- 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
1
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:00 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Like Google?
More like ATT & DirecTV or Comcast & NBC
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:02 am to kingbob
quote:kingbob putting in work.
He’s on the board of Blue Ridge Mountain Electric Membership Corporation
Well, he wasn't kidding when he said they service a "rural" area, though I'd say it was a bit of a stretch when he said "major cities", and the "two states" part is a bit misleading as well.
TigerOnTheMountain:
The total population of the 4 counties serviced is about 70k. I don't really know if any of the big boys even bothered to compete up there, so let's just say you have 100% market share and that you cover the majority of the population in those counties. And while a few tens of thousands of subscribers is commendable, it is still not a blip on the radar of the big ISPs. I suspect that once you become a "problem", it wouldn't take very long for them to either buy out your ISP business, or undercut you until you have to shut down. Though given the terrain and the fact that you are also an electricity provider, you may have a leg up in the region.
I sincerely wish you well, and I am honestly strongly considering starting an ISP myself. Because without NN rules in place, it's going to take a LOT of small ISPs putting in a LOT of work to save the internet.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:06 am to bmy
So...Netflix or whomever will be able to theoretically be one of ATT’s data-free tv deals? I’m still not seeing where this is some god awful thing.
Yes ATT can encourage users to use certain programs by offering incentives (in this case, no data usage), but the core product of mom and pop is still the same, and unchanged.
Offering incentives for using certain products over others is not some new concept that is exclusive to internet providers. This has been going on since the beginning of sales/bartering. Certain companies pay supermarkets more money to have their displays front and center to get more business.
As long as they are not blocking or throttling content, I don’t see any issue with letting the free market work.
Yes ATT can encourage users to use certain programs by offering incentives (in this case, no data usage), but the core product of mom and pop is still the same, and unchanged.
Offering incentives for using certain products over others is not some new concept that is exclusive to internet providers. This has been going on since the beginning of sales/bartering. Certain companies pay supermarkets more money to have their displays front and center to get more business.
As long as they are not blocking or throttling content, I don’t see any issue with letting the free market work.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:10 am to The Pirate King
quote:No, you're reading it like a complete doofus.
I’m not seeing that anywhere. I see that mom and pop will stay the same speed while Netflix or whoever will be able to pay more to get access to the higher speeds. Thus mom and pop will be the same, but Netflix will be faster. Am I reading this correctly?
quote:
So...nothing will change for the average user, but some companies can pay for faster speeds for their site? Tell me again why this creates an issue?
"Paid prioritization" (ie. fast lanes) implies that there must be a slow lane, but it does not define how slow is slow. What do you think happens when Netflix and Amazon and Hulu etc. all buy their fast lanes? I'll tell you what happens: the total bandwidth available for all the sites in the slow lane gets smaller and smaller. In other words, the mom&pop's get slower and slower.
Or, another way to think about it, our bandwidth needs keep going up and up, and our connection speeds need to keep up. What makes you think the slow lane will ever get another speed bump if companies are paying fast lane fees? How long before today's slow lane is equivalent to dialup? Not long.
Any way you slice it, paid prioritization is a way to separate the haves from the have-nots. It will create the same monopolized markets situation on the internet that we see at the ISP level currently.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:19 am to Korkstand
quote:
Any way you slice it, paid prioritization is a way to separate the haves from the have-nots
And to stifle investment into faster infrastructure. If packets become an item that can be prioritized that implies a shortage, why would they waste money/resources to have adequate bandwidth capacity when they can just capitalize on extracting the difference from users. Add to this they have very little competition amongst each other and we end up with a damned cartel where we used to have the most free/open playing field that had ever been created.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:19 am to The Pirate King
quote:It's equivalent to creating a toll road system, then charging FedEx trucks for passage while UPS trucks get to go through for free. Does that sound a bit more god awful?
So...Netflix or whomever will be able to theoretically be one of ATT’s data-free tv deals? I’m still not seeing where this is some god awful thing.
quote:The product itself is unchanged, but the market itself can change and mom&pop have no way to respond.
Yes ATT can encourage users to use certain programs by offering incentives (in this case, no data usage), but the core product of mom and pop is still the same, and unchanged.
quote:Ah, the old paid placement argument. There is a massive difference between advertising tactics and market manipulation.
Offering incentives for using certain products over others is not some new concept that is exclusive to internet providers. This has been going on since the beginning of sales/bartering. Certain companies pay supermarkets more money to have their displays front and center to get more business.
quote:The issue is the market is not, and cannot be, free. And there is absolutely zero difference between throttling and paid prioritization. In terms of network management, the ONLY way to prioritize a packet of data is to hold back (throttle) another one.
As long as they are not blocking or throttling content, I don’t see any issue with letting the free market work.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:40 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Offering incentives for using certain products over others is not some new concept that is exclusive to internet providers. This has been going on since the beginning of sales/bartering. Certain companies pay supermarkets more money to have their displays front and center to get more business.
As long as they are not blocking or throttling content, I don’t see any issue with letting the free market work.
It's not a free market. The content provider owned by the ISP benefits from the fees the ISP imposes on other content providers. That's anti-competition.
1) Let's say you own a content creation and delivery business.
2) Let's say I'm the ISP and I have recently acquired my own content creation and delivery business.
3) You offer your content and delivery services (MomandPopflix) for $9.99/month for and I offer my similar competing services (ISPflix) at $9.99/month. Consumers choose which content or service they prefer and our competition ultimately benefits the consumer who enjoys a higher quality product at a better price.
4) Net Neutrality required me to treat the traffic from your competing content services and from my content services the same.
5) Net Neutrality is rolled back.. and now I'm free to throttle your content, slap ads on it, etc. unless you pay the ISP (me) 20% more than you were paying under net neutrality. All of a sudden your costs have increased dramatically and you are forced to pass those costs on to the consumer. You now have to charge $13.99/month (for the exact same product) but I've decided to drop my prices to $0/month for the next 12 months if they sign up for a year long contract.
6) You are deep in the red and are forced to close shop.. but not because my service or product was better.. but because I control access to the internet.
Think consumers benefit from that? I don't.
This post was edited on 11/28/17 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 11/28/17 at 1:48 pm to notsince98
quote:
course TV is a free market. There are no regulations forcing cable companies to sign up and provide specific channels.
Yes there are. It's called "Must-Carry"
quote:
Although cable providers argued that such regulation would impose an undue burden on their flexibility in selecting which services would be most appealing to their customers, the current "must-carry" rules were enacted by the United States Congress in 1992 (via the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act), and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rules in rejecting the arguments of the cable industry and programmers in the majority decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. That decision also held that MSOs were functioning as a vertically integratedmonopoly.
A side effect of the must-carry rules is that a broadcast station cannot charge a cable television provider license fees for the program content retransmitted on the cable network under the rule. But note that must-carry is an option of the station and the station may, in lieu of must-carry, negotiate license fees as part of a retransmission consent agreement.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 2:16 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Offering incentives for using certain products over others is not some new concept that is exclusive to internet providers. This has been going on since the beginning of sales/bartering. Certain companies pay supermarkets more money to have their displays front and center to get more business.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 2:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Like I already mentioned, there is a huge difference between advertising tactics and market manipulation.
ShortyRob
Posted on 11/28/17 at 5:19 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:I'm against any government trying to create a monopoly and restricting access to the market place. Local governments and states are worse because that's where the rubber meets the road in terms of actual barriers to entry into the market since they control the infrastructure, but I'd rather the states make the decisions rather than the federal government.
Nah they don’t want state's rights either
Posted on 11/28/17 at 5:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Local governments and states are worse because that's where the rubber meets the road in terms of actual barriers to entry into the market since they control the infrastructure
Since we agree that we are dealing with (expensive) infrastructure, can we shift the conversation to who in their right mind wants redundant infrastructure? Free market competition over infrastructure inevitably results in local monopolies, government intervention or not. Any other result doesn't make economic sense.
So what's the problem with sharing the infrastructure and competing in that "artificial" marketplace, like Texas does with its "deregulated" energy market and how many countries around the world have successfully regulated their ISP markets? Is it because this is 'merica and we don't like big bad government to tell us what to do with private assets? We did it with telephone service with success, didn't we?
Page 10 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News