- 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: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:10 am to SCLSUMuddogs
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:10 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
The repeal of net neutrality means that this is our future.
bullshite....what sub-reddit did you find that on?
0
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:10 am to LSURussian
quote:
So it costs the same thing to build a two-lane road as it does an eight-lane interstate? After all, traffic is traffic, amirite? I'm done with this topic. The drama queens and fear mongers are out of control in these threads. Net neutrality is dying and that's a good thing
you are talking about the volume of traffic
not what the actual traffic is.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:12 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Have you not been paying attention?
That's how we got local monopolies with ISPs, killing any outside competition.
And your idiotic solution is more government...to make sure it doesn't get worse.
Are you really this stupid
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:14 am to CptBengal
quote:
And your idiotic solution is more government...to make sure it doesn't get worse. Are you really this stupid
Do you want to pay more to use Info Wars and stream Alex Jones?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:15 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Democrats didn't want that though, they want their public utility.
Hence the problem.
This issue is really where you find out how people feel about regulation. It seems quite a few are for reducing regulations..... until they are fear mongered into believing this will have an affect on their lives
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:15 am to culsutiger
quote:
Your argument isn't even consistent with itself. If the FCC had the legal authority under current law without reclassification, then why would republicans need to introduce new law?
No, the FCC tried to make rules in 2010 and earlier in 2014 that were struck down by courts because they weren't able to provide a source for legal authority to enforce their rules. So, congress proposed a bill in 2014 giving them authority, however also clarifying there was no desire to re-classify to title 2.
quote:
Further, if democrats were the only impediment to that law, where is it now that the republicans have both houses and the oval office?
Uh, you know the reason all these threads are getting brought up right? Because they are trying to get rid of the current law? You know, the proper step so you can implement what they believe is a better fix to the problem.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:15 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
I simply stated that the internet will be restricted and it we will end up paying more for less. People didn't have any internet for thousands of years, so it isn't exactly a death star scenario
It's my farcical way to mock the people who believe their sinnernet world is going to be destroyed by the AT+T Death Star.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 11:17 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:17 am to LSURussian
quote:
Net neutrality is dying and that's a good thing.
And 5-10 years from now when the absurdity of it all is laid bare for all to see, these pro-NN folks will be nowhere to be found.
But, I suspect they'll have found another "monopoly" to rail against.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:18 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
It's my farcical way to mock the people who believe their sinnernet world is going to be destroyed by the AT+T Death Star.
OK, but that's not at all what I suggested
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:18 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Do you want to pay more to use Info Wars and stream Alex Jones?
Yes for sure because if the ACA taught us anything it's that getting the government in something lowers the price of that something lol
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:18 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Do you want to pay more to use Info Wars and stream Alex Jones?
I want everything I buy to be half price. And, I want to be able to dictate prices on anything I buy. And, I want to be able to buy a BMW for the same price I can buy a KIA.
As a consumer, I "want" a great many things.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:20 am to GoCrazyAuburn
(no message)
This post was edited on 3/3/18 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:20 am to ShortyRob
You also think all traffic should not be treated the same
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:21 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This issue is really where you find out how people feel about regulation. It seems quite a few are for reducing regulations..... until they are fear mongered into believing this will have an affect on their lives
Yep. There were proposals made that would have solved these problems without the re-classification. Set a baseline standard of rules that no ISP can break, then allow the market to work on the remainder of the spectrum so the people can decide what level of service provided wins and loses.
Very telling when hyperbolic doom and gloom scenarios make people so willing to just hand everything over.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:22 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:I keep telling you that "should" isn't a market question.
You also think all traffic should not be treated the same
How many times can you repeat this non-sequitur?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:24 am to StraightCashHomey21
I'll play. I don't believe sites known to engage in piracy should be run at the same speed.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:24 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I keep telling you that "should" isn't a market question. How many times can you repeat this non-sequitur?
You still have yet to give an answer why one packet should not be viewed as another.
This is a major talking point in NN.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:25 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You also think all traffic should not be treated the same
If we want to make this a "should" question related to my wants. OK.
I want free internet and I think, as a consumer, it would be fricking awesome if the internet was 10x better than it is now........and free.
On the other hand. Everyone who provides me the intent would consider it awesome if they could charge me $1000 per month for it. And, they'd like to provide me as little as possible while making me pay premiums above that $1000 to get better shite.
Now that we've gotten "should" and "want" out of the way.........we can go back to recognizing that Economics applies..........ALWAYS
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:25 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You still have yet to give an answer why one packet should not be viewed as another.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 11:26 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:And that has been the issue all along, snowflake.
you are talking about the volume of traffic
When you think of "traffic" do you automatically assume it means what types of cars are on the road and not how many cars are on a road?
If an ISP starts restricting content, the FCC will still be able to intervene. Nothing changes in that regard.
But even then, the users will be able to decide to stick with that ISP or move their account to another one.
That's the "Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith wrote about over 240 years ago in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
And it is much more effective and efficient than government regulations.
Page 4 of 26
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News