- 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: I wholeheartedly disagree with the Trump administration on getting rid of Net Neutrality
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:37 am to culsutiger
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:37 am to culsutiger
quote:
Dude is shilling his arse off. There are so many contradictions in his logic just in this thread.
Please point them out.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:39 am to Centinel
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:40 am to culsutiger
I can do that too. How about addressing the point?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:41 am to Centinel
quote:I'll use the term in the way that it applies to the topic at hand, thanks.
Monopoly has a very specific definition. Use it, not what you think it should mean.
quote:Are you serious? It means more than 50%, though some courts have required higher percentages. It absolutely does not mean 100%, if that's what you're suggesting. From the FTC:
What is the definition of leading market position?
quote:It even says they "typically" do not find monopoly power if the market share is less than 50%, which means a company CAN be deemed a monopoly with less than 50%.
That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
quote:They do, but again you've forgotten that they aren't even competitors. The monopoly power is abused when an ISP limits competition or access to competitors to its own services, among other ways.
But I thought wired ISPs had a better product compared to wireless?
quote:Again, the topic is not about wired ISPs excluding wireless competitors, that is a topic you've started in your own head and spewed into this thread.
How do wired ISPs have the power to exclude wireless competitors?
My argument is that wireless ISPs do not compete with wired ones (the FCC agrees by its definition of broadband that you love so much), and that ISP monopolies exist all over the country despite your assertions that they have competition from mobile/satellite. Further, I argue that these monopolies are natural, and that they aren't necessarily bad. What's bad is when an ISP abuses its monopoly position in order to shape markets unfairly.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:42 am to Centinel
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:44 am to Centinel
quote:
and i cant recall a single time you have agreed with a liberal poster on anything
quote:
I'm pro life
Conservative viewpoint, just saying...
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:44 am to culsutiger
quote:
You don't you downy frick.
No you don't. You just hurl insults and post emojis.
I'm sorry you can't actually make an argument.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:44 am to PNW
quote:
Conservative viewpoint, just saying...
That should have been pro choice.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:52 am to Korkstand
quote:'
I'll use the term in the way that it applies to the topic at hand, thanks.
But you aren't doing so.
quote:
It even says they "typically" do not find monopoly power if the market share is less than 50%, which means a company CAN be deemed a monopoly with less than 50%.
Ok, so then why hasn't an ISP been brought up on anti-trust regulation?
quote:
They do, but again you've forgotten that they aren't even competitors.
They both provide internet access. They provide the exact same product, if at different quality levels.
quote:
Again, the topic is not about wired ISPs excluding wireless competitors, that is a topic you've started in your own head and spewed into this thread.
The topic is natural monopolies as justification for Title II legislation. Which don't exist. Because of wireless.
quote:
My argument is that wireless ISPs do not compete with wired ones (the FCC agrees by its definition of broadband that you love so much)
Well this is rather inconvenient for you:
FCC Types of Broadband Connections
quote:
Further, I argue that these monopolies are natural,
They're not. See above.
quote:
What's bad is when an ISP abuses its monopoly position in order to shape markets unfairly.
No, what's bad is when an ISP bribes elected officials to keep out wired competition. Fortunately they haven't cracked the code to keep out wireless.
When they do, THAT will be a monopoly.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 12:56 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:52 am to Centinel
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/15/18 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:55 am to culsutiger
Alter on little alter.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:55 am to Sentrius
quote:Morning, Cuck
Sentrius
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:58 am to Centinel
quote:That does not at all address the problem, but we'll just leave it at that. I don't have the energy to find out what sort of mental gymnastics you will surely pull here.
They own the content going over their lines. They don't have to pay the data transport fees Netflix does.
quote:In other words: mobile ISPs simply do not compete with landline.
Pay for more data.
quote:I already answered this question in the absolute most accurate way possible: Yes 1% of the time, No 99% of the time.
Are mobile providers able to reach download speeds of 25MB/s? Yes or no?
quote:But it does exclude mobile ISPs from this definition, and you conveniently ignore that fact in order to try to make a ridiculous point. Again I will say, there were attempts to include mobile ISPs in the definition, and data caps were the main topic of discussion for the obvious fact that bitrates alone are not sufficient when attempting to define a term such as "broadband". It is a meaningless label if it only applies 1% of the time.
The FCC definition says nothing about data caps or rate limits.
quote:In other words: mobile ISPs simply do not compete with landline.
Buy more data.
quote:In other words: mobile ISPs simply do not compete with landline.
Pay for more data.
In order to even approach the level of service that a landline ISP provides, you would have to buy approximately $15,000 dollars worth of additional data per month (using Verizon's $15/gig overage charges). That is simply not even trying to compete.
quote:Fun fact: that "high" cap only applies to mobile use, and they throttle video to SD quality. They don't give nearly that much data for hotspot use.
Fun fact: TMobile's data cap for unlimited is 50Gigs as of October.
quote:They compete in the mobile market, yes. What's that got to do with our topic?
It's almost like they have competition and are responding...
quote:
Almost like a monopoly doesn't exit for ISPs...
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:09 am to Centinel
quote:WTfrick? I use the term "monopoly" as the FTC does, and in the way it applies to the ISP market.
But you aren't doing so.
quote:Because being a monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly position is illegal, and it takes a LOT of evidence to bring an anti-trust case. And these cases are expensive and time-consuming, which is the reason many feel it's better to put some common sense rules in place so that all that government expense and waste isn't necessary as often.
Ok, so then why hasn't an ISP been brought up on anti-trust regulation?
quote:They have different target markets, they aren't competitors. I mean, come on you dipshit, most people have both landline and mobile internet. If they were truly competing services, almost everyone would consolidate their services. But they aren't, so we don't.
They both provide internet access. They provide the exact same product, if at different quality levels.
quote:Keep on saying that, maybe you'll convince a few idiots around here.
The topic is natural monopolies as justification for Title II legislation. Which don't exist. Because of wireless.
quote:And this is rather inconvenient for you:
Well this is rather inconvenient for you:
FCC Types of Broadband Connections
quote:And the definition you keep quoting is from 2015 after the FCC redefined broadband. Your source is outdated and superseded.
Updated: Monday, June 23, 2014
quote:That's bad too, but don't say "no" that an ISP abusing its monopoly position isn't bad.
No, what's bad is when an ISP bribes elected officials to keep out wired competition.
quote:That's because it isn't necessary as wireless is nowhere close to being a competitor.
Fortunately they haven't cracked the code to keep out wireless.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:03 am to Sentrius
Guess who said this (in Feb 2015):
Answer: former FCC chairman.
LINK
quote:
The FCC has said it wants to protect an open Internet, but its actions extend well beyond Net neutrality. Instead, it is ushering in a backward-looking regulatory regime that is unsuited to the dynamic and innovative Internet. Thursday's vote will allow the FCC to regulate rates, set terms and conditions of business relationships, and dramatically increase the cost of network deployment. It also gives state and federal governments new opportunities to impose taxes and fees on consumer bills.
Answer: former FCC chairman.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:04 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:06 am to McLemore
And this (also Feb 2015 right after the vote):
quote:
Thursday's action begins a new chapter of competing visions for the Internet -- one where government regulators play a central role in directing how the Internet evolves, versus one in which entrepreneurs, private enterprise and consumers expressing their preferences set the terms for the future. The latter has a superior record in delivering value to consumers. The former has repeatedly failed.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:11 am to Korkstand
quote:
That's because it isn't necessary as wireless is nowhere close to being a competitor.
5G will be the predominant delivery for internet service of most major ISP's in the next 5 years. It's already a proven technology that is being trailed in several cities across the US. There's no turning back, wireless service is the endgame.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 9:20 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:15 am to McLemore
I couldn't get through this entire thread. Did anyone mention the undefined "unlawful content" issue? We're okay with government deciding what is "unlawful" (and what that term means) on its whims? Just making sure we're ok with that.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:23 am to Sentrius
I am shocked to see folks who have never questioned Trump in any decision, inquiring what net neutrality means. Even a mere question is step #1. Not just be fully supportive of Trump every time he opens his mouth
Posted on 11/22/17 at 9:25 am to Sentrius
Ask local internet providers in rural areas if they are for or against it.
They are against net neutrality. It raises the cost of service in rural areas tremendously.
They are against net neutrality. It raises the cost of service in rural areas tremendously.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News