- 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: Marco Rubio on Net Neutrality: ‘This Is a Solution in Search of a Problem’
Posted on 7/13/17 at 11:03 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 7/13/17 at 11:03 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
That's an indicator that the delivery of your content has tangible economic value. Value, the deliverer is banned for charging for.
quote:This is always your argument, as if the ISPs have to provide services for free. They get paid for their services. Always have, always will. What you want is for them to be able to charge the sender and the receiver for the same thing. This is like if I were to send a package, and the shipper and I agree on a price for the service. I hold up my end of the deal and pay them, and their end is to deliver the package. That's their fricking job. But then they arrive at the destination and see that the receiver is doing quite well, and they open my package to see that what is inside is quite valuable, they then decide they need more money than the agreed upon amount.
Nope. It's a "market" where some participants provide value to others for free by mandate. A "free market" doesn't mean some people are forced to work for no pay.
That's what you want ISPs to have the power to do, and it's fricked up.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 11:29 am to Korkstand
quote:Yes. I'm consistent.
This is always your argument
quote:They don't. Netflix traffic has far more economic value than Ted Smith's Krackpot Konspiracy Blog. By definition NN demands that the ISP's pricing does NOT reflect that difference in value.
as if the ISPs have to provide services for free. They get paid for their services.
quote:Not exactly. In most cases they aren't the same provider. And both ends of the transaction have value. One is access and one is delivery.
What you want is for them to be able to charge the sender and the receiver for the same thing.
Why does Walmart get a markup? In most cases the products on their shelves are there because the vendor paid for the shelf space. Shouldn't they deliver Kraft mac-and-cheese for the same price they pay for it, since Kraft already paid to put it on the shelf?
Of course not-- because delivering a product to a customer has value. Amazon does the same thing. And they charge for it (both seller and buyer) only without even providing the shelf space in many cases.
quote:We'll have to disagree. I think if you deliver of something of value, you should have the opportunity to be paid for that.
That's what you want ISPs to have the power to do, and it's fricked up.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News