- 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: $12 A Month For Facebook – Sprint Tramples Over Net Neutrality With New Prepaid
Posted on 8/3/14 at 4:41 pm to ILikeLSUToo
Posted on 8/3/14 at 4:41 pm to ILikeLSUToo
quote:
Well, in his defense, we are clearly the ones opposing change here and equally unwilling to consider other viewpoints.
That.
I think a large number of casual users (who are probably the majority) could save money using a site-specific payment program because they only use their phone for a few things.
0
Posted on 8/3/14 at 4:43 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I think it's like a debate class for him. You pick a side and fight tooth and nail to prove your side or dissect the other sides arguments despite anything else.
The point is to win the debate. Anything else, like common sense, processing the dialogue, valuing the other side, adapting positions, etc is all moot.
You must not pay attention close enough because one thing SFP is is consistent. True, he is all in on his positions but this was an easy call as to which way he was gonna go before opening the thread.
Posted on 8/3/14 at 4:53 pm to junkfunky
quote:I've paid enough attention over the last 7+ years. I don't dislike SFP at all. But my point remains.
You must not pay attention close enough because one thing SFP is is consistent. True, he is all in on his positions but this was an easy call as to which way he was gonna go before opening the thread.
I think of SFP having a sheet like this for every thread he gets involved with.
Posted on 8/3/14 at 5:50 pm to Korkstand
quote:
My mobile carrier is my only conduit for mobile services.
sprint, virgin mobile, t-mobile, verizon, at&t, ting, metropcs, wahtever the frick walmart uses, etc
there is not a single mobile carrier or a single conduit for mobile services
quote:
No, why? Directv doesn't provide access to a critical global resource.
what do you have against football, bro?
it's the same concept. companies making exclusive content agreements with other companies. where do you draw the line?
quote:
What about them?
companies exclusively offering their property to companies. same as the issues you speak of
quote:
Hm, do you think the line is always clear?
we need a clear line if you're creating special rules for one industry
quote:
I said we need to be smart about it.
and i'm pointing out that there are lots of unintended consequences for a general plan that you desire
this would require clear, concise definitions and segregation
Posted on 8/3/14 at 5:52 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
SFP is extremely set in his ways and unwilling to consider other viewpoints.
i fully understand the "other viewpoint"
i don't think the other viewpoint understands the consequences of their goals. i understand those of mine
i never said it's my dream scenario. but i want 500 mpbs speed for free. i'd love it if you paid for it for me. will you?
if not, then we have a conflict. i don't think it's right to make you pay for my dream scenario
This post was edited on 8/3/14 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 8/3/14 at 5:53 pm to drizztiger
quote:
Anything else, like common sense, processing the dialogue, valuing the other side, adapting positions, etc is all moot.
i've done all of this. i already know both sides. i know which one i agree with, despite it's possible negative effects on me personally
Posted on 8/3/14 at 5:55 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I think of SFP having a sheet like this for every thread he gets involved with.
and 8-10 years ago i was accused of having ready-made insults and sexual references for forum conversations
such is life
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:There could be a thousand carriers and the point would still stand. I can't change my carrier day-to-day.
sprint, virgin mobile, t-mobile, verizon, at&t, ting, metropcs, wahtever the frick walmart uses, etc
there is not a single mobile carrier or a single conduit for mobile services
quote:Same concept, drastically different implementation and consequences. You draw the line where the actions of one company threaten the foundation of the internet.
it's the same concept. companies making exclusive content agreements with other companies. where do you draw the line?
quote:These companies are not offering their property, Sprint is taking it upon themselves to sell upgraded access to specific third party services. They are able to do this thanks to net neutrality, the very principle they are starting to erode away at.
companies exclusively offering their property to companies. same as the issues you speak of
quote:You know what the clear line is, but you don't like it: treat all packets equally.
we need a clear line if you're creating special rules for one industry
quote:
and i'm pointing out that there are lots of unintended consequences for a general plan that you desire
Such as? You realize that I am advocating for keeping the internet functioning the exact same way it has since its inception, right? You are the one promoting a scenario where unintended consequences are possible. We already know what happens the way I want to keep it: unprecedented innovation and growth. quote:This is as clear as it gets: treat every packet on the internet equally. Any company that sells internet access must treat every site the same. No segregation. Avoiding segregation and discrimination is one of the main goals of net neutrality.
this would require clear, concise definitions and segregation
Posted on 8/3/14 at 10:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's pretty clear that you've got this backwards.
i don't think the other viewpoint understands the consequences of their goals. i understand those of mine
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:00 am to Korkstand
quote:
It's pretty clear that you've got this backwards.
not at all. i've enjoyed my time ripping off the mobile carriers and ISPs. now i'm going to have to adjust to the industry adjusting
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:07 am to Korkstand
quote:
I can't change my carrier day-to-day.
there are "no contract" carriers, so yes, you can
quote:
You draw the line where the actions of one company threaten the foundation of the internet.
i understand that this will possibly affect the "foundation" of the internet, but how do you write that as a specific rule?
i mean, not offering the fastest up/download speed at all times also affects the very same foundation...but i know you aren't advocating that. but it would be required under your rule as you just wrote it
quote:
Sprint is taking it upon themselves to sell upgraded access to specific third party services.
i'm sure via contracts with these services. if not, that's the path you fear, anyway. sprint and facebok teaming up for an exclusive fb option. just like mcdonalds and coke have teamed up to offer exclusivity there. or the NFL offering its games (property) to FOX/CBS, where nobody else can broadcast that property
quote:
Such as? You realize that I am advocating for keeping the internet functioning the exact same way it has since its inception, right?
yes. that's not really fair to i'd imagine the vast majority of consumers, most of whom will benefit by tiered packages and 3rd party promotions. power users will not, but we've been raping the average consumer for over a decade now, having them subsidize our usage
for example, the "unlimited streaming music" option is going to be GREAT for people...esp if they just want a streaming device. they can get limited minutes and unlimited music streaming for $11/month. in the "old system" that is not an option. this is saving a lot of people money
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:They set their own prices. Pretty amazing growth and profits considering they've been getting ripped off for a decade, wouldn't you say?
i've enjoyed my time ripping off the mobile carriers and ISPs.
quote:They can adjust speeds, caps, and pricing all they want, and consumers can adjust to that.
now i'm going to have to adjust to the industry adjusting
Judging by this post, you apparently still don't understand the issue.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:09 am to Korkstand
quote:
They set their own prices.
and now they're adjusting
quote:
Pretty amazing growth and profits considering they've been getting ripped off for a decade, wouldn't you say?
just because they've made profits doesn't mean they were maximizing profits (or that power users weren't subsidizing their costs on the back of millions of casual users)
quote:
Judging by this post, you apparently still don't understand the issue.
i do. the funny part is you act like i like where this headed for me personally. i do not. but i'm one person in a country of 300M. i'm not the king. my desires are not the law. i have no right to require a system that likely screws over the vast majority of consumers. that's part of life.
the plan in the OP doesn't even affect speeds or anything. it just offers unlimited data for select avenues so the customers are not stuck in a cable-like menu of limited options. how are more options a bad thing? this is closer to "a la carte" than the "old system"
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 12:13 am
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's simple, and I've already written it a couple times, but I will write it again just for you: treat all packets equally.
i understand that this will possibly affect the "foundation" of the internet, but how do you write that as a specific rule?
quote:Not sure what you're trying to say here...
i mean, not offering the fastest up/download speed at all times also affects the very same foundation...but i know you aren't advocating that. but it would be required under your rule as you just wrote it
quote:Fast food and soft drink wars do not undermine the economy. Broadcast rights do not undermine the economy. Roadblocking huge swaths of the internet undermines the economy.
i'm sure via contracts with these services. if not, that's the path you fear, anyway. sprint and facebok teaming up for an exclusive fb option. just like mcdonalds and coke have teamed up to offer exclusivity there. or the NFL offering its games (property) to FOX/CBS, where nobody else can broadcast that property
quote:Not fair? The internet is the most fair system ever created in the history of mankind. Thanks to net neutrality.
yes. that's not really fair to i'd imagine the vast majority of consumers, most of whom will benefit by tiered packages and 3rd party promotions.
quote:Very simple solution. Charge per byte, or offer various speeds and/or data caps. Why do you insist that the solution must include discriminating against the majority of the internet?
power users will not, but we've been raping the average consumer for over a decade now, having them subsidize our usage
quote:This might be ok, IF any and all music streaming services are included. If the unlimited plan only applies to specific services, then it would severely hamper innovation in that market.
for example, the "unlimited streaming music" option is going to be GREAT for people...esp if they just want a streaming device. they can get limited minutes and unlimited music streaming for $11/month. in the "old system" that is not an option. this is saving a lot of people money
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No, they are discriminating.
and now they're adjusting
quote:Maximizing profits is great. Doing so at the expense of innovation and the economy as a whole is not great.
just because they've made profits doesn't mean they were maximizing profits
quote:You don't, because you only comment on the consumer->ISP/carrier dynamic. You refuse to comment on what really matters, which is free market competition on the internet.
i do
quote:I don't act that way at all. In fact, I've done all I can to explain to you that I am not discussing the consumer->carrier relationship. You just don't seem to get it for some reason.
the funny part is you act like i like where this headed for me personally.
quote:What? The plan in the OP is exactly like an attempt to stick customers in a cable-like menu of limited options.
it just offers unlimited data for select avenues so the customers are not stuck in a cable-like menu of limited options.
quote:More options are a great thing. That's why we need net neutrality rules.
how are more options a bad thing?
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i have no right to require a system that likely screws over the vast majority of consumers. that's part of life.
The coming system will screw the consumer even more than the current system. Internet users in almost every other developed country get more bandwidth, faster speed, lower cost, and net neutrality. Thanks to the best government money can buy, our internet experience will be moving further away from that, not closer.
Like I said in an earlier post, what's best for America is not always what's best for the corporations. When those interests diverge, corporations should take a back seat. Regrettably, in almost every case, it's the other way around.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 7:31 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Internet users in almost every other developed country get more bandwidth, faster speed, lower cost, and net neutrality.
and users get this by making rich people pay for it to subsidize their use, as well as a regulatory environment that inhibits their own tech growth
quote:
Thanks to the best government money can buy, our internet experience will be moving further away from that, not closer.
it's ironic that you blame government, when this would be a result of government decreasing in size/power
and it has nothing to do with being the "best government money can buy," as this all stems from a court ruling. the FCC cannot enact net neutrality with the way the laws are currently written, due to the recent USSC rulings.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 7:46 am to Korkstand
quote:
treat all packets equally.
so you don't have a problem with the deal offered in the OP?
quote:
Not sure what you're trying to say here...
why don't we require all ISPs to offer 100 Mb speeds for upload and download? why not require them to sell these plans for $10/month? doesn't this segregation and the cost to consumers affect the very foundation of the internet? wouldn't the higher speeds at lower costs enable more use, development, and all the positive things you want out of the internet?
quote:
Fast food and soft drink wars do not undermine the economy.
surely you jest?
fast food is around a $200B/year industry. soft drinks are like $6B/years
those 2 industries combined are slightly smaller than the US e-commerce industry in total LINK
so yeah, strong fast food and soft drinks regs would undermine the economy
quote:
Charge per byte, or offer various speeds and/or data caps. Why do you insist that the solution must include discriminating against the majority of the internet?
it doesn't HAVE to, but until ISPs are given freedom to experiment and compete to find the "sweet spot" prices/size, they won't be able to maximize the plans offered. i don't know the individual solution, nor do i claim to know what will be offered. neither do you. if we did, we could be billionaires within a year (by creating the super duper set of plans/agreements to maximize these deals)
quote:
This might be ok, IF any and all music streaming services are included.
what is better for consumers who want unlimited streaming options, low prices, and minimal calling/texting:
1. unlimited streaming music through one service at $30/month
2. unlimited streaming music through all services for $80/month
3. limited streaming music through all streaming services (plus tons of minutes and data it doesn't need) for $80/month
if a mobile carrier or ISP makes a deal with a streaming music service in order to lower costs to consumers who want that specific style of plan, that's a good thing. your desired regs hurt this group of consumers
again, this system would end up affecting power users, but that discussion comes down to a question of why the system should cater to us in the first place.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 7:53 am to Korkstand
quote:
No, they are discriminating.
that is an adjustment. all markets discriminate. we all discriminate pretty much all day, every day
quote:
Doing so at the expense of innovation and the economy as a whole is not great.
but if you decrease innovation, profits won't be maximized, either. economies grow with innovation and competition creating innovation
quote:
You refuse to comment on what really matters, which is free market competition on the internet.
you do understand that you're advocating for a highly regulated market, right? that's not a "free market" at all
quote:
In fact, I've done all I can to explain to you that I am not discussing the consumer->carrier relationship.
this is what is going to end up mattering, in the end. what packages/deals do ISPs/carriers offer to consumers?
we can postulate all day as to how these will be offered/work in the future, but at the end of the day, this is what matters
quote:
The plan in the OP is exactly like an attempt to stick customers in a cable-like menu of limited options.
what? they get to choose from different tiers of plans, that affect a bunch of different streaming/social media plans
the cable-like menu is the current one. minutes/texts and limited data for $30/month. (Basic). minutes/texts and average data for $60/month (Expanded Basic). unlimited everything for $80/month. (Deluxe tier).
the one offered in the OP is actually starting well below basic, offering a slew of options at different price points that affect different sorts of sites/apps. that is nothing like cable.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I do, because it clearly favors packets from particular services.
so you don't have a problem with the deal offered in the OP?
quote:No.
surely you jest?
quote:ok...
fast food is around a $200B/year industry. soft drinks are like $6B/years
quote:And projected to be less than half the size in just a few years, right? And that's just e-commerce. Have you considered how much of every other industry relies on the internet?
those 2 industries combined are slightly smaller than the US e-commerce industry in total LINK
quote:And I'm not saying we should regulate the fast food and soft drink industry. Why even bring it up? It is a piss-poor and meaningless comparison to what we're discussing.
so yeah, strong fast food and soft drinks regs would undermine the economy
Allowing a handful of companies to have absolute control over millions of others is just a terrible idea. No example even comes close to what we're talking about here.
quote:Oh, please tell me about how badly it would hurt, tell me of the pain and suffering of those poor consumers who wouldn't get the cheap unlimited music streaming they so desire. And then tell me how that's worse than the alternative, where new competitors in the many online services markets ignore the bastardized US version of the internet altogether, and instead do business everywhere else in the world where they aren't restricted and ruled by ISPs.
if a mobile carrier or ISP makes a deal with a streaming music service in order to lower costs to consumers who want that specific style of plan, that's a good thing. your desired regs hurt this group of consumers
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News