- 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 7:55 pm to DrSteveBrule
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:55 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
Is it true that net neutrality wasn't regulated until 2015? If so, why weren't ISPs implementing content based subscription services prior to these regulations.
The term was fairly new, but the principle was in place from the start of the Internet. There was no way a single company can do it all, so they agreed to not attempt to evaluate the data between them. Every bit that passes through their networks gets treated the same.
The big names started to move away from that gentleman's agreement starting around 2006, culminating that Netflix, on top of the massive fees being paid to their ISP to support their streaming bandwith, was being extorted by Comcast and Verizon to ensure that their data was not being impeded to their customers.
So Netflix was paying for their bandwith to company XYZ, and Comcast, on top of the fees paid by their subscribers, refused to actually provide those paid-for-speeds specifically for Netflix traffic....unless Netflix paid them more money, even though Netflix wasn't a direct customer.
It was then ISPs, particularly wired ones, were placed under provisions that treated them as an telecommunications utility, unable to use their position as a sanctioned monopoly in anti-trust ways.
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.
How?
All net neutrality does is tell everyone to treat the back end the same.
Let's say an up and coming ISP forms.
They offer a great product that "somehow" overcomes the advantages enjoyed by Comcast's government subsidized advantages. They are now threatening Comcast market share.
With no net neutrality, Comcast can legally impede all traffic from this ISP on their backbones, severely degrading quality of service of small ISP.
Threat neutralized.
Or the above scenario with Netflix repeats itself: a popular web service is basically double charged as ISPs piggyback on the popularity of a given service.
Creativity stifled.
Also, one of the provisions of Title 2 is that they MUST make their logistical assets available at fair prices to 3rd parties.
Without it, they get to lock it all back down.
I'm seeing a LOT of hand waving at how removing net neutrality will make things more competitive, but not a one has explained how.
2
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:56 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
I also made mention of how I feel like Amazon, Google, Reddit, have become too powerful for their own good. Where are the regulations imposed on them?
Those 3 businesses have nothing in common, other then the internet. And Google just got fined billions by the EU for their Google shopping. Reddit is just a message board. They have tons of competition and create zero content on their own. Amazon is an online store. You can shop a million other places.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:58 pm to fouldeliverer
Yeah, I have to say you have to be an incredibly stupid human being if you think Comcast has your best interests at heart.
I mean this literally in that the IRS has a higher approval rating than Comcast. Think about that for a second, people say to themselves: "sure the IRS screws me out of thousands of dollars every year, but it's better than dealing with Comcast."
I mean this literally in that the IRS has a higher approval rating than Comcast. Think about that for a second, people say to themselves: "sure the IRS screws me out of thousands of dollars every year, but it's better than dealing with Comcast."
Posted on 7/12/17 at 7:58 pm to bmy
quote:
But i'd be happy with just stopping at "all packets must be treated equally".
You're buying the bullshite talking points. So-called Net Neutrality does not require this. It's not in the law. It's also completely impossible.
Educate yourself:
National Review article on NN
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:00 pm to rocket31
these corporations will become even more powerful without NN, you realize that, right?
Quit thinking for yourself, and trust that Verizon and Comcast have your best interest in mind.
Quit thinking for yourself, and trust that Verizon and Comcast have your best interest in mind.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:02 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Again, what were they censoring?
They were throttling, not censoring. But by removing NN, censorship is a real possibility.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:02 pm to Volvagia
quote:
With no net neutrality, Comcast can legally impede all traffic from this ISP on their backbones, severely degrading quality of service of small ISP. Threat neutralized.
So wrong. That would be highly illegal. Unfair trade practices is a broad category already enforced by the FTC. "NN" is not needed in the slightest.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:03 pm to DrSteveBrule
quote:
I also made mention of how I feel like Amazon, Google, Reddit, have become too powerful for their own good. Where are the regulations imposed on them?
Wait, Reddit has become too powerful? All Reddit is an open message message board. So basically all you are saying is "frick free speech" if you think Reddit has gotten too powerful.
But instead of the people dictating what is important what should said, let's surrender and just hand it back it to CNN in the paws of compulsive liars like Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo. Because we shouldn't hear what our common man from across the country is thinking, unless of course we see it through Fox or CNN of course.
Great job on being the devil's advocate saying a free speech outlet has too much power.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:12 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:
So wrong. That would be highly illegal. Unfair trade practices is a broad category already enforced by the FTC. "NN" is not needed in the slightest.
I didn't say stop.
I said impede. Even a 5-10% reduction is proven to have a profound impact on costumer service, and as long as you half arse the attempt, impossible to prove.
For fricks sake, we are talking about a company who just got tapped (not slapped) on the wrist by the FCC for forcing services on their customers that were not asked for, and in cased explicitly refused. They made more money than the fine even getting caught breaking the law.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:19 pm to Volvagia
my republican grandpa doesn't know jack about the internet, but there's enough right-wing propaganda about the evils of net neutrality that he vehemently opposes it, even if I explain that net-neutrality is pro-free market.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:20 pm to rocket31
quote:
ven if I explain that net-neutrality is pro-free market.
You're a work.
If there was one ISP a and it was a monopoly, you would make sense. There's not.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:22 pm to CCTider
quote:
They were throttling, not censoring. But by removing NN, censorship is a real possibility.
How is that an example then?
I asked for an example of censorship.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:23 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
go to their competitor.
Not always an option. Where I live, just outside Nola, there's only two choices. Cox or ATT
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:24 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
Not always an option. Where I live, just outside Nola, there's only two choices. Cox or ATT
That's called competition.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:26 pm to brass2mouth
quote:
Not always an option. Where I live, just outside Nola, there's only two choices. Cox or ATT
If a provider starts throttling popular websites and fast laning others, you can bet that provider will soon have competition.
The issue with NN, it protects conglomerates like Alphabet (Google) and puts heavy regulation on potential entrants to the market. Throttling is only part of the issue, title II is the bad part.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:27 pm to Volvagia
So firstly, you're saying netflix was actually was being charged for the bandwidth it used? Does NN not give netflix and similar services an advantage by allowing them to hog bandwidth at "reasonable" fees?
Secondly, why would Comcast throttle said ISP when instead Comcast could charge them for the use of its facilities? Seems bad business on the part of comcast. Otherwise, said ISP can build their own fiber systems and get with it?
How is Comcast subsidized?
Secondly, why would Comcast throttle said ISP when instead Comcast could charge them for the use of its facilities? Seems bad business on the part of comcast. Otherwise, said ISP can build their own fiber systems and get with it?
How is Comcast subsidized?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:29 pm to fightin tigers
quote:I cant tell if you're trolling in this thread or you're really that ignorant
fightin tigers
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:29 pm to rocket31
quote:
even if I explain that net-neutrality is pro-free market.
Pro free market at the expense of the ISPs
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:30 pm to J Murdah
quote:
I cant tell if you're trolling in this thread or you're really that ignorant
How did today's vote go?
Trying to educate myself.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 8:38 pm to fightin tigers
You followed my other thread you should know that there was no vote today.
It seems that the posters against this seem to think that this vote is meaningless because it will just create more competition and that more ISP startups will start popping up all over the US and you can choose to do business with the cheapest. This couldn't be more wrong. They make points for any other industry but when it comes to net neutrality and ISP's it just simply is not the case. In an industry where they agree not to compete with one-another to frick you over. ISP contribute directly to political campaign funds and deny it & the chairman of the FCC was an ISP lobbyist. They will use this to create more laws allowing them to become more monopolistic and put up yuge barriers to entry for any start-up.
It seems that the posters against this seem to think that this vote is meaningless because it will just create more competition and that more ISP startups will start popping up all over the US and you can choose to do business with the cheapest. This couldn't be more wrong. They make points for any other industry but when it comes to net neutrality and ISP's it just simply is not the case. In an industry where they agree not to compete with one-another to frick you over. ISP contribute directly to political campaign funds and deny it & the chairman of the FCC was an ISP lobbyist. They will use this to create more laws allowing them to become more monopolistic and put up yuge barriers to entry for any start-up.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News