- 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: Net neutrality devil's advocate
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:16 pm to Evolved Simian
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:16 pm to Evolved Simian
You think that's a big number for the entire country? That's cute.
1
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:16 pm to culsutiger
quote:
The reclassification may be extreme but it is absolutely necessary to prevent throttling.
So the only possible way to prevent throttling was to tie the internet to a 1930s set of regulations?
If it's impossible to write new law, how did these people in the 1930s get these regulations? God dropped them down to Congress?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:18 pm to efrad
quote:
So why do ISPs take on all of this expense?
The incentive of profit.
Take away that incentive of profit with overregulation, and the internet infrastructure becomes stagnant.
I am not against any regulation of the internet, but some of you seriously lack a knowledge of economics. Remove profit incentives and you will help slow growth and really prevent any ISP competition from appearing in the future.
Do you want to trade the internet infrastructure of the future for the internet infrastructure of 2017 forever, in exchange for the ability to tell the ISPs how they handle their network?
Here's what you people aren't understanding: it isn't a profit motivation, it's a power motivation. The Big 6 have lots of cashflow, that's not the issue. The issue is they're losing the narrative and trust of the people at large. They (rightly) blame the internet for this.
The internet is their competitor for power, not each other. Look at how CNN has been reacting since Trump has gotten elected. It is losing its shite over the general population telling them "You're full of shite, because I listen to these guys who are not subject to you." What financial incentive did the WSJ have to go after PewDiePie and all 5 of the other big news organizations to all double down on the bullshite? It's because the independent creator threatens their power, and they realized one person has more day to day viewers than CNN does. That scares them, so they did a hit piece.
Get the money out of your mind. They don't care about that anymore. They're all fricking us over already anyway, but they want to get back to the 90s when they controlled all lines of communication. The internet is a child they can not control, so they want to lobotomize it. That's all this is: a lobotomization of the internet.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:18 pm to efrad
quote:
So why do ISPs take on all of this expense?
The incentive of profit.
Take away that incentive of profit with overregulation, and the internet infrastructure becomes stagnant.
I am not against any regulation of the internet, but some of you seriously lack a knowledge of economics. Remove profit incentives and you will help slow growth and really prevent any ISP competition from appearing in the future.
Do you want to trade the internet infrastructure of the future for the internet infrastructure of 2017 forever, in exchange for the ability to tell the ISPs how they handle their network?
While this is all true as far as it goes, none of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality.
The general networks are great. The failings of the US networks are in the "last mile."
Rewind the clocks a decade or two, when the federal government was trying to boost access to high speed internet, and you'll find headline after headline of the big ISPs HOWLING for government regulation giving them exclusive access to geographic areas, citing that it was the only way to justify the costs of install.
Now they have it, they are crying for complete freedom to act however they want within their fiefdoms.
While I agree with what you said, the root problem isn't here. It was the manner of regulations put forth in the mid 90s.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:20 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
almost all of them predate the rule.
Who gives a shite if they predate the rule? That's like someone in the 1780s saying that all these kings and emperors predate democracy in America, so surely that's going to last right?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:22 pm to culsutiger
quote:
They were put in place in response to actual abuses by ISPs.
They were a ridiculous overreaction to exactly four instances of throttling.
That's ridiculous overreach that negatively affected over 2,500 providers who weren't throttling. And yes, there was a much better solution. Applying an act made to take on a single telephone company to thousands of small businesses was absolutely not the right call.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:22 pm to culsutiger
quote:
Comcast (an ISP) was throttling customer's data. The FCC told them to stop. Comcast went to court and won in early 2010.
In late 2010, the FCC passed regulations requiring no "unreasonable discrimination" by ISPs (no throttling).
In 2014, Verizon won it's case against the FCC. The FCC was not allowed to prevent throttling because ISPs were classified as title I and not classified as title II.
As a result, ISPs were reclassified as title II in 2015.
The reclassification may be extreme but it is absolutely necessary to prevent throttling. This is not a hypothetical, it has already been hashed out in court.
Further, net neutrality regulations were not put in place because of some nonexistant boogeyman as you suggest. They were put in place in response to actual abuses by ISPs.
Quoted, because this process chart of history is so needed for those who started following this concern in the past 12 (or even 24) months.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:24 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Quoted, because this process chart of history is so needed for those who started following this concern in the past 12 (or even 24) months.
Again, it's ridiculous overreach that negatively affected over 2,500 providers who weren't throttling. And yes, there was a much better solution. Applying an act made to take on a single telephone company to thousands of small businesses was absolutely not the right call.
I can't believe so many people are so clueless about this.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:25 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
2578 ISPs in the US, and almost all of them predate the rule.
Add what is the number of new companies you'd expect in an 18 month timeframe in an saturated market?
Come on man.....
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:26 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
Applying an act made to take on a single telephone company to thousands of small businesses was absolutely not the right call.
The definition of overreach.
Most likely control was more important than the singular issue
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:27 pm to monkeybutt
quote:
You think that's a big number for the entire country? That's cute.
You think four instances of throttling is worth punishing thousands of companies that weren't involved?
How stupid.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:28 pm to efrad
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:20 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:33 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Add what is the number of new companies you'd expect in an 18 month timeframe in an saturated market?
No, you expect consolidation and efficiency as the result of competition.
What we got instead was regulation that crippled the small providers more than the big ones. Title II is much more burdensome on them than it is on a megaprovider.
It's amazing that you guys would sacrifice all competition just to prevent six or seven companies from making more money than they already are.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:34 pm to Evolved Simian
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:35 pm to Evolved Simian
quote:
It's amazing that you guys would sacrifice all competition just to prevent six or seven companies from making more money than they already are.
It's not about the money, it's about them controlling the distribution of information, you fricking moron. And they've shown time and time again that they are actively trying to do so.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:37 pm to reggieray420
quote:
Lacour
quote:
You're so stupid it hurts
He doesn't contain it to just this board.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:38 pm to culsutiger
quote:
It's the only way for the FCC to do so within the current legislative framework.
It's ridiculous that you believe an overreaction resulting in gross overregulation is an appropriate response to very limited incidents.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:48 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
It's not about the money, it's about them controlling the distribution of information, you fricking moron. And they've shown time and time again that they are actively trying to do so.
No, they weren't. A small number of providers were caught throttling a few high data use sites. None were trying to control information.
The entities that actually control what you see and read are supporting NN. See Google.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:48 pm to Evolved Simian
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:50 pm to Lacour
quote:
Can you people just not survive without the internet?
He says while on the internet
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News