- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: The Fight for Net Neutrality: Today
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:11 pm to cas4t
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:11 pm to cas4t
quote:
because it has already. The free flow of information has lead to innovation
Dude, most innovation occurred before mid 2015 when net neutrality went into place.
Are you even aware of this? The internet companies weren't regulated as common carriers until two years ago.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
I think the essence of even the term 'net neutrality' gets lost in this argument.
Dumbed down, the question is does what data being transmitted matter to the ISP? And the answer to that is no, if I'm pulling 20 Mbps, it doesn't matter if it's from Netflix, my work, or where ever. It just matters the strain I'm putting on their network at that time.
Now, data caps are another issue, but that's not today's conversation.
Dumbed down, the question is does what data being transmitted matter to the ISP? And the answer to that is no, if I'm pulling 20 Mbps, it doesn't matter if it's from Netflix, my work, or where ever. It just matters the strain I'm putting on their network at that time.
Now, data caps are another issue, but that's not today's conversation.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:12 pm to cas4t
quote:
Allowing a giant ISP to do whatever the frick they want is it's own form of protection.
Jesus Christ
Carry on. I'm arguing economics, your arguing emotion. It's a worthless effort
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Unless you are a CEO of one of these ISP's there is no argument against it. Republican, Democrat, this hurts us all.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:14 pm to cas4t
quote:
quote:
The wave of the future is wireless
we are already going wireless
Uh yeah? We're not there yet. It's coming though
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:19 pm to J Murdah
quote:
Unless you are a CEO of one of these ISP's there is no argument against it. Republican, Democrat, this hurts us all.
There are plenty of arguments against it. Several have been presented in this very thread. However you are firmly set in your camp so of course you see no argument against it.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
no, you're ignoring the very basic issues with removing net neutrality to the consumer, while simultaneously ignoring the very clear issues with your economics on the hypothetical competition. Now you're attempting to use hypothetical technological advancements that already exist to fill the gap. You're completely out of your element.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:21 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Ah, so the OP has bad info in the post
Actually, no.
You just made shite up.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:25 pm to Centinel
quote:
Abstract Financial and marketplace evidence demonstrates that the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order is an absolute success, accomplishing its stated goal of preserving and promoting the online ecosystem’s “virtuous cycle of investment.” ISP investments accelerated following the vote (e.g., aggregate capital expenditures by publicly traded ISPs have risen by more than 5 percent during the two-year period since the FCC’s February 2015 vote; investments in core network technology at cable companies during that same time period are up by more than 48 percent). Investments in the edge, including those by online video providers and edge computing firms, are up as well (e.g., capital expenditures by firms in the U.S. data-processing sector increased 26 percent in the year following the FCC’s order while there was just 4 percent growth in the year prior). More new U.S. “over-the-top” video services launched in the two years following the vote than in the seven years prior. Furthermore, the certainty the FCC’s action created spurred the entry of numerous pay-TV full replacement providers, with vertical carriers such as AT&T now distributing (
LINK
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:27 pm to cas4t
quote:
no, you're ignoring the very basic issues with removing net neutrality to the consumer, while simultaneously ignoring the very clear issues with your economics on the hypothetical competition. Now you're attempting to use hypothetical technological advancements that already exist to fill the gap. You're completely out of your element.
Lol. You don't understand basic economics.
Net neutrality has as much to do with the regulation structure as it does throttling. It regulates it as a utility with as much force as the govt can regulate. In the long run, it will not be good for consumers. It will be very good for Alphabet.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:37 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It regulates it as a utility with as much force as the govt can regulate. In the long run, it will not be good for consumers.
We've heard the arguments and hypotheticals that could happen if Net Neutrality is done away with. Provide us with some examples or hypotheticals that show the consumer will be harmed if the current structure remains in place.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Lol. You don't understand basic economics.
Lol. And you don't understand basic math apparently.
quote:
It regulates it as a utility with as much force as the govt can regulate.
quote:
In the long run, it will not be good for consumers
I don't know how many times I have to say this. Net neutrality has not hindered innovation. Cheaper and faster internet is not the only form of innovation.
not to mention, the large ISPs are still investing.
this is public information
LINK
LINK
net neutrality may be viewed in the same light as a utility. But you and I both know it's different, for a multitude of reasons I don't feel like typing out.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:39 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It will be very good for Alphabet.
Bingo.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:41 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
We've heard the arguments and hypotheticals that could happen if Net Neutrality is done away with. Provide us with some examples or hypotheticals that show the consumer will be harmed if the current structure remains in place.
I have all through this thread
You just choose to ignore?
LINK
1930s regulations will hurt small business
quote:
The public-utility regulations, dating back to the 1930s, that the FCC dusted off and applied to the Internet are entirely inappropriate for promoting competition and innovation and encouraging investment. Designed for controlling the old Ma Bell monopoly, these old-fashioned utility regulations have long been irrelevant but have been given new life under the Open Internet Order.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
In the long run, it will not be good for consumers. It will be very good for Alphabet.
Bingo.
People don't care about the long game though they are only worried about some fear mongering fliers thrown around on Reddit and other boards that were probably put out there by ATT, Verizon, Comcast, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. all working together to create the fear of what a world without NN would mean.
If people would put as much effort into deregulation at the local level we might be able to see real competition, real innovation, and real benefit to consumers at some point down the road....but that would be a hard worthwhile fight so I doubt we see much interest in it.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:43 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
We've heard the arguments and hypotheticals that could happen if Net Neutrality is done away with.
It's not hypotheticals.
How about what Comcast has already been caught doing at least twice in secret?
They throttle certain content and speed up their own content.
You cannot let that happen.
If I want to pay Cox for faster internet? Great.
If Cox wants to charge me for more bandwidth. Great.
If an executive at cox decides that Netflix is capped at 1gb a month and that 1gb is not allowed any speed but Hulu is 100% high speed with no caps that is bullshite and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
All ISPs should have to treat all traffic the same across their lines. End of story. That in no single way hinders innovation or threatens future progress.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:50 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
1930s regulations will hurt small business
quote:
The public-utility regulations, dating back to the 1930s, that the FCC dusted off and applied to the Internet are entirely inappropriate for promoting competition and innovation and encouraging investment. Designed for controlling the old Ma Bell monopoly, these old-fashioned utility regulations have long been irrelevant but have been given new life under the Open Internet Order.
quote:
Telephone service had begun crossing state lines by this time in 1934, and a unified body for regulating it and the companies that provided it (which were indeed acknowledged monopolies) was called for: hence, the FCC. And Title II is the part of the law that gives the agency authority over common carriers providing interstate or foreign communications services.
The FCC and the 1934 act were not solely created to break up Ma Bell or AT&T; it’s a major law that extended existing and working federal rules for interstate commerce to an industry whose growth necessitated it. Of course it would be silly to apply those exact same rules to a vastly different era — that’s why we had the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which extensively modernized the original with new definitions and rules.
Notably, no one seems to complain about all the other businesses, including some broadband connections and mobile services, that were governed under Title II before the 2015 order and will continue to be so should it be rolled back. Apparently depression-era monopoly rules are just fine for those.
It’s also worth mentioning here that if people are really afraid of broadband providers being governed by anti-monopoly authorities from the early 20th century, that is a precise description of the FTC, a bona-fide antitrust body established in 1914, and the agency to which regulatory authority would return should the FCC be relieved of it.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:51 pm to cas4t
So wait according to that article they paid for that error in judgement correct at a period in time when NN was not in effect right....interesting.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 3:52 pm to JohnnyKilroy
hey I recognize that quote.
odds are he ignored it.
because basic economics.
odds are he ignored it.
because basic economics.
Popular
Back to top


0






