quote:
when there is no regulation: anti-competitiveness.
so you want to use government to enact regulations (like net neutrality) to force ISPs and carriers to subsidize the delivery method of a competitor (Google Wallet), and you're claiming government needs to give the competitor unfair advantages via regulation....to create a more competitive market? i hope you realize the absurdity of that position
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:25 pm to Hawkeye95
well it's going to be a lot easier to develop a new networking architecture or media delivery when you're dealing with guys writing code compared to creating new cars or machinery that requires expensive factories
Posted on 5/19/14 at 6:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
Exactly. When AT&T and Verizon did away with unlimited data Sprint kept it and it has done absolutely nothing for them because the other carriers are better.
I welcome our Comcast and AT&T overlords.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You mean that thing that's done secretly because it's illegal? Or do you think the government shouldn't regulate collusion, either?
when was the last time all major competitors in a market engaged in cooperation to snuff out competition? honest question
quote:I'm more than sure they could fill the space/time with an ad for a company that doesn't potentially eat away at their customer base.
i don't think that model would work out too well in the end
this would be companies choosing to generate less revenue
quote:You don't see why it would be a big deal?! Would it be a big deal if someone ran an ad in the paper, and then the paperboy cut them out of each paper and put an ad in for his dad's company?quote:other than the insanity of such a proposal, i don't even see why this would be a big deal it would just shift the internet from company-centric ad model to another revenue-generation model
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?
quote:This all started because I made reference to "corporate oppression", and apparently you don't like this term. ISPs want the right to discriminate based on traffic sources, and to throttle or extort money from both ends. With no net neutrality, the little guy doesn't stand a chance. What is a better term for that than "oppression"?
more like your subjective, preferred conclusion for this individual argument. if you're going to continue to insert your opinions as facts, there is no point to discuss this with you. i cannot debate your preferences
You act as if I am pulling worst-case evil shite out of my arse. I said that, where possible, the "gatekeepers" (ISPs, mobile carriers, any company that controls the operations of other companies) would prefer to simply cut off access to other services rather than compete in a free market. I gave the example of the big 3 carriers blocking Google Wallet in favor of their own product. Additionally, a simple google search turns up numerous examples of ISPs throttling Netflix (or not managing their network in order to properly handle the traffic) to make their own video on demand service more attractive. This is difficult to prove in its own right, but made more difficult to prove by the fact that ISPs can simply deny it or say they simply can't handle the traffic. However, using a VPN "solves" the problem in most cases, so it's clear that the bandwidth is available, and that is pretty damning evidence that fishy things are going on.
And that "insane" scenario I brought up about swapping ads? That also happened.
If you think, for a second, that an ISP would improve their own video service to compete with Netflix, when the legal option exists to simply degrade the competition's service OR extort Netflix and cause their prices to increase, you are delusional. Capitalism doesn't automatically result in what's best for consumers. It does what maximizes profits. Where competition exists, this also results in what's best for consumers. Where true competition doesn't exist, it does the exact opposite. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The smart phone is a wonderful device, capable of many things, including electronic payments. There is a market for electronic payment methods right fricking now. Short of creating another device for us to carry around, the cell phone is the ONLY delivery method for software that handles mobile electronic payments. Why are you trying to be a smartass defending anti-competitive practices?
you're right. we have found the apex of humanity. we no longer need to work to create better delivery methods
quote:I don't know, but it is incredibly frustrating trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone who is apparently acting intentionally ignorant.
how could i ever be so ignorant?
quote:Considering the three carriers working together on ISIS comprise about 70% of the US mobile market share together, I'd say they covered their bases and had some serious discussions about the gameplan. Don't you think the fact that at some point each of them decided to block Google Wallet from their devices is telling? Further, once they actually allowed Wallet to be installed, it still doesn't work with tap&pay functionality because the carriers moved the hardware that makes it work from the phone to the sim card. I have Wallet on my AT&T S3, and the tap&pay settings are all there, but it simply doesn't work on tap&pay terminals. To the vast majority of consumers, this says that Wallet sucks and ISIS just works.
if you ignore the fact that they're competing with EVERY mobile payment solution (including that of other carriers), i suppose
quote:The only "flaw" in the delivery method is that the same company doesn't control the entire stack end-to-end. This is actually a good thing, but it obviously fails when companies decide to do anti-competitive things.
again. this is a flaw in the delivery method and system as a whole. it has been subsidized via government regulation (net neutrality)
quote:You keep using the word "subsidize" in ways that makes me think you don't know the definition. How is a carrier subsidizing Google Wallet by allowing it to work as intended? Wallet uses data that I pay for just like any other app. Should the data that Wallet uses be more costly than the data my browser uses, simply because my carrier has a competing app? But if the data costs the same, somehow the carrier is subsidizing it? Do you realize the absurdity of your position?
so you want to use government to enact regulations (like net neutrality) to force ISPs and carriers to subsidize the delivery method of a competitor (Google Wallet), and you're claiming government needs to give the competitor unfair advantages via regulation....to create a more competitive market? i hope you realize the absurdity of that position
Posted on 5/20/14 at 3:19 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
and once the rules are removed, they are gone forever.
Exactly. I don't see how anyone can say, "well let's see what happens first"!
You think they will go back? People didn't know what would happen with the Patriot Act and the NDAA, but now it's in and engrained into our rights, or lack thereof. Do we still need most of the stipulations of the Patriot Act? Hell no. Think it's going away anytime soon?
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News