- 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: Pornhub Will Show Its 75 Million Daily Visitors Why Net Neutrality Matters
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:09 am to baldona
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:09 am to baldona
quote:
liken this to Uber. Who the hell took a taxi 10 years ago? I've taken more Uber's in the past year than I have taxi's in my life. Taxi's were basically government controlled as terrible, not to mention expensive.
Uber and taxis are like Netflix And Hulu.
They both travel the roads freely and thus can both exist and compete.
You're missing the point.
If I controlled the roads and banned uber or gave them a 5 mph speed limit the company could never have competed. And your solution is, whatever someone would pave and build an entire new road system in the city.
That's not possible, and if someone did start building new roads I could tell the other companies that of any of them drive on those roads I will ban them from my roads. And since my roads already lead to every house and business no one would go over to the new company.
Also, there are plenty of places that either cannot support two roads due to sustainability or cost. So those people are just fricked and have to deal with me.
Do you understand?
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:15 am
2
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:10 am to baldona
quote:
we don't need the government involved to make it right.
you probably shouldn't mention cars then.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:13 am to CCTider
people who watch porn are neckbeards who already know about net neutrality
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:13 am to Breesus
quote:
Uber and taxis are like Netflix And Hulu.
They both travel the roads freely and thus can both exist and compete.
You're missing the point.
If I controlled the roads and banned uber or gave them a 5 mph speed limit the company could never have competed. And your solution is, whatever someone would pave and build an entire new road system in the city.
Do you understand?
Easy answer: He does not understand the issues. At all.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:18 am to monkeybutt
quote:
Easy answer: He does not understand the issues. At all.
You got that right.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:18 am to CCTider
Been stockpiling my external hard drive for a couple of years now. Got over 500 vids
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:19 am to CCTider
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:26 am to Breesus
No. I think he thinks that all that's okay, because then we will come up with a whole new method of transportation, like flying cars.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:28 am to CCTider
Net neutrality "sounds" good, but forcing ISPs to go hat in hand to the feds to bless their service models and innovations will most certainly decrease innovation and competition, increase costs, and slow the expansion of bandwidth, which is the real problem.
IBD on net neutrality
Overreach is guaranteed. For example, the Clean Water Act sounds great, but it's allowing the Corps of Engineers (the levee folks) to fine a farmer millions for tilling his land. Temporary puddles are navigable waters, a plow is a "point source," dirt is a pollutant, and by inadvertently plowing a few areas of his field that sometimes hold water (he avoided most such areas), he has polluted a wetland. Lucky for other farmers, he's got the millions it takes to fight the feds.
Duarte's farm
Even the LA Times recognizes the overreach. If the Corps of Engineers will go this far, imagine what the FCC will do with power to tinker with ISPs.
LA Times article
IBD on net neutrality
Overreach is guaranteed. For example, the Clean Water Act sounds great, but it's allowing the Corps of Engineers (the levee folks) to fine a farmer millions for tilling his land. Temporary puddles are navigable waters, a plow is a "point source," dirt is a pollutant, and by inadvertently plowing a few areas of his field that sometimes hold water (he avoided most such areas), he has polluted a wetland. Lucky for other farmers, he's got the millions it takes to fight the feds.
Duarte's farm
Even the LA Times recognizes the overreach. If the Corps of Engineers will go this far, imagine what the FCC will do with power to tinker with ISPs.
LA Times article
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:30 am to baldona
You have to stop looking at Internet access like electricity. There's no 'alternative'source for most people. Like water.
Imagine if your water utility stopped charging you for how much water you used and just billed you a flat fee for 10k gallons for a month. Not only that, they were able to affect your taps to throttle your usage.
Now, since the water company knows that they can make more I profits if they can figure out a way to get their customers to use less water. So what would you do to do that? Well, the easiest thing would be to throttle all the showers during the peak times. So, yeah, you can shower during the morning and evening on weekdays, but you'll have a lot less pressure than you would during the day when there's less demand.
Imagine if your water utility stopped charging you for how much water you used and just billed you a flat fee for 10k gallons for a month. Not only that, they were able to affect your taps to throttle your usage.
Now, since the water company knows that they can make more I profits if they can figure out a way to get their customers to use less water. So what would you do to do that? Well, the easiest thing would be to throttle all the showers during the peak times. So, yeah, you can shower during the morning and evening on weekdays, but you'll have a lot less pressure than you would during the day when there's less demand.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:31 am to lsufan251875
Oh, good. So what "blessing" will an ISP need if the mandate is to treat all websites the same?
And what hypothetical service models would be impacted by that mandate? Are you envisioning a future service model where an ISP offers a reduced rate for only half of the internet?
And what hypothetical service models would be impacted by that mandate? Are you envisioning a future service model where an ISP offers a reduced rate for only half of the internet?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:34 am to Breesus
quote:
Net Neutrality is probably the biggest issue in this country that the general public doesn't understand.
They understand it just fine. No Net Neutrality means they get free stuff if they buy everything from the same vendor. People like free stuff.
quote:
Imagine if the government allowed certain car brands to purchase lanes on the interstate. I.E. If you drive a Ford you can go 80 mph but if you drive a Toyota you can only go 20 mph.
They don't want to slow stuff down, they want to double dip. It'd be more like the interstate is a toll road owned buy AT&T and if you buy the car AT&T made you only pay the toll once. If you buy the car someone else made you pay a toll again but it's secretly hidden in the price of the car.
quote:
Similarly, if Cox and AT&T allows only their own branded streaming to be high speed and they throttled Netflix and Hulu to unwatchable slow loading they would kill those sites.
They don't want to kill NetFlix and Hulu, they want to tax NetFlix and Hulu.
I'm pro Net Neutrality, I just think the argument about it often is inaccurate and takes the worst case scenario, telcos killing competitors and keeping consumers from watching what they want to watch, rather than the likely and already proven desire, telcos want to double dip. Killing competitors is messy business that could get laws changed in a way that is no longer in their favor. Why does AT&T care if you watch NetFlix or DirecTV if they get a cut of both?
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:35 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:37 am to FalseProphet
How many people don't have internet through their phone service and through a cable provider? Does anyone have those numbers?
The roads analogy is poor because you are saying 'all' roads are by one provider which is not true. Furthermore, you don't have to drive. You can walk, bike, or take a helicopter.
If one provider is going to charge you $10,000 to drive through their state then air travel becomes more affordable.
If I pay $75 for my home internet and it costs me $300 to get the same service through Verizon but I can use Verizon anywhere, then when my cable provider starts to charge me $150 and restricts me then that Verizon bill becomes more feasible.
The roads analogy is poor because you are saying 'all' roads are by one provider which is not true. Furthermore, you don't have to drive. You can walk, bike, or take a helicopter.
If one provider is going to charge you $10,000 to drive through their state then air travel becomes more affordable.
If I pay $75 for my home internet and it costs me $300 to get the same service through Verizon but I can use Verizon anywhere, then when my cable provider starts to charge me $150 and restricts me then that Verizon bill becomes more feasible.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:42 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I'm pro Net Neutrality, I just think the argument about it often is inaccurate and takes the worst case scenario, telcos killing competitors and keeping consumers from watching what they want to watch, rather than the likely and already proven desire, telcos want to double dip. Killing competitors is messy business that could get laws changed in a way that is no longer in their favor. Why does AT&T care if you watch NetFlix or DirecTV if they get a cut of both?
Exactly. It's absurd to think things will change completely. It's not really double dipping imo. They laid the network, they offer their own email, their own videos on demand, etc.
If Netflix wants to use Cox's network and Cox has their own service to what Netflix offers, why is it absurd that Netflix gets to be used for free?
If you don't like the extra Cox is going to charge, you can steam it through Verizon. It's not that absurd.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:50 am to lsufan251875
quote:
more I profits if they can figure out a way to get their customers to use less water. So what would you do to do that? Well, the easiest thing would be to throttle all the showers during the peak times. So, yeah, you can shower during the morning and evening
Lol, I guess you've never lived out west where they've been doing stuff like this for years. They've had crazy things like lawn watering days only on Tuesday's and Thursday's for 30 years.
Furthermore, do you not forget that phone service used to be free on nights and weekends but cost during the day! That was absurd! Communism i say! An atrocity! Genocide!
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 9:53 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 9:58 am to baldona
quote:
It's not really double dipping imo
They charge their customers to access NetFlix and then they charge NetFlix to access their customers who already paid to access NetFlix. How is that not double dipping?
quote:
If Netflix wants to use Cox's network and Cox has their own service to what Netflix offers, why is it absurd that Netflix gets to be used for free?
The problem is Netflix doesn't want to use Cox's network Cox's customers want to use Netflix. If you wanted to charge your customers more to access certain high bandwidth services then maybe you should offer different speed tiers with data caps. Oh wait, they already do that.
I have no problem with the ISPs charging their customers more to access external content, I have a problem with them trying to hide the actual cost from the customer by strong arming NetFlix's ISP. If you want to charge $1 month for people to get full HD from NetFlix, do so, just tell your customer what you're doing instead of trying to steal it from them without them realizing it.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:14 am to TigerinATL
quote:
They charge their customers to access NetFlix and then they charge NetFlix to access their customers who already paid to access NetFlix. How is that not double dipping?
Ok touché. I don't have a major issue though because Cable companies have been offering videos on demand since before Netflix and Hulu, they were just able to offer it better and quicker. Furthermore, their business eats up tons of bandwidth and requires continuous use. Would someone really care if Netflix went away but Charter on demand got better and cheaper? I don't really think so. You could again still watch Netflix through your cell service.
That's where capitalism comes in. So you can watch Netflix on your phone streaming or Cox Cable at home, which do you choose? Well it's cheaper at home but if Cox increases the costs, using your verizon data now becomes more of a possibility.
Take something that uses less bandwidth, and there's a hell of a lot less competition. Say Amazon, if I can't order from my laptop well the app on my phone is not that difficult. Not to mention, some of these companies like Netflix, Amazon, Walmart, etc. are not exactly small players. So what if Walmart teams with Cable and Amazon with Phone providers?Crap like that happens all the time.
I just think the free market would rebound a hell of a lot better than doomsdayers think it would.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:15 am to baldona
quote:
why is it absurd that Netflix gets to be used for free?
Netflix is not used for free.
I pay for Netflix, and Netflix pays its ISP for its bandwidth.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:17 am to baldona
quote:
Would someone really care if Netflix went away but Charter on demand got better and cheaper? I don't really think so. You could again still watch Netflix through your cell service.
Charter/Cox/Comcast on Demand is NOTHING like Netflix.
AT&T and Verizon are the biggest cell carriers and are also two of the biggest ISPs. You think they will kill access only on one or the other?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:48 am to CCTider
internet and cable service is a utility and should be treated as such. There is too much infrastructure required for true competition.
If the power or water providers pushed for this for their industries there would be blood in the streets.
If the power or water providers pushed for this for their industries there would be blood in the streets.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News