- 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: Marco Rubio on Net Neutrality: ‘This Is a Solution in Search of a Problem’
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:10 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:10 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
0
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:21 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Marco!
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:42 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You think the FCC will do that?
Lol
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:56 pm to MastrShake
Anyone who supports net neutrality obviously hasn't read past headlines to see what it is really about.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 9:45 pm to olddawg26
i started writing a website at my kitchen table and getting a few hundred page views a day. 5 years later i was still writing it at my kitchen table but getting half a billion page views a year. i was in the same general category as maxim.com, and i was getting more traffic than they were. just me.
i never could have done that under the laws rubio wants.
the site we're on right now could have easily been the same, and might still die if internet is not treated as a utility.
netflix is one of the greatest business success stories in decades. if it had started under these laws, it would still be on the same level as redbox.
telecom spent 88 million on lobbying last year. people like rubio are paid to say these things. do not trust them. do not believe them.
for the love of god people, for your own good, do not be this gullible, find out what NN actually is and what it does and what will change. because some of you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. you're actively involved in an argument that you know nothing about.
i never could have done that under the laws rubio wants.
the site we're on right now could have easily been the same, and might still die if internet is not treated as a utility.
netflix is one of the greatest business success stories in decades. if it had started under these laws, it would still be on the same level as redbox.
telecom spent 88 million on lobbying last year. people like rubio are paid to say these things. do not trust them. do not believe them.
for the love of god people, for your own good, do not be this gullible, find out what NN actually is and what it does and what will change. because some of you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. you're actively involved in an argument that you know nothing about.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:03 pm to notsince98
quote:
Anyone who supports net neutrality obviously hasn't read past headlines to see what it is really about.
Anyone with a brain supports it baw
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:04 pm to MastrShake
What's your website and who are you bought and sold by?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 10:43 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:i stopped writing it like 5 years ago. the company that bought it got bought and then they got bought and things went to hell, and Ive moved on so I'd honestly have to check to see if it even still exists, but it is (was?) wwtdd.com. "what would tyler durden do".
What's your website
heres a cap of my best years traffic, just in case you think i was making that part up.
back in December, Chicken posted that, "TigerDroppings.com and SECrant.com ... combined for 89.6 million page views (in November, with traffic) fueled by the presidential election and the LSU coaching search..."
my best month, i think, was 51 million page views, and let me preface this next part by saying that i have all the respect in the world for Chicken, i know how hard this is first hand, the job hes done is remarkable, but i didnt have message boards, i personally wrote every single word of content every day, and this was back in 2009 before mobile, which changed everything. so i think my 51M for one site stacks up to his 90M for two reasonably well.
point being, i know this world. i know what im talking about.
quote:seriously, dont do this. dont be this glib, the internet is far too important, it has changed the world perhaps more than any invention ever has before. WE are about to decide its future, at least know what it is that you're deciding.
and who are you bought and sold by?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:13 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
frick YOU AND frick RUBIO!!!
He wants to roll back net neutrality.You are misrepresenting his position. His position is to eliminate the government's role in mandating that ISP's adhere to the FCC's rules requiring ALL sites have equal access.
He wants to roll back the hard fought win that was supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and let ISP's run roughshod on American consumers.
This is what Rubio's handlers want:
frick THAT AND frick YOU!
He wants to roll back net neutrality.You are misrepresenting his position. His position is to eliminate the government's role in mandating that ISP's adhere to the FCC's rules requiring ALL sites have equal access.
He wants to roll back the hard fought win that was supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans and let ISP's run roughshod on American consumers.
This is what Rubio's handlers want:
frick THAT AND frick YOU!
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:23 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
Do you think you could start a few threads blowing Ted Cruz the way you blow Marco multiple times a day on this board? Change it up a bit. Give us some fresh material.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:28 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:and this cuts deeper than your image even demonstrates.
His position is to eliminate the government's role in mandating that ISP's adhere to the FCC's rules requiring ALL sites have equal access.
for one, it would allow companies like comcast to charge sites for bandwidth/speed. that would kill every small and new site immediately. overnight.
a site like this one is in competition (more or less) with sites like 24/7, and I'm sure Chicken does very well, but he doesnt have as much money as Viacom (who owns CBS, who owns 24/7).
24/7 would be able to pay Comcast a hell of a lot more, meaning readers on 24/7 would have much faster downloads. sites like this would load so much slower it wouldn't even be worth the effort for a lot of people.
thats what I meant when I said my site would have never gotten off the ground. I could barely afford food back then, much less equal bandwidth as huge media companies. but things were equal, and I was better, and so I kicked their frickin arse.
people here want a free market? THATS a free market. don't rig the game for huge conglomerates. give everyone a fair chance and let the best man win.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 7/13/17 at 3:57 am to MastrShake
quote:
but the internet CANNOT be controlled by a small handful of private companies
This. I don't know why it is so hard to understand that if net neutrality is removed,
SOME RANDOM GUY AT VERIZON CAN DECIDE WHAT INTERNET SITES YOU CAN VISIT.
For me it is not about the money. It is the censorship. The communication companies are in bed with the government, so the government will have de facto censorship of the internet. If this happens we might as well declare Trump the Supreme Ruler and complete the move to fascism.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:07 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Anyone with a brain supports it baw
I can see you haven't read the details either. It isn't limited to controlling ISPs. It is cronyism protecting giants like Google, Amazon, facebook, etc. ANYONE claiming to be against crony capitalism should be vehemently against the net neutrality bill.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:09 am to MastrShake
quote:
the site we're on right now could have easily been the same, and might still die if internet is not treated as a utility.
This is a local government issue!!! The federal government did not setup local monopolies. Your local government did.
Where I live has gone completely unregulated and it is awesome. If there are monopolies in your area, it is the responsibility of your local government to tackle the issues.
Keep the feds out of this shite. It isn't a good thing.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:11 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
you think ending profitability increases market participation by new entrants?
This is the part that just boggles my mind when you make arguments like this. I've actually done the research on what it would take to start your own ISP.
If you want to do it independently you have to run your own wire. First you have to lease enough land to run brand new poles or underground fiber to reach every house in the area you want. Oh you want to use existing poles. You can't government only allows so much on those and you have to get special legislation passed.
So you spend millions of dollars lobbying just get the right to use the poles or bury fiber. Now its time to plan it and see what it would cost. So after all the planning you realize you need millions upon millions of dollars to do this and it will take years to finish.
So after ten years if a company has unlimited cash and time enough not to see returns on their investments for 20 years then yeah competition will pop up. Simple really.
The reason the these 6 companies were able to do it was because they already had most of the infrastructure in place with phone lines and cable lines already built. Independent ISP lease from the companies that own this infrastructure which still gives them all the control.
Google one of the biggest companies in the world is attempting this right now. They are having to fight the existing companies every step of the way.
So what chance does a competitor have if Google can't do it.
LINK
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:44 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
There would be no need for a Big Government solution if Big Government hadn't already sided with telecom corporations to frick us for decades. But they did. AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and Charter already bought off everyone they needed to allow them to rope off the market and choke out competition.
I'm not nearly as worried about future business practices (the hysteria over internet packages is total hyperbole IMO) because we are ALREADY GETTING SCREWED. We are already in a shite spot. The "normal" practice of paying $120/mo for cable + internet or $90/mo for internet alone and if you don't like it then frick off because Comcast has a monopoly is anything but normal and the complete opposite of a free market, it is government sanctioned wealth redistribution.
I wish every fricking municipality in the country would cut the lines and run their own cables through a co-op. frick 'em. It's not like their dogshit techs could be out there in less than a week.
I'm not nearly as worried about future business practices (the hysteria over internet packages is total hyperbole IMO) because we are ALREADY GETTING SCREWED. We are already in a shite spot. The "normal" practice of paying $120/mo for cable + internet or $90/mo for internet alone and if you don't like it then frick off because Comcast has a monopoly is anything but normal and the complete opposite of a free market, it is government sanctioned wealth redistribution.
I wish every fricking municipality in the country would cut the lines and run their own cables through a co-op. frick 'em. It's not like their dogshit techs could be out there in less than a week.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:57 am to MastrShake
quote:That's an indicator that the delivery of your content has tangible economic value. Value, the deliverer is banned for charging for.
thats what I meant when I said my site would have never gotten off the ground.
quote:Nope. It's a "market" where some participants provide value to others for free by mandate. A "free market" doesn't mean some people are forced to work for no pay.
people here want a free market? THATS a free market.
quote:Thats exactly what the FCC does. They kept direct satellite delivery unavailable to consumers for decades to protect the very cable companies you think they will defend consumers from today. They haven't. And they won't.
don't rig the game for huge conglomerates
quote:Hate to tell you this, but life isn't fair. I don't have as much capital as Walmart. They have a better opportunity than me. Same for Apple, GMfor just about any other industry.
give everyone a fair chance and let the best man win.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 9:03 am to notsince98
quote:Thats just it. The federal government could end the local monopolies. Would take only a simple law that should see bipartisan support.
This is a local government issue!!! The federal government did not setup local monopolies. Your local government did.
...
Keep the feds out of this shite. It isn't a good thing.
But that isn't what they are doing. They are just setting a bigger (nationwide) monopoly for themselves to run under the guise of "freedom". The bigger the monopoly, the bigger the corporations running it, the more $ for politicians and commissioners. It's painfully easy to see what's going on here.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 9:09 am to mindbreaker
quote:Yes. Extensively. It's more money than your I probably have, but compare to many things it's far from out of reach.
This is the part that just boggles my mind when you make arguments like this. I've actually done the research on what it would take to start your own ISP.
We had a market challenger as a client, with some pretty nice tech that would ghave made delivering service cheaper than a traditional wire run. They abandoned the effort though. Their investors all hit the road because they fear they will be regulated out of the business under increased FCC powers (and they will).
quote:Short memory. No one had fiber optics in place 40 years ago. Anyone else could have done it for the same cost had they entered that market first.
The reason the these 6 companies were able to do it was because they already had most of the infrastructure in place with phone lines and cable lines already built
Posted on 7/13/17 at 9:11 am to Muthsera
quote:Yabbut, this time it will be different.
There would be no need for a Big Government solution if Big Government hadn't already sided with telecom corporations to frick us for decades. But they did. AT&T, Cox, Comcast, and Charter already bought off everyone they needed to allow them to rope off the market and choke out competition.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News