- 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 8/4/14 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/4/14 at 10:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Have you ever wondered how the internet managed to grow so quickly? Any answer that ignores the fact that it has thus far been mostly absent of discrimination is wrong.
that is an adjustment. all markets discriminate. we all discriminate pretty much all day, every day
quote:Right. That's exactly why we need net neutrality.
but if you decrease innovation, profits won't be maximized, either. economies grow with innovation and competition creating innovation
quote:So this is where we have a decision to make. Do we regulate the ISP market in order to preserve the freedom of all markets that rely on the internet, or do we allow ISPs to rule the roost and regulate any and all markets that rely on the internet as they see fit? Do we give consumers control over their own driveways and give them the power to choose where they go and spend money, or do we give private companies control over the consumer's driveway so that they can tell the consumer where they can and can't go? Your choice.
you do understand that you're advocating for a highly regulated market, right? that's not a "free market" at all
quote:This is what matters to the individual consumer, but I'm trying to tell you that the real issue is how this is going to affect consumers as a whole. It's going to reduce competition. Competition between ISPs for the consumer dollar will fire up, for sure, but the consequence is that the choice in services that we access on the internet will diminish. There is no positive side here. ISPs will dress it up and make it attractive to the consumer, who will then jump on the opportunity to hammer the first nail in his own coffin. Dramatic phrasing? Sure, but this is exactly how it's going to happen.
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 offer in the OP is a bundle of services, exactly like cable channel packages. How are you missing this?
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.
2
Posted on 8/4/14 at 10:02 am to jeff5891
Still baffles me how the internet in the US is so shitty.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
I think I've figured out your problem. Your entire argument seems to be based on the graphics that go around advertising website packages at various prices. These were created in order to get average consumers involved by giving an example of how they will be affected by the end of net neutrality. I don't like them because they dumb down the issue, but it seems that you believe that is all that is at stake.
At face value, offering packages of websites doesn't seem so terrible. But you must consider the consequences of such favoritism. It is not as black and white as the argument you present.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 11:18 am to Korkstand
quote:
The offer in the OP is a bundle of services, exactly like cable channel packages. How are you missing this?
I might be misunderstanding the terms of the Verizon package, but isn't it just add on services ie: you pay for unlimited social on top of your already existing plan?
Maybe you're right. Maybe this is a slippery slope to a crappy, limited internet curated by IPS/wireless providers, but if this Verizon offer is the model for discriminatory service I just can't see that happening.
I mean, look at the terms if this package. It's a terrible deal for all but a small handful of people. There is no way it becomes mainstream in it's current form.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 11:44 am
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
And I'm not saying we should regulate the fast food and soft drink industry. Why even bring it up?
because it is a very large part of our economy that has the very same exclusivity deals that you find abhorrent in another arena
quote:
Oh, please tell me about how badly it would hurt,
it would cost them more money for the services they desire. again, if there isn't a group who would benefit, the plan in the OP will fail and you won't have to worry about it. but if there is a group who would like that service/agreement, then by outlawing it, you're making them pay more so your preferred policy can be put in place.
quote:
the alternative, where new competitors in the many online services markets ignore the bastardized US version of the internet altogether
who is going to ignore the largest economy in the world and a market of 300M+ people? nobody
do our tech giants ignore the insanity of european regulations? no. they work around them due to market share
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:13 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Have you ever wondered how the internet managed to grow so quickly?
facebook, mostly
quote:
Any answer that ignores the fact that it has thus far been mostly absent of discrimination is wrong.
who is arguing Stygian reality? plus, we've never lived in a "discriminatory" system to see how fast/slow it compares.
quote:
Right. That's exactly why we need net neutrality.
i don't understand why you think that innovation will cease. companies will always need more innovation to increase profits
you think "big corporations" are just going to sit back and do nothing once they gain market share?
hell, even big oil companies invest in alternative energies. if alternative energies will become viable, it will be through the hated "big oil" and not government-based regulations (or subsidy-based industries like contemporary solar). they don't sleep. they keep innovating (in an increasingly cartel-like market, mind you). i don't know of an industry that is oligarch that is shunning innovation due to the size of the market share of its participants
now theoretically? we can create that evil strawman and it is theoretically possible. you just don't see it in reality with other industries with similar natures. i don't know why you think the internet will be different
quote:
Do we regulate the ISP market in order to preserve the freedom of all markets that rely on the internet, or do we allow ISPs to rule the roost and regulate any and all markets that rely on the internet as they see fit?
i am just making the point that a makret regulated by government is not a "Free" market"
quote:
but the consequence is that the choice in services that we access on the internet will diminish.
the OP is an example that shows the opposite of that statement
quote:
There is no positive side here.
lower costs for the majority of users is a positive side
quote:
The offer in the OP is a bundle of services, exactly like cable channel packages.
if you want to define it that broadly, then it has always been cable and will always be cable
typically the "cable" comparison is when a consumer is offered limited choices, by tier. that's how current internet is offered. the offer in the OP offers many more options of how a consumer wants to spend its money. more options = more choice = not the "cable" comparison at all
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:16 pm to Korkstand
quote:
offering packages of websites doesn't seem so terrible. But you must consider the consequences of such favoritism
history of phone company
- monthly charge for 'all you can eat' phone calls and made the major bucks from 'long distance' calling since they could see a different area code in front of number and could use that to charge more..that's about all they could do with the technology of the time.
- cellphones made the 'long distance' model irrelevant so they tried things like a new fee for roaming and limiting your total minutes each month but LONG DISTANCE WAS NOW FREE
- competition grew and eventually the industry gave in and started offering unlimited minutes for all in favor of..charging for texting! in the beginning fees were imposed on MMS (i used to have 100 texts and 25 MMS per month) again, a made up system to 'catch' consumer trends where they were starting to go..which was text over voice.
- data appeared. cell carriers dropped or dramatically reduced the charges on texts & differentiaing between texts & MMS and moved to ball to making money off the bundled data as a single line item.
- data usage increased DRAMATICALLY due to a ramp up in speed from 'g' to LTE/4G and so carriers backtracked and started imposing a 'cap' in addition to a charge for data
- data speeds are now nearly the same as WiFi so the trend is moving again..but where?
tmobile and sprint are sending the first shots across the bow: looking at what your data is.
it started with tmobile's 'music freedom'. while this is awesome on the surface since i use the hell out of music data each month..i'm going to be the first one back on this board bitching like hell when it turns out they want more for 'video freedom' or 'social media freedom'.
sprint's 'facebook plan' is the first incarnation of that.
face it folks, all data is not created equal. carriers have the tool to see what data is coming and soon your favorite free porn sites are going to start costing you extra on your data plan.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:18 pm to Korkstand
quote:
. Your entire argument seems to be based on the graphics that go around advertising website packages at various prices. These were created in order to get average consumers involved by giving an example of how they will be affected by the end of net neutrality. I don't like them because they dumb down the issue, but it seems that you believe that is all that is at stake.
not at all. while this is a possibility, i'm also envisioning how much money facebook will make when a mobile carrier contracts for exclusive FB content on its carrier. facebook may finally live up to that initial valuation at its public offering
that's actually unlikely (but if it happened, holy shite that would be a huge contract), but at the same time, i could see facebook making exclusivity contracts with mobile providers who agreed to not throttle data plans using facebook
same with amazon. i would never imagine amazon would gain a benefit by going exclusive, and i could see it punishing any carrier that attempted to hurt consumer access to amazon (and its apps). that kind of proactivity and reaction is a lot quicker, stronger, and more efficient than government regulation
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:20 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Still baffles me how the internet in the US is so shitty.
think of it like public transit. we believe a lot more strongly in opposing that level of wealth redistribution
also, i'd imagine, like most infrastructure in europe, there is a vast gap in urban/rural
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
think of it like public transit. we believe a lot more strongly in opposing that level of wealth redistribution
wait..so you're saying the telecom lobby cozying up to congress and getting laws in place to prevent competition somehow is the OPPOSITE of wealth redistribution?
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is not the "very same". Until you understand the difference between access to the internet and access to beverages, you cannot possibly analyze the issue the way it needs to be analyzed.
because it is a very large part of our economy that has the very same exclusivity deals that you find abhorrent in another arena
quote:I already said that some consumers will find it attractive, which is why it is so dangerous.
it would cost them more money for the services they desire. again, if there isn't a group who would benefit, the plan in the OP will fail and you won't have to worry about it.
quote:Well, you know, that's why there's always debate about policy... there's always going to be someone who doesn't like it. But instead of focusing on the group who will be upset, let's try focusing on the group that will benefit: every single US citizen.
but if there is a group who would like that service/agreement, then by outlawing it, you're making them pay more so your preferred policy can be put in place.
quote:Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has just created the best music streaming service known to man. You have purchased all the hardware you need, and the fattest connection to the internet possible. Problem is, these unlimited plans for specific services have caught on (because they are so great for consumers), and all of the incumbent streaming services have partnered with carriers and ISPs. Do you spend god knows how much time and money negotiating with each individual carrier, and each individual ISP, in hopes of purchasing access to their customers? Or do you say "frick it" and market to the billions of people outside the US, where your product can compete on a level playing field on its own merit? Now imagine the same for every other online service there is, and every online service there will be. At what point will you realize what a monumental frick-up it would be to create a segregated internet?
who is going to ignore the largest economy in the world and a market of 300M+ people? nobody
quote:Working around regulations is child's play compared to negotiating with companies for access to their customers.
do our tech giants ignore the insanity of european regulations? no. they work around them due to market share
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:55 pm to CAD703X
quote:
the telecom lobby cozying up to congress and getting laws in place to prevent competition
which?
please tell me that you're not talking about eliminating N/N, because that (1) lowers power of government and (2) is due to a USSC ruling (the FCC had to create the new regs. the only thing that can change things is a change in the federal law itself)
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:57 pm to CAD703X
quote:
wait..so you're saying the telecom lobby cozying up to congress and getting laws in place to prevent competition somehow is the OPPOSITE of wealth redistribution?
SFP is only in favor of wealth redistribution among the already wealthy. In his opinion, it is ok to exclude the working-like-hell-to-become-wealthy as long as enough money is at stake for the already wealthy.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
Bill Moyers
please slo. tell me you're not ignorant of the history here.
quote:
please tell me that you're not talking about eliminating N/N,
please slo. tell me you're not ignorant of the history here.
quote:
The Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Explorer tool also shows that the two companies have spent a combined $143.5 million lobbying Congress since 1989 on issues including telecommunications, technology, taxes and copyright.
President Barack Obama benefitted the most, by far, from Comcast, whose employees and their family members contributed more than $537,800. Two Texans — Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — are the top recipients of contributions from Time Warner Cable, receiving $185,000 and $170,000, respectively.
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 12:58 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I already said that some consumers will find it attractive, which is why it is so dangerous.
i hope you realize what you just said
it's evil-dictatorial at worst and condescending at best
quote:
Do you spend god knows how much time and money negotiating with each individual carrier, and each individual ISP, in hopes of purchasing access to their customers? Or do you say "frick it" and market to the billions of people outside the US, where your product can compete on a level playing field on its own merit? Now imagine the same for every other online service there is, and every online service there will be. At what point will you realize what a monumental frick-up it would be to create a segregated internet?
so wait. your argument is that tech won't market its products to the largest economy on earth, with a population of 300M?
is that your argument? yes or no?
quote:
Working around regulations is child's play compared to negotiating with companies for access to their customers.
surely you jest
i mean only one of those hypothetical negotiating parties has an army/force
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:00 pm to CAD703X
lobbying or no lobbying, it's irrelevant
1. the USSC ruled in a way that made net neutrality, as it was enforced through current legislation, illegal
2. the new FCC regs were bound by this law and decreased the scope of government, which is the opposite of lobbying for crony capitalism via government regulation to eliminate competition
make the policy arguments you wish, but don't misstate reality to create a stawman
*ETA: it wasn't the USSC, but it was a federal court governing the FCC
1. the USSC ruled in a way that made net neutrality, as it was enforced through current legislation, illegal
2. the new FCC regs were bound by this law and decreased the scope of government, which is the opposite of lobbying for crony capitalism via government regulation to eliminate competition
make the policy arguments you wish, but don't misstate reality to create a stawman
*ETA: it wasn't the USSC, but it was a federal court governing the FCC
This post was edited on 8/4/14 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
not at all. while this is a possibility, i'm also envisioning how much money facebook will make when a mobile carrier contracts for exclusive FB content on its carrier. facebook may finally live up to that initial valuation at its public offering
that's actually unlikely (but if it happened, holy shite that would be a huge contract), but at the same time, i could see facebook making exclusivity contracts with mobile providers who agreed to not throttle data plans using facebook
same with amazon. i would never imagine amazon would gain a benefit by going exclusive, and i could see it punishing any carrier that attempted to hurt consumer access to amazon (and its apps). that kind of proactivity and reaction is a lot quicker, stronger, and more efficient than government regulation
Yeah, it's all well and good when you're talking about facebook and amazon, because they have the money and power to stop ISPs and carriers from fricking with their business. Regulation isn't necessary to protect the big guys. It's when the little guys get left behind under data caps, while the big boys enjoy unlimited access to customers, is where government regulation is necessary to preserve competition.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:19 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It's when the little guys get left behind under data caps, while the big boys enjoy unlimited access to customers, is where government regulation is necessary to preserve competition.
but writing an actual reg to both protect property rights and ensure your stated goal are not easy
we don't do this in other areas
it takes 2 to tango, and i think you truly are ignoring the role of the content/apps in this. your "doomsday" scenario only applies, as i noted in my quoted examples above, if these parties agree to exclusivity agreements. the market would likely punish any content-provider who did skew the system as you fear
now, the types of deals offered in the OP? i can see that proliferating like a motherfricker
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
Just wanted to chime in again and say that this is a great debate, and we need more like this on the tech board.
That is all.
That is all.
Posted on 8/4/14 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Don't they all want to "skew" the system to create tiered pricing based on content?
the market would likely punish any content-provider who did skew the system as you fear
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News