- 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: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:42 pm to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:42 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
bonhoeffer45
Every single bit of that drivel you just posted has been debunked over, and over, and over by multiple people in multiple threads.
Just shut up. You're clueless about this just like you're clueless about damn near everything else you try to argue on this board.
1
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:42 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Or, maybe we're able to see beyond today, and how can everything benefit me right now
That's a poor mans game
If you can see the future you shouldn’t be on this board right now wasting that gift.
Trends are trends, but trends do not supersede the present day realities. More than half of Americans don’t even have access to definition high-speed broadband yet, but you think we should allow these further consolidated natural monopolies to be given back their extortionary rights now because of appeals to undefined future marketplaces that may or may not come to fruition, let alone on any defined time table, or whether it will itself actually solve the problem currently needing addressing?
Pretty awful logic tbh.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:44 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
If you can see the future you shouldn’t be on this board right now.
Yet the NN continues to present an alarmist pay fee based for expanded content as a certainty even though this wasn't going on as recently as two years ago
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:45 pm to Centinel
quote:
Every single bit of that drivel you just posted has been debunked over, and over, and over by multiple people in multiple threads.
Just shut up. You're clueless about this just like you're clueless about damn near everything else you try to argue on this board
You know how to tell when someone is clawing for their life in a conversation? When they can only muster the capacity to shite post frantically without addressing the point and only lob insults.
Keep shilling away Centinel. I seriously hope you are paid for this because it would be sad if it isn’t the case.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:45 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
If you can see the future you shouldn’t be on this board right now wasting that gift.
Trends are trends, but trends do not supersede the present day realities. More than half of Americans don’t even have access to definition high-speed broadband yet, but you think we should allow these further consolidated natural monopolies to be given back their extortionary rights now because of appeals to undefined future marketplaces that may or may not come to fruition, let alone on any defined time table, or whether it will itself actually solve the problem currently needing addressing?
Pretty awful logic tbh.
Your entire argument you always make can be summed up thusly:
Internet isn't equal everywhere therefore ISPs should be regulated because.
No facts. No logic. Just appeals to emotion.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:46 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:A completely besides the point comment.
1 TB isn’t a lot of data for one
1 TB is two-and-a-half times 400 GB/month.
But you want to pay the same monthly fee as the person using less than half what you're using.
Why shouldn't you have to pay more? Say.....two and a half times more??
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:46 pm to Centinel
quote:By your logic the high end packages don't even need to exist. There is a reason they package and sell 150 mb/s and above.
Do you realize how small of a percentage of users this actually is?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:47 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
When they can only muster the capacity to shite post frantically without addressing the point and only lob insults.
You're not getting it you idiot. I've responded to all your points. Multiple times. So have many others.
But you keep posting the same debunked bullshite.
Why should I keep pointing out where you're wrong if you just ignore it and keep posting the same shite?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:48 pm to Adam Banks
ISPs presenting “pay for expanded bandwidth” is much likely be content producer facing than customer facing in the near future.
It’s what ISPs tried to do to Netflix before NN.
My concerns with repealing NN are much more focused on censorship than how my personal internet plan is priced.
It’s what ISPs tried to do to Netflix before NN.
My concerns with repealing NN are much more focused on censorship than how my personal internet plan is priced.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:48 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Why? You (the majority of complaints being cord cutters typically streaming illegally) are using the service of a company to put the company's primary business (whether it's cable/phone whatever) out of business. Why should they let one branch compete with the other?
They do nothing to make the network better
If data caps are needed why does DTVNow streaming service not count against an AT&T users data limit. They are still using data.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:52 pm to bonhoeffer45
But the FCC would
1. Jack up the costs, check an itemized cable bill. Regulation compliance adds cost
2. Prevent or make it very difficult for alternate providers or services to make it better, cheaper or keep extortionary practices from being challenged with any potential alternative.
I get that the current situation is less than ideal and a problem in search of a solution but FCC regulation isn’t the answer and could make it worse with the government choosing the winner (the one who pays them more) this is what happens with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. It’s basically a protection racket. It doesn’t help consumers at all
1. Jack up the costs, check an itemized cable bill. Regulation compliance adds cost
2. Prevent or make it very difficult for alternate providers or services to make it better, cheaper or keep extortionary practices from being challenged with any potential alternative.
I get that the current situation is less than ideal and a problem in search of a solution but FCC regulation isn’t the answer and could make it worse with the government choosing the winner (the one who pays them more) this is what happens with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. It’s basically a protection racket. It doesn’t help consumers at all
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:53 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
They do nothing to make the network better
If data caps are needed why does DTVNow streaming service not count against an AT&T users data limit. They are still using data.
What is this drivel? A business is there to make money. By cutting the cord you are taking away from their main source of income. By then providing you with internet they are giving you the gun to kill off their bellcow. They have two choices. Shoot up the price of their internet (which they don't want to punish their loyal users who also buy cable) or target people who are taking advantage of their internet by capping their data.
Direct tv now is a perk offered to loyal customers. Sometimes those evil corporations realize that keeping existing customers helps so they do stuff to help them out. It's their service they provide they can do what they wish. Build your own infrastructure and then you can make the rules
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:53 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
By your logic the high end packages don't even need to exist. There is a reason they package and sell 150 mb/s and above.
Why would they not need to exist? There are people who will pay those prices. But they are a fraction of the majority of their business in which 50MBs is currently perfectly fine.
I'm building a high end gaming rig. The parts exist because people like me will pay the price. But people like me a fraction of the actual computer market.
Nissan offers the GTR for people who want that performance at that price. But GTR sales are a drop in the bucket for Nissan. Nissan isn't marketing to GTR owners. Nissan markets to Altima owners.
Do you see what I'm getting at now?
Fiber will always beat wireless. But your average user has no need for fiber. Wireless, especially 5G (this topic) will work just fine. That and the ease of being 'wireless' will force the wired ISPs to take steps to compete with wireless carriers.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:53 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Trends are trends, but trends do not supersede the present day realities.
While youre planning for the present, im looking to the future. Your outdated philosophy will keep you in the dark ages.
I bet you still have dialup
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:53 pm to LSURussian
quote:
A completely besides the point comment.
1 TB is two-and-a-half times 400 GB/month.
But you want to pay the same monthly fee as the person using less than half what you're using.
Why shouldn't you have to pay more? Say.....two and a half times more??
Bandwidth cost ISPs damn near nothing
Say you have AT&T and you and your neighborhood both have a TB data cap. He uses DTV Now and doesn't have it couldn't vs his cap. Yet he is still using data.
Caps are nothing more than a scare tactic bc ISPs lost money with people ditching their over priced cable packages.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:55 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
What is this drivel? A business is there to make money. By cutting the cord you are taking away from their main source of income. By then providing you with internet they are giving you the gun to kill off their bellcow. They have two choices. Shoot up the price of their internet (which they don't want to punish their loyal users who also buy cable) or target people who are taking advantage of their internet by capping their data.
Direct tv now is a perk offered to loyal customers. Sometimes those evil corporations realize that keeping existing customers helps so they do stuff to help them out. It's their service they provide they can do what they wish. Build your own infrastructure and then you can make the rules
They are still using data and exceeding their cap proving caps are bullshite.
Can't believe you guys are arguing ISPs should be able to limit the amount of data you use.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:57 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Yes they are using data from a company to stream content they pay for from the same company. Said company is nice enough not to triple dip into their pocket book. Don't see how this is an issue
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:57 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:56% of internet traffic is via mobile. RIGHT NOW!
And solar panels are encroaching on the grid.
If Solar becomes the way people get power 56% of the time..........well, I don't even think I have to finish that sentence, do I?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:57 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Bandwidth cost ISPs damn near nothing
But infrastructure upgrades cost a HUGE amount. Which is what you're paying for.
Interestingly enough, this is where wireless providers are going to have an advantage. No need to run fiber or copper to the user's house. That saves a ton of money.
This of course doesn't factor in the cost of acquiring spectrum, but I think at this point most of the mobile carriers are well in to recouping these costs.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:58 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Can't believe you guys are arguing ISPs should be able to limit the amount of data you use.
And I can't believe your business ignorance
Page 17 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News