- 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 7/13/17 at 7:06 am to Hulkklogan
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:06 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
I work for small ISP. Tell me again how I'm clueless
Hulk with the boom.
0
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:09 am to Centinel
quote:
see a lot of supposed internet experts in this thread, but not a single mention of peering or CDNs.
..and? CDNs are a way for ISPs to cut down on bandwidth costs with caching servers... Because Netflix eats up a lot of bandwidth. And peering exchanges like Equinix and Telx are great for an open, widely available internet. I don't see how these affect the NN argument except that peering with the big boys could become exponentially more expensive.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 7:12 am
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:18 am 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.
For the nteenth time this has absolutely nothing at all to do with money.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:32 am to DrSteveBrule
quote:
It seems like with net neutrality gone, the "little guy" will have a much bigger impact in the market and some of these big piece of shite companies like Cox will actually have to improve their services.
Exactly the opposite. The "little guy" won't exist any more.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:46 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Can you give me an example. Since there are millions affected
I have the option of crappy sat internet or from a rural telephone company. I'm paying around $65 for 6 Mbps.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 7:52 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
Exactly the opposite. The "little guy" won't exist any more.
The best way would be for a company to come in and install the infrastructure everywhere in the US. Mainly rural areas. Then that infrastructure rented out to ISPs. The small company uses it and charges half of what the big companies charge. Profit.
I have a co-worker that married a woman from Bulgaria. She came here to get her engineering degree. Anyways they went to Bulgaria to her mothers house while she was in the the US. While they were there his wife said they would just get internet for the week. It was $5 American for 100mb up and 100 down for the month. Im paying $63 a month for 12mb down and 1.5 up. I dont have any other option or faster speed.
The reason millions are without internet in this country is it cost too much to provide internet to areas where only say 20 people are paying for it. What really needs to happen is wireless in those areas. Its all about money and sooner or later we will all get frickd by these companies because they are unwilling to work for us.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:10 am to fightin tigers
quote:
I go to their competitor.
They won't have a competitor. They can block traffic from their competitors, or they have deals with their competitors not to service your area.
quote:
Fyi, that pricing picture, while fake, is cheaper than I pay for internet right now.
That's not the price of internet. That's the EXTRA price you'll have to pay to access those services, AFTER you pay for internet, which will also get more expensive because your ISP will have no competitors.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:12 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Give me an example of this happening pre-NN
Verizon throttled Netflix, if I recall correctly, until Netflix agreed to pay what Verizon was asking.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:31 am to OMLandshark
quote:I disagree. It is very much about money. We live in a capitalistic society so money is always the motivation. Many of the cable companies provide internet too. Since we have so many people cutting cords these companies are losing money. Their only option to stop the bleeding is to charge you more for internet to make up the difference. The most clever way is to make their competition pay more. Since they are losing out to streaming companies like Hulu, Amazon and Netflix, why not throttle their service and make them pay more. These companies will then be forced to increase their service fees. By doing this the cable companies don't look like bad guys, in their eyes, because they didn't directly charge you more money, the streaming services did.
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 7/13/17 at 8:35 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Their only option to stop the bleeding is to charge you more for internet to make up the difference.
That's not the point. They don't want to charge you more for what you watch. They want to dictate what you watch.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:47 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
I disagree. It is very much about money. We live in a capitalistic society so money is always the motivation. Many of the cable companies provide internet too. Since we have so many people cutting cords these companies are losing money. Their only option to stop the bleeding is to charge you more for internet to make up the difference. The most clever way is to make their competition pay more. Since they are losing out to streaming companies like Hulu, Amazon and Netflix, why not throttle their service and make them pay more. These companies will then be forced to increase their service fees. By doing this the cable companies don't look like bad guys, in their eyes, because they didn't directly charge you more money, the streaming services did.
Scott, you just don't get it do ya? You don't.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:50 am to MontyFranklyn
The money the big ISPs can make from controlling what traffic you get makes the money they make from subscribers look like pennies.
They will use the power to extort other companies. Streaming video companies (Hulu, Netflix, PS Vue, Sling, etc) are an easy target, but think about the implications of the ISPs being able to charge Facebook or Google obscene amounts of money to allow their subscribers to go to those websites. They'll also have the power to charge the consumer more to get there.. double dipping profits.
They will use the power to extort other companies. Streaming video companies (Hulu, Netflix, PS Vue, Sling, etc) are an easy target, but think about the implications of the ISPs being able to charge Facebook or Google obscene amounts of money to allow their subscribers to go to those websites. They'll also have the power to charge the consumer more to get there.. double dipping profits.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 10:15 am
Posted on 7/13/17 at 8:55 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
Streaming video companies (Hulu, Netflix, PS Vue, Sling, etc) are an easy targe
These aren't the target at all. Hulu is owned by Comcast and PS Vue is owned by Sony (ie: 2 of the Big Six). They're actively trying to turn YouTube into Hulu at this point so they control the content creation.
quote:
but think about the implications of the ISPs being able to charge Facebook or Google obscene amounts of money to allow their subscribers to go to those websites. They'll also have the power to charge the consumer more to get there's double dipping profits.
Exactly.
This post was edited on 7/13/17 at 8:56 am
Posted on 7/13/17 at 10:24 am to Hulkklogan
quote:I'm not disagreeing at all. I just think that it started off as a tool to recover profits lost to streaming companies. They will absolutely use it to their full benefit by charging any company more that they feel they can exploit.
The money the big ISPs can make from controlling what traffic you get makes the money they make from subscribers look like pennies.
They will use the power to extort other companies. Streaming video companies (Hulu, Netflix, PS Vue, Sling, etc) are an easy target, but think about the implications of the ISPs being able to charge Facebook or Google obscene amounts of money to allow their subscribers to go to those websites. They'll also have the power to charge the consumer more to get there.. double dipping profits.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 11:04 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:
The money the big ISPs can make from controlling what traffic you get makes the money they make from subscribers look like pennies.
I said this in another thread.
Imagine if Comcast or another big ISP invests in a certain industry. Comcast could then throttle/degrade/ban content produced by or about competitors in that industry.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 11:37 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
They won't have a competitor.
Lol
quote:
They can block traffic from their competitors, or they have deals with their competitors not to service your area.
It's illegal to do so without NN
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:06 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:Of course. It is scary. Here is what is even scarier, what if right wing christian group pays ISPs to block porn content or anything they don't like?
I said this in another thread.
Imagine if Comcast or another big ISP invests in a certain industry. Comcast could then throttle/degrade/ban content produced by or about competitors in that industry.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 12:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Those of you opposed to NN better be prepared to pay more than you already do for the content you like. Just like cable TV packages. Gutting NN will allow the ISP's to frick over the consumers by higher rates to access the content they desire, and frick over businesses and websites by creating a pay to play or get throttled internet. There are censorship issues and 1st amendment issues as well. Websites like TD would have never come to exist in a world without net neutrality.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It's illegal to do so without NN
No they are just going to block access to utility poles for new companies as they are doing now
LINK
LINK
tell me again how competition is just going to "POP UP" when a company with nearly unlimited resources is having to fight every step of the way to get their network up.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:34 pm to MC123
quote:
There are censorship issues and 1st amendment issues as well
As I stated earlier, our FCC chairman is very concerned about first amendment issues.
Our FCC chairman per Wikipedia
quote:
Pai highlighted First Amendment issues on the commission, citing them as a significant reason for voting against net neutrality. He called the Open Internet Order's declaration that Internet service providers have no freedom of speech an attempt to weaken the "culture of the First Amendment,"[31] and said it was "conceivable" the agency would seek to regulate political speech offered by edge providers such as Fox News or the Drudge Report.[32]
It's a first amendment issue. If the ISP can't control what you're allowed to see then it infringes on their freedom of speech. Get on board.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News