- 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 plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:03 am to LSURussian
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:03 am to LSURussian
and SCH is mostly arguing that ISPs need to upgrade to fiber. i'd love more fiber, but there are 2 major problems
1. fiber is prohibitively expensive to install right now, especially in concentrated urban areas where it would be most useful
2. these companies are waiting for more government handouts in order to build fiber, because that's the system that was used to build these mini-monopolies. the company that gets the government subsidy to expand, will expand, and nobody else can compete b/c of the expensive barrier to entry
i understand the hypothetical issues by removing NN, but NN clearly reinforces he monopoly structure of ISPs. i hope we all agree on that
1. fiber is prohibitively expensive to install right now, especially in concentrated urban areas where it would be most useful
2. these companies are waiting for more government handouts in order to build fiber, because that's the system that was used to build these mini-monopolies. the company that gets the government subsidy to expand, will expand, and nobody else can compete b/c of the expensive barrier to entry
i understand the hypothetical issues by removing NN, but NN clearly reinforces he monopoly structure of ISPs. i hope we all agree on that
0
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:03 am to ShortyRob
quote:Yeah. No one wants to be in a market where demand is both infinite and a regulatory requirement—and often coupled with a local government setting the price.
And, oh, by the way. THAT is a HUGE barrier to entry. What they WANT TO EXIST is the HUGE barrier to entry.
And people wonder why their options are so limited...
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 10:04 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:04 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:You didn't answer my question. So, I'll ask it more slowly.
Data hogs are a myth for fricks sake. No one can hog data when your nodes is oversaturated
Would
the
current
nodes
be
slowed
down
if
the
net
traffic
was the same
as in
2010?
quote:Well, this just can't be. BARRIERS TO ENTRY!!!!
In some areas competition was able to move in.
quote:You mean that if a new Grocery chain demands to be able to use my warehouses to then sell product that competes with my store, I should expect compensation?
they are being stonewalled bc they are fricking with other ISPs money
What an ogre I am!!
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:04 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Well the two are tied together.
well maintaining NN is a quick way to decrease the chance of fiber expansion (at least without sucking the government tit and stealing money from us)
NN is furthering the policy of crony capitalism that created these monopolies
by maintaining this policy, what incentive do companies that are monopolies have to better infrastructure? it's not like they have competition
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:04 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Well the two are tied together.
Not in the way you're thinking.
One is discussing ISPs prioritizing the delivery of their product.
The other is discussing unfair business practices to try and set up monopolistic systems.
Addressing the first problem does nothing to address the second.
However addressing the second would open up competition and limit the ability of the first to happen.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 10:07 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:05 am to Halftrack
At the end of the day i'm not sure net neutrality matters to the average consumer. As consumers cut the cord, cable providers were going adjust the model so that they were charging less for cable and more for internet.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:05 am to Breesus
There seem to be a lot of old men in this thread who don't know what they are talking about.
Net Neutrality is essential for a free and open internet. If it ends it iss going to start the cableization of the internet.
In this sense, the internet is like a delivery service. With net neutrality, everything that is sent is treated the same. Without net neutrality there will immediately be tiers to that delivery service, as the ISPs can and will throttle speeds, as well as giving these services the ability to block traffic to any website that could harm its own business (think Comcast throttling service to streaming sites other than Hulu because has a vested interest in Hulu). Many of the charges will be arbitrary because it doesn't cost the ISP extra to deliver service to any website.
The consumer doesn't have any other options without net neutrality, as most consumers have a paucity of choices in their area, so they will be left with ATT or Comcast in most places.
Net Neutrality is essential for a free and open internet. If it ends it iss going to start the cableization of the internet.
In this sense, the internet is like a delivery service. With net neutrality, everything that is sent is treated the same. Without net neutrality there will immediately be tiers to that delivery service, as the ISPs can and will throttle speeds, as well as giving these services the ability to block traffic to any website that could harm its own business (think Comcast throttling service to streaming sites other than Hulu because has a vested interest in Hulu). Many of the charges will be arbitrary because it doesn't cost the ISP extra to deliver service to any website.
The consumer doesn't have any other options without net neutrality, as most consumers have a paucity of choices in their area, so they will be left with ATT or Comcast in most places.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:05 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:So, you're saying it got laid? Interesting.
It took years for Verizon to get the green light to lay fiber down for Fios b/c their competition was fighting it.
You seem to not understand the value provided by competition.....to include the "fighting" you describe. Since you don't seem to understand it, I don't think I can explain it inside of a couple of semesters if you have the time.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:06 am to ShortyRob
quote:
And, no store can give better placement to one product over another.
I’ve used the product placement example before. That usually when I get the “you don’t understand the internet” escape hatch. Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well maintaining NN is a quick way to decrease the chance of fiber expansion (at least without sucking the government tit and stealing money from us)
It seems completely lost on these folks why there are competitors trying to enter the market.
It's almost like they think the competitors are charitably motivated.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:07 am to crazy4lsu
No kidding.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:08 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
There seem to be a lot of old men in this thread who don't know what they are talking about.
Sure is.
quote:
Net Neutrality is essential for a free and open internet.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:08 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Without net neutrality there will immediately be tiers to that delivery service
let me just say that NN is a very recent policy (2015) and we did not see this behavior in any sort of large scale prior to NN
now i get that it's a possibility, but it was very, very rare
quote:
The consumer doesn't have any other options without net neutrality
well to be fair, NN cements the lack of consumer options by reinforcing what essentially amount to government-backed monopolies
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:08 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Net Neutrality is essential for a free and open internet.
But you have morons like DarthRebel who say that the internet shouldn’t be open and free. If you say this, then you are against the First Amendment. The internet is a utility and necessary to remotely compete in this country. It will kill any start up on the internet and stifle free speech.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
by maintaining this policy, what incentive do companies that are monopolies have to better infrastructure? it's not like they have competition
Think of it this way. Without NN, Youtube and Comcast come to an agreement where Youtube will pay 100 million a year to Comcast so that any non-Youtube video will be throttled down to 100 kbps.
That means for a startup, who has a better model than Youtube, to compete, it would need at least 100 million (or however much) to ensure that its own videos weren't throttled. This situation ensures that Youtube would have no incentive to invest in new features.
It would lead to cable all over again.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:09 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Other than the fact we apparently have a VASTLY greater understanding of economics and markets, yeah.
There seem to be a lot of old men in this thread who don't know what they are talking about
quote:
In this sense, the internet is like a delivery service. With net neutrality, everything that is sent is treated the same.
Hmm. To which delivery service are you speaking? Cause, me thinks you're referring to some unicorn service out there.
quote:You mean like in every delivery service known to man?
Without net neutrality there will immediately be tiers to that delivery service
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:10 am to ShortyRob
quote:
It seems completely lost on these folks why there are competitors trying to enter the market.
well i don't think eliminating NN will suddenly allow competitors into the market, b/c the market is so screwed up by prior governmetn interference. that's the issue. it's not a "free market" b/c of past actions
however, maintaining NN almost assuredly kills competition for new products/services. the barrier to entry is high and backed by government
this isn't an easy issue, and the reason why is because we're facing a warped market due to government action in the past
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:10 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:”From ISP according to his ability to each consumer according to their needs!”
The reality of the fact is most house holds don't need more than 50 meg down. ISPs over sell their bandwidth making people believe is this make believe data hog.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:11 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Think of it this way. Without NN, Youtube and Comcast come to an agreement where Youtube will pay 100 million a year to Comcast so that any non-Youtube video will be throttled down to 100 kbps.
i understand the moral hazards
that has nothing to do with improving the infrastructure (that SCH is arguing about)
NN basically (1) prevents tiers of internet and (2) eliminates most future developments. so our internet system will be neutral, but stagnant.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:11 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Already illegal.
Think of it this way. Without NN, Youtube and Comcast come to an agreement where Youtube will pay 100 million a year to Comcast so that any non-Youtube video will be throttled down to 100 kbps.
quote:Hmm. This sentence would indicate to me that you grasp that the TV market has changed over the years.
It would lead to cable all over again.
Weird. How'd that happen?
Page 10 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News