- 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: Trumps next target - net neutrality say Admin officials
Posted on 4/1/17 at 4:51 pm to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 4/1/17 at 4:51 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I like innovation and I hate government created utility monopolies.
You do realize that stripping companies of their monopolies isn't going to happen right?
Net Neutrality helps keep them from abusing that monopoly.
Take that away, and the only way anything ever changes is if a single company builds their own network spanning every house and building in the entire US. And then uses that absolute power for the sake of the consumer and the consumer alone.
Which leads to the next point:
quote:
I oppose legislation that contradicts my preferences.
quote:
I like innovation
Without Net Neutrality, the only players ever allowed to matter are the big wigs. If someone comes up with an innovative good idea, and the big ISP names don't like it, they can squash them easily.
Or if you want a less hypothetical example: If Net Neutrality didn't exist, we would not have the streaming and media purchases we have now. We would still be forced to buy CDs to buy music as opposed to just the songs we like. It was only the lost profits of piracy that FORCED the big companies to give the people what they wanted.
With no net neutrality, they don't need to worry about the legal problems of trying to identify and make examples out of the perpetrators. They just needed to approach the ISPs to give no bandwidth to P2P software traffic. Hell, they might have done it without prompting due to the legal concerns of their liability in a non-net neutrality world.
Don't let the big companies play games behind the scenes.
2
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:23 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The increased competition would force ISPs to ditch data caps bc if they keep them, then customers would leave. More competition means a better price point. This isn't hard to understand.
Nothing is stopping competition now. Government intervention in the marketplace never results in lower prices.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:25 pm to Volvagia
quote:
It was only the lost profits of piracy that FORCED the big companies to give the people what they wanted.
This is revisionist history. Companies did not have to abide by net neutrality during this time.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:27 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Nothing is stopping competition now. Government intervention in the marketplace never results in lower prices.
You have no idea what you are talking about
Literally state and local officials are blocking other ISPs from entering certain markets. Or when a city wants to establish their own, the state blocks it. To ensure the ISPs who payed for access don't have competition .
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:35 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Don't let the big companies play games behind the scenes
The only way to do this is for them to be replaced.
NN prolongs their existence, so I oppose NN.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:36 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The only way to do this is for them to be replaced.
NN prolongs their existence, so I oppose NN.
You have it wrong.
Getting rid of NN prevents more ISPs from entering the market.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:37 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Literally state and local officials are blocking other ISPs from entering certain markets. Or when a city wants to establish their own, the state blocks it. To ensure the ISPs who payed for access don't have competition.
You're advocating for local governments not to be able to determine which companies can access their infrastructure in their cities? Currently local governments can require certain levels of service to do business in their city. You want to do away with that?
Do you think some random company is just going to go around putting down fiber wires in cities where it doesn't exist? Or are you arguing that the companies who do invest in the infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to capitalize on their investment?
What you are saying here would stifle the advancement of fiber networks throughout most of the country. No company will spend that kind of dough just to have a company come in and undercut them immediately.
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:40 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
You're advocating for local governments not to be able to determine which companies can access their infrastructure in their cities? Currently local governments can require certain levels of service to do business in their city. You want to do away with that?
Do you think some random company is just going to go around putting down fiber wires in cities where it doesn't exist? Or are you arguing that the companies who do invest in the infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to capitalize on their investment?
What you are saying here would stifle thr advancement of fiber networks theoughout most of the country. No company will spend that kind of dough just to have a company come in and undercut them immediately.
so you are for local monopolies?
You do realize ISPs can share infrastructure...
My town only in Oklahoma only has one option for high speed internet. They charge way to much and have data caps. Thats not free market.
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:42 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
My town only in Oklahoma only has one option for high speed internet. They charge way to much and have data caps. Thats not free market.
I doubt this is because of your local government. That is likely the only company to have approached your city council with an offer to provide service, which means it is likely no one else thinks your market is worth their time. Absolutely no council will turn down offers of competition for internet and tv access because that is an easy political win that no one would oppose. If your council does do that, then I know a real easy way for you to gain a city council seat during the next election.
ETA: I know for a fact my city council is open to any companies coming in to provide cable internet and tv services here, but there is only one option in 90% of the city. There is another cable company in a small section, but they do have the rights to compete throughout the entire city and choose not to do so.
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:47 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The only way to do this is for them to be replaced.
NN prolongs their existence, so I oppose NN.
Explain that one?
Without NN the ISP's who already have a monopoly get to nickel and dime you over websites, leading to the ISP's having control over the content of the web rather than just providing the infrastructure to access it. Comcast wants to get into the forum industry? They start Comcast.com/forums and throttle TigerDroppings way back so it's slow as hell.
We'd be the envy of the rest of the world. Marvel idea!
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:49 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is revisionist history. Companies did not have to abide by net neutrality during this time.
They did not have to.
But by and large, they did. Its only when they started to step out of it that the law was slapped upon them. Worth mentioning is that one of the things that started the ball rolling was exactly the scenario I mentioned: targeting and throttling P2P.
So functionally speaking, how is it any different from it being law all along? First it was tradition, an unspoken agreement among ISPs, then it was codified.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:52 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
NN prolongs their existence, so I oppose NN.
I'll be reallllly curious to hear how NN helps the current big boys stay in power vs not having NN.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:56 pm to Volvagia
quote:
ll be reallllly curious to hear how NN helps the current big boys stay in power vs not having NN
Shitty products are more quickly replaced.
Legislating equality into existing shitty products does not.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:56 pm to Eurocat
Exposing the ISP conglomerates one law at a time. I love it.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 5:58 pm to DavidTheGnome
I think most of us get it, and don't want the internet to turn into the cable industry. And then there's those that dont, and because they heard it on talk radio they oppose net neutrality. They don't really have any idea what it is they're opposing but they've got the talking points and marching orders.
The sad thing though is that this is such a critical part of our economy, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot letting the rest of the world take the lead on our own creation. The internet has thrived because of its open platform and isn't throttled and sold piecemeal. This is basically the big guys lobbying congress for protection from competitors, so congress delivers. Big government at its worst.
The sad thing though is that this is such a critical part of our economy, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot letting the rest of the world take the lead on our own creation. The internet has thrived because of its open platform and isn't throttled and sold piecemeal. This is basically the big guys lobbying congress for protection from competitors, so congress delivers. Big government at its worst.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 6:01 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Shitty products are more quickly replaced.
Legislating equality into existing shitty products does not.
How are shitty products more quickly replaced? Doing away with NN lets shitty products thrive.
They aren't legislating companies, just that every packet is treated the same (they don't get to hold your site for ransom). You really have no clue what you're arguing about.
This post was edited on 4/1/17 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 4/1/17 at 6:03 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
step 1 - allow ISP to spy and sell
Much worse than going back on NN. We did just fine without NN for two decades.
quote:
Step 3 will allow ISP's to block news sites and stations as they wish ( really part of step 2)
That should worry Republicans. The tech industry is full of proggies.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 6:04 pm to imjustafatkid
It's well know that they keep outside business from coming in. That's why this town is only 20k but down the road has exploded. It took Walmart years to finally open and the Applebee's had to be owned by a local.
Cable one got here first while other towns have three or four choices
Cable one got here first while other towns have three or four choices
Posted on 4/1/17 at 6:04 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
frick. Trump is starting to piss me off.
A 37-4 upvote-downvote margin for this post on a majority Trump supporting board and board conservatives including me arguing in favor of net neutrality should tell you a whole lot about the political implications of negative action towards net neutrality.
If Trump doesn't want to piss off the 18-30 demographic and get swamped by them in 2020, he will leave this alone.
If you thought people got pissed off about government fricking with their health care with ObamaCare, wait until you see when government fricks up their entertainment and makes it crappier and more expensive just like ObamaCare did with healthcare.
Posted on 4/1/17 at 6:05 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
We did just fine without NN for two decades.
We did just fine because the idea of net neutrality was adheared to. Every packet was treated equally, the thing some seem to be so against.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News