- 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: Senator Cruz doubles down on Net Neutrality argument
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:08 am to son of arlo
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:08 am to son of arlo
quote:
Geeze. Are you one of those guys who think, "Well... it's out there. Don't know how it got there. Don't care either. Just give me my social justice fair share."
Not really. Just asking why your comment was significant. I'm trying to learn more about the theories behind both sides of the bill.
0
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if we do start major regulations on the internet, all of the provider that exist that we all hate will basically be given monopolies over their fiefdoms. these monopolistic actions only occurred due to government, and more government will just strengthen them more
they pretty much already have monopolies, granted by local and state gov't.
The thing is something (wimax?) that will come along and destroy them. It will be epic, but is probably 5-10 years away.
All obama wants to do is go back in time to this time last year in terms of regulation.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:13 am to son of arlo
quote:Try to make a point about NetFlix using 30% of US bandwith during prime time hours. In your opinion is that a bad thing? Should something be done about it? Should ISP's be able to single out websites and extort them?
Geeze. Are you one of those guys who think, "Well... it's out there. Don't know how it got there. Don't care either. Just give me my social justice fair share."
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:15 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I believe almost everyone is for this as a concept, including Cruz.
What he is against is Net Neutrality, as a legislative measure.
Yes. But, a lot of people can't figure this out...and the libs are working very hard to tie the two together.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:17 am to mmcgrath
quote:
It is a bad situation when a Comcast tries to do to NetFlix what it did.
Regional Bell operating companies, MCI, ATT et al, have been offering tiered bandwidth packages for twenty years now. If Home Depot wants a fault tolerant optical network throughout the SE USA, they paid for it. Netflix is the fat guy who brings a wheelbarrow to the all-you-can-eat buffet. 
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:17 am to moneyg
quote:Net neutrality, by definition, requires governmental action.
Yes. But, a lot of people can't figure this out...and the libs are working very hard to tie the two together.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:20 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Try to make a point about NetFlix using 30% of US bandwith during prime time hours. In your opinion is that a bad thing?
Of course it's not a bad thing. All I say is that they should pay for it.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:22 am to son of arlo
quote:
Regional Bell operating companies, MCI, ATT et al, have been offering tiered bandwidth packages for twenty years now. If Home Depot wants a fault tolerant optical network throughout the SE USA, they paid for it. Netflix is the fat guy who brings a wheelbarrow to the all-you-can-eat buffet.
You really should stop posting on this topic until you figure out the difference between "tiered bandwidth packages" and what Comcast did.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:24 am to son of arlo
quote:Why? Aren't the people requesting the NetFlix movies already paying for the bandwidth? Why should their access to the movies get throttled?
Of course it's not a bad thing. All I say is that they should pay for it.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:28 am to son of arlo
quote:
Of course it's not a bad thing. All I say is that they should pay for it.
its a free rider problem, and there are other ways to solve this issue.
Bandwidth caps being the easy solution. Its not really netflix that is the problem, instead its the users that LOVE its service and binge watch.
A much better solution is to pass the cost along directly to the consumer, since its their actions that supposedly are causing the problems (I don't believe it for a second tho), as opposed to passing the cost on to the company which passes it onto its customers.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:35 am to mmcgrath
quote:
You really should stop posting on this topic until you figure out the difference between "tiered bandwidth packages" and what Comcast did.
OK. Tell me the contractual differences between ATT and a customer on an OC48 vice an OC196 ring and I'll begin to think you have a clue.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The guy who filed the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act?
let's not act like cruz is a pro-regulation guy in any other economic sphere
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:44 am to son of arlo
quote:So you lay fiber for a living (or are a sales rep) and you think you can one up someone on this topic?
OK. Tell me the contractual differences between ATT and a customer on an OC48 vice an OC196 ring and I'll begin to think you have a clue.
None of that crap has anything to do with Net Neutrality outside of the fact that it involves "things connected to the internet". Maybe you should quiz people about modem baud rates? Or perhaps about packet drop rates?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:45 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
Bandwidth caps being the easy solution. Its not really netflix that is the problem, instead its the users that LOVE its service and binge watch.
My definition of a bandwidth cap is I-285 in NE Atl around 4PM every workday. There just ain't enough road for errbody. But that's not the main issue here.
Cruz is the most perspicacious cat in DC at the moment. It's inevitable the govt will regulate the intertubes, but fer cryin' out loud let's go down swinging on this one.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:47 am to mmcgrath
I need some background info on this Net Neutrality definition.
My definition of Net Neutrality is the government does not regulate it via the FCC. The FCC is becoming more and more irrelevant because of the internet.
From what I understand- Obama's version of net neutrality- is equal broad band space for everyone. To me this is just another way for big government to get into the pockets of big internet companies.
This whole internet thing is way above my technical knowledge. Come someone explain this to me in a non-technical manner?
My definition of Net Neutrality is the government does not regulate it via the FCC. The FCC is becoming more and more irrelevant because of the internet.
From what I understand- Obama's version of net neutrality- is equal broad band space for everyone. To me this is just another way for big government to get into the pockets of big internet companies.
This whole internet thing is way above my technical knowledge. Come someone explain this to me in a non-technical manner?
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:47 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
hey pretty much already have monopolies, granted by local and state gov't.
A big part of the problem, as I see it, is caused by the fact that internet access providers are by and large also content providers. While neither should have monopolies, we as consumers suffer more when content providers are given regional monopolies and even more so when they also monopolize the means of accessing content. Its in a content providers best interest to limit you to using and consuming their content.
An internet service provider should have no say in the legal activities a consumer utilizes their services for outside of activities that legitimately harm the network for others (excessive bandwidth usage).
Net neutrality should focus solely on ending the ability of content providers abusing their monopolized positions as internet providers to control what content subscribers access (including actions were by certain content is given preferential access to bandwidth or speed).
If the FCC limited its regulation to internet service providers to prevent that, I would be 100% behind it. Access to internet should be treated no differently than access to any other utility (water, gas, or electricity); you pay for it based on usage, you are required to use it for legal purposes, and may be limited in situations where you harm others access to the service.
Unfortunately, neither side (FCC, Administration, or Congress) seems to care about actually protecting consumers. Looking at data costs around the world (wired and wireless) compared to what we pay here, US consumers could probably use some regulatory relief on internet service rates.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
FYI, AT&T has already stopped development of their planned fiber optic upgrades in 100 cities because of Obama's announcement because they want to know what rules their investment will be governed under before they put cash on the barrel head.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 10:57 am to dante
quote:It's more of making sure that traffic is treated equally. So an ISP cannot slow down any traffic from NetFlix or Amazon video while keeping their content at full speed. Maybe they don't like tigerdroppings so they decide that downloads to their customers from tigerdroppings run really really slow.
From what I understand- Obama's version of net neutrality- is equal broad band space for everyone. To me this is just another way for big government to get into the pockets of big internet companies.
This whole internet thing is way above my technical knowledge. Come someone explain this to me in a non-technical manner?
To further the point. Say you have Comcast and someone else has Verizon. Comcast wants to charge tigerdroppings, but TD refuses. So now when you click on links on the Poli Board threads take close to a minute to open up. When you try to post half of your requests time out. Your broadband connection appears to act like an old dial up connection. Yet at the same time, someone on Verizon can post as fast as they want and see the board normally. At the end of the day you might give up and go to another site because you figure that TD just sucks. You can't see when its the middle guy (Comcast) who is really screwing things up for you. You lose out. TD loses out. If TD doesn't want to lose half of its customers, it has to pay an extra fee to Comcast. Of course then Verizon can start doing the same thing.
Net Neutrality would prevent Comcast from discriminating against traffic based on who is supplying it.
Posted on 11/18/14 at 11:01 am to LSULaw2009
quote:I would like it to also focus on properly labeling access so you know when / how much the ISP may be throttling your connection in general. If you pay for 10 Mb you should get it, and when it is throttled back you should have a way of knowing. But that can be a totally separate discussion.
Net neutrality should focus solely on ending the ability of content providers abusing their monopolized positions as internet providers to control what content subscribers access (including actions were by certain content is given preferential access to bandwidth or speed).
If the FCC limited its regulation to internet service providers to prevent that, I would be 100% behind it.
This post was edited on 11/18/14 at 11:02 am
Posted on 11/18/14 at 11:22 am to mmcgrath
quote:
None of that crap has anything to do with Net Neutrality outside of the fact that it involves "things connected to the internet".
How do you expect me to dialogue with you if you don't even understand the basics?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News