- 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
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:32 pm to McLemore
quote:
good deal.
I listened to a bit more.
"You're telling me that I can use my Facebook Messenger to talk to my Yahoo Messenger?!"
This guy has a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic he's talking about. Tell me why I should listen to 45 minutes of this.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:42 pm to Korkstand
quote:
So where does having a corporate gatekeeper that decides which products and services you have access to
wut?
you mean like television?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:46 pm to Korkstand
quote:
This guy has a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic he's talking about. Tell me why I should listen to 45 minutes of this.
you've obviously never listened to No Agenda. I'm not going to try to talk anyone into listening to it. There are subtleties that require you actually listen rather than assume you know what they're saying. In that instance, they were picking apart that videoclip.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you pay bills, conduct business, or communicate with people through your television?
BTW, no one is arguing that the current model for television is a good thing. In fact, the television model is what many point to when we say that eliminating net neutrality is a terrible idea.
BTW, no one is arguing that the current model for television is a good thing. In fact, the television model is what many point to when we say that eliminating net neutrality is a terrible idea.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wut?
you mean like television?
Yeah, like television. The internet is nothing like television, but the ISPs want it to be.
If you would stop laughing, maybe you would realize that you might finally be grasping the concept.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:51 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah, like television. The internet is nothing like television, but the ISPs want it to be.
If you would stop laughing, maybe you would realize that you might finally be grasping the concept.
And the current TV model is a terrible one for consumers.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:51 pm to Sophandros
quote:
In fact, the television model is what many point to when we say that eliminating net neutrality is a terrible idea.
The internet revolutionized the way you get information. I think that revolution would have been decidedly muted had the TV model been put into place from the get go.
Serious question: do any other developed nations allow internet to be controlled the way we are about to?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:52 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Do you pay bills, conduct business, or communicate with people through your television?
nope, but that isn't what he said
i get the N/N argument and i'm not 100% opposed to it, but these discussions are basically impossible b/c the N/N proponents basically have reduced the argument to this: you can choose between (1) Net Neutrality or (2) worst possible case scenario for EVERYONE. there is no middle ground or shades of grey
quote:
BTW, no one is arguing that the current model for television is a good thing.
i didn't, either. i just argued that "corporate gatekeepers" (whatever that is) are already (and have for a long time) determined what content/services consumers have access to
again, that's just an example of using these scary terms to describe a scenario to scare people, while ignoring how that is quite common. these discussions are not built on honest discussions. they have devolved into the black/white paradigm i listed above
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:52 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Its the biggest threat to personal freedom we have seen in the last 50 years.
You obviously have not been paying attention to SCOTUS and the 4th Amendment.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:52 pm to elprez00
quote:
Serious question: do any other developed nations allow internet to be controlled the way we are about to?
depends on what you mean by developed, but in general no. Although there is a lot of concentration in comms within the UK.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:52 pm to McLemore
quote:And from the few minutes I've heard, it seems to be terribly mistitled.
you've obviously never listened to No Agenda.
quote:
There are subtleties that require you actually listen rather than assume you know what they're saying. In that instance, they were picking apart that videoclip.
They are picking apart a clip that was obviously "dumbed down" for the masses. Why do you object when I pick apart No Agenda?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:53 pm to Korkstand
quote:
If you would stop laughing, maybe you would realize that you might finally be grasping the concept.
i do fully grasp the concept and warned people talking about "pulling the plug" about this years ago
i'm just not engaging in histrionics or black and white thinking, nor do i accept it
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:54 pm to Sophandros
quote:
And the current TV model is a terrible one for consumers.
it's a lot better than what it replaced
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:54 pm to elprez00
quote:
do any other developed nations allow internet to be controlled the way we are about to?
you mean to have a lack of control like we are about to? and odds are the answer is: no
Posted on 5/19/14 at 12:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
The reason for that is that we know the entities behind the fight to eliminate net neutrality.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:00 pm to Sophandros
quote:
The reason for that is that we know the entities behind the fight to eliminate net neutrality.
the biggest entity is the USSC. the FCC has its hands tied for the most part (to change things, congress has to act)
also these arguments are very slanted by power users. there is a very good shot that this lowers the cost to lower-level consumers (who admittedly will likely have fewer options). so good for the majority of the population, bad for the small % of power users who use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth
i think this may also lead to a model that charges for usage (like cell plans), which also scares the power users
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That's because there is no middle ground. Either every packet is treated neutrally, or they aren't.
these discussions are basically impossible b/c the N/N proponents basically have reduced the argument to this: you can choose between (1) Net Neutrality or (2) worst possible case scenario for EVERYONE. there is no middle ground or shades of grey
quote:Again, stop laughing and maybe you will understand why the internet has been so vitally important for the last two decades. Precisely because it does not work like television.
i just argued that "corporate gatekeepers" (whatever that is) are already (and have for a long time) determined what content/services consumers have access to
quote:Yeah, it is quite common for our information to be filtered. And it is an extremely scary thought that our only source of unfiltered information might also become filtered.
again, that's just an example of using these scary terms to describe a scenario to scare people, while ignoring how that is quite common.
quote:But if you were honest with yourself, and if you really put some thought into it, you would realize that it really is a black/white topic.
these discussions are not built on honest discussions. they have devolved into the black/white paradigm i listed above
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
But if you were honest with yourself, and if you really put some thought into it, you would realize that it really is a black/white topic.
I have yet to hear a good argument on why net neutrality is a good idea.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 1:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
That's because there is no middle ground.
yes, there is. for example, the model where poor people get cheaper, less open internet. that is rarely discussed
quote:
Either every packet is treated neutrally, or they aren't.
we are talking about the effects and company policies that emerge
quote:
stop laughing and maybe you will understand why the internet has been so vitally important for the last two decades. Precisely because it does not work like television.
again, you're shifting the argument. comparing how tv and the internet have been implemented is irrelevant
i was responding to an argument that companies have never done...basically what they've been doing for decades. it was a stupid and borderline dishonest argument. that's all it was meant to address. there are other models that restrict content the same. there is no singular content-delivery service
quote:
And it is an extremely scary thought that our only source of unfiltered information might also become filtered.
i doubt it will become filtered, as much as the filterless internet will just cost more. in theory, this is only an argument about cost
quote:
But if you were honest with yourself, and if you really put some thought into it, you would realize that it really is a black/white topic.
if power users pay more, middle users make choices based on cost/tiers, and poor people get more access to cheap internet, that can easily be argued to be a success.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News