- 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 LIVE Vote • OFFICIAL RESULTS • Neutrality is Abolished
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:08 pm to Pettifogger
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:08 pm to Pettifogger
quote:I dunno, why do people think NN is about treating 50GB the same as 5GB?
Why are we analogizing to things that could theoretically happen but aren't happening?
0
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:09 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
Average cost of permit is 260-320 bucks
Yeah doesn't seem cost prohibitive, it's just about access.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:10 pm to UpToPar
quote:
First off, you are analogizing a bakery to the internet under no NN. I was creating an analogy between a bakery and an internet with NN. So, swing and a miss there.
Second, if there is a large demand for chocolate cakes, a new bakery will open up down the street and offer chocolate cakes. That's the free market at work
You really should of took my earlier post to heart a little bit better:
quote:
And for the record, I am not a fan of the repeal, but I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a hypocrite in that I support NN which is an example of big government and an opponent to the free market.
It is not hypocritical to recognize that one size does not fit all in economics.
If the ISP space was a highly competitive market with low barriers to entry and not an increasingly pivotal national resource that was heavily tax payer subsidized, sure, it might be hypocritical. But it is not that type of market in the vast majority of the country, where half of consumers have 1 or fewer definition high speed options for their home internet and the market is such that it is often a natural monopoly.
And I think the failure of people to recognize these sort of inner-market dynamics and understanding that one size does not fit all, is, I think, a large stumbling block for why people are struggling to grasp both the issue itself and the harm the repeal does.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:12 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I'm starting to see a pattern here. It seems as though most are arguing that government regulation through net neutrality is needed to protect the consumer from government corruption. Do you not see the irony here?
Crazy isn't it?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:12 pm to TH03
quote:
Yeah doesn't seem cost prohibitive, it's just about access.
Yeah and them allowing FOA on DAS is actually pretty big in terms of the future.
DAS is a Distributed Antenna System.
Essentially in a 4U chassis, I can run all LTE bands at pico power levels.
This is essentially the groundwork for 5G.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:12 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Why are we analogizing to things that could theoretically happen but aren't happening?
We saw glimpses of what could happen just prior to NN.
Netflix was being throttled to an almost useless speed by Comcast which prompted a huge popular uproar leading up to the NNpolicy being enacted.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:13 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
It is not hypocritical to recognize that one size does not fit all in economics. If the ISP space was a highly competitive market with low barriers to entry and not an increasingly pivotal national resource that was heavily tax payer subsidized, sure, it might be hypocritical. But it is not that type of market in the vast majority of the country, where half of consumers have 1 or fewer definition high speed options for their home internet and the market is such that it is often a natural monopoly. And I think the failure of people to recognize these sort of inner-market dynamics and understanding that one size does not fit all, is I think, a large stumbling block for why people are struggling to grasp both the issue itself and the harm the repeal does.
this is the very important.
Being an ideologue is bad
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:13 pm to bonhoeffer45
I think you can recognize the limitations on competition for what is essentially a utility, but the pro-NN crowd is similarly ignoring the market reality that there are huge players in the space on both sides of this issue which will, in all likelihood, result in the abatement of any radically altered internet landscape for the near future.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:14 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
We saw glimpses of what could happen just prior to NN.
Netflix was being throttled to an almost useless speed by Comcast which prompted a huge popular uproar leading up to the NNpolicy being enacted.
actually Comcast changed their actions before NN was passed.
NN did nothing to stop, mitigate, or alleviate the situation.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:14 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Second, if there is a large demand for chocolate cakes, a new bakery will open up down the street and offer chocolate cakes.
Not if the vanilla bakery owns the dairy farms and chicken farms and of the best roads and trucking companies, so in order to open a bakery you would have to first open a farm then pave roads to your bakery then open a trucking company to transport goods from your farm to you bakery and to your customers and all of these things require permits and the vanilla bakery pays the permit office to frick you.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:15 pm to stout
quote:
So if I understand it correctly, person A uses 500 Gb a month and person B uses 1Gb month. Without Net Neutrality Person A can be charged more than person B for their monthly usage. Yes. It will also keep lanes open for high usage people that want to pay for that usage instead of bandwidth being clogged by people torrenting Frozen in 4K even though they still have a 1080p TV.
You and Fred show a comical understanding of net neutrality.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with the amount of data you use. Under net neutrality, your ISP could still charge you for data overages and what not.
Net neutrality has to do with WHERE you use that data. Now Cox can charge you more for using 1TB/month AND charge you if you go off the approved websites.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:16 pm to 50_Tiger
quote:
This is essentially the groundwork for 5G.
I'm not read up on 5G enough so I'll ask
Will 5G be able to replace a wired connection to a home? Will it achieve the same speeds?
I am very hopeful that 5G or some other technology allows for a WISP to come in and provide TRUE competition to the local ISP marketplace
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:18 pm to CptBengal
quote:
NN did nothing to stop, mitigate, or alleviate the situation.
But it did prevent future similar situations
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:18 pm to CptBengal
I can’t believe the anti NN people are just ignoring the fact that the only significant proponents of the move were Comcast ATT and Verizon. The big ISP’s. Why would they support something that would negativeky impact their monopolies?
They were the only major players who wanted competition for themselves? That makes no sense
They were the only major players who wanted competition for themselves? That makes no sense
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:18 pm to Tigeralum2008
That’s fine. I’ll completely quit using internet other than what my work provides me to do my job, if the things I like to use internet for become unusable. Hopefully others will follow suit.
People got sick of cable and Netflix flourished and people started unhooking cable. Now the cable companies need to get that shite under control and recoup that lost income. Something will come along to give the people what they want when streaming starts to suck if it ever does.
At least that’s what my non-tech brain thinks.
People got sick of cable and Netflix flourished and people started unhooking cable. Now the cable companies need to get that shite under control and recoup that lost income. Something will come along to give the people what they want when streaming starts to suck if it ever does.
At least that’s what my non-tech brain thinks.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:18 pm to slackster
quote:
AND charge you if you go off the approved websites.
I won't argue data caps but lol at this statement. Do you really think this is even remotely a possibility?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:18 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I think you can recognize the limitations on competition for what is essentially a utility, but the pro-NN crowd is similarly ignoring the market reality that there are huge players in the space on both sides of this issue which will, in all likelihood, result in the abatement of any radically altered internet landscape for the near future.
Perhaps, but the best way to ensure things don’t get too bad, even if you feel confident the power of the Google’s of the world will be a hedge(which I am skeptical of for many reasons, including that it wasn’t before and has failed to be elsewhere in the world)is to simply codify that content discrimination is prohibited. To ensure the fair playing field that built the internet remains fair.
This post was edited on 12/14/17 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:19 pm to bconne1
quote:
Then I guess I’d go to another site instead acting like whiny bitch on this thread.
You fricking pussy.
So you would rather only read what is in a company's best interest for you to know.. Instead of getting all the facts? And he is a pussy?
For anyone saying "I support this because I want the government involved as little as possible". Isn't the government involved either way? What was being voted on?
1. Everyone can have equal access to the internet giving them the freedom to publish whatever they want and the freedom to find all the information available.
2. ISP can now restrict what their customers are able to view which means they will only be able to view what their ISP want's them to see.
Who benefits from this? If you are pro-business, are you supporting the fact that there will be a handful of companies that will dictate to it's customers what they can and can not see.. Which means, people who depends on the internet for their business could easily be restricted if their ISP doesn't want it's users to find websites that are in competition with companies they have a special interest in?
Personally, I don't like the government telling companies that they are allowed to restrict what services I can access, what websites I can visit, etc.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:19 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Why are we analogizing to things that could theoretically happen but aren't happening?
They are definitely going to happen. No one lobbies this hard just because. Comcast has removed the pledge on their site to adhere to NN principles. It will be rolled out slowly because slowly pissing people off is more absorbable than really pissing them off at once, but it's coming.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 2:19 pm to Pettifogger
Sure but that won't prevent the OT from being triggered.
Page 20 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News