- 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 11:30 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:30 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Highest price doesn’t maximize revenue.
I'm well aware. But lack of competition puts upward pressure on price. And no net neutrality plays into the hands of the existing providers. I don't see how consumers benefit.
3
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:32 am to cahoots
quote:How so as compared to having net neutrality?
And no net neutrality plays into the hands of the existing providers.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:32 am to cahoots
quote:This is because you don't understand economics or markets and see the world as a static place.
I'm well aware. But lack of competition puts upward pressure on price. And no net neutrality plays into the hands of the existing providers. I don't see how consumers benefit.
Hence, you envision price escalation with no other normal economic effects taking place.
This is basically a common problem in ALL political discussions where markets and the economy get discussed. From disappearing job categories, to automation, to........well........everything.
The same CORE deficiency lies in the arguments.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 11:33 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:40 am to Halftrack
I think this all comes down to one thing, do you view the internet as a public utility or a private service? The answer to that question dictates how you feel about NN
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:43 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Hence, you envision price escalation with no other normal economic effects taking place.
I'm not necessarily envisioning price escalation. I'm envisioning an internet where the ISPs have control over the traffic of the internet, and thus indirectly control the content on the internet. See, Comcast is going to favor content provided by NBC, for example. And since the ISP marketplace has so many barriers to entry, it's going to be tough for consumers to circumvent the content favored by the major ISPs.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 11:44 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:45 am to LSURussian
quote:
How so as compared to having net neutrality?
The fear is that providers, who are now also content distributors, will throttle content that isn't theirs, as in throttling Netflix (as Comcast until Netflix and it reached an agreement in 2014) in favor of whatever streaming service the provider is invested in. That fear might be unfounded, but given my conversations, I don't think it is.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:47 am to cahoots
quote:
I'm not necessarily envisioning price escalation. I'm envisioning an internet where the ISPs have control over the traffic of the internet, and thus indirectly control the content on the internet. See, Comcast is going to favor content provided by NBC, for example. And since the ISP marketplace has so many barriers to entry, it's going to be tough for consumers to circumvent the content favored by the major ISPs.
Exactly. That providers and people who make content are becoming closer together portends a situation in which traffic is directed. The barriers to entry for content creation and distribution become much higher as well.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:47 am to cahoots
quote:Only if consumers want the product. And lots of thing provide upward pressure on prices. Thats necessary for a market to exist.
But lack of competition puts upward pressure on price.
quote:Backwards.
And no net neutrality plays into the hands of the existing providers.
quote:Distorting the market favorably to “consumers” isn’t a function of government.
I don't see how consumers benefit.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:48 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Backwards.
Then why are AT&T and Comcast lobbying against net neutrality?
edit: I originally said for, I meant against
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 11:52 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:50 am to cahoots
quote:I think it’s telling that people only mention telcos when makin this claim. They always seem to leave off the filtering google and AWS do—and would still be allowed to do under “net neutrality”.
I'm not necessarily envisioning price escalation. I'm envisioning an internet where the ISPs have control over the traffic of the internet, and thus indirectly control the content on the internet. See, Comcast is going to favor content provided by NBC, for example. And since the ISP marketplace has so many barriers to entry, it's going to be tough for consumers to circumvent the content favored by the major ISPs.
These days AWS is important to your delivery of content that your local ISP.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:52 am to cahoots
quote:OK
I'm not necessarily envisioning price escalation
quote:OK.
I'm envisioning an internet where the ISPs have control over the traffic of the internet, and thus indirectly control the content on the internet.
Same problem. You have 2 failings here.
1. You think this would have zero economic or market effects and would just stand alone
AND
2. You seem aware of what one group of big companies will do without acknowledging what other big companies will do. IE, if the govt tells me I can do whatever the frick I want in terms of pumping out content and the govt will prevent ISPs from making me pick up the tab.........guess what I'm a gonna do!!!
quote:OK. And? Look. I get it. You see THAT and think, "holy frick, oh my God, don't let it happen".
See, Comcast is going to favor content provided by NBC, for example.
But, you're failing ENTIRELY to see what "don't let it happen" means.
quote:Ya wanna know what the biggest barrier to entry one can possibly imagine is?
And since the ISP marketplace has so many barriers to entry
Making ISPs 100% responsible for the costs of keeping pace with OTHER people who are making money using their product.
I mean, who the frick can keep up with THAT! Much less catch up to those already trying to!
How in the hell don't people see THAT problem?
Would YOU start an ISP under such regulations? LOL. Only if you're insane(or just another huge conglomerate)
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:53 am to crazy4lsu
quote:If they do they will experience massive defections of their customers to other ISPs.
The fear is that providers, who are now also content distributors, will throttle content that isn't theirs
quote:I wonder why Comcast bothered to do that?
as Comcast until Netflix and it reached an agreement in 2014
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:55 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
I think it’s telling that people only mention telcos when makin this claim. They always seem to leave off the filtering google and AWS do—and would still be allowed to do under “net neutrality”.
I simply think it's amazing that they seem to think the internet is exempt from capacity reality.
It's really just that simple. They want a world where somehow, everyone......and I mean EVERYONE........gets access and......NONE of them have ANY limits!
And if they overwhelm your ability to let them.......it's on YOU to fund it.
Is there some other market in the history of existence where they can functionally imagine that working?
Groceries?
Cars?
Delivery Service?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:56 am to ShortyRob
quote:
1. You think this would have zero economic or market effects and would just stand alone
No, but the market cannot easily adapt because of the barriers to entry - high capital, regulation, etc.
quote:
You seem aware of what one group of big companies will do without acknowledging what other big companies will do. IE, if the govt tells me I can do whatever the frick I want in terms of pumping out content and the govt will prevent ISPs from making me pick up the tab.........guess what I'm a gonna do!!!
There are only so many "big companies" that can compete. Google failed. You really think getting rid of net neutrality is going to result in a proliferation of new ISPs?
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 11:59 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:57 am to LSURussian
quote:
If they do they will experience massive defections of their customers to other ISPs.
There are no other choices dude! Half of this country only has 1 or two ISPs. If comcast is your only provider, you are going to be getting Comcast-preferred content.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:01 pm to cahoots
quote:Yes there are................dude.
There are no other choices dude!
quote:There are at least 3 ISPs serving 95% of the country right now. And that excludes the Coxs and Comcasts of the ISP world.
Half of this country only has 1 or two ISPs.
quote:
If comcast is your only provider, you are going to be getting Comcast-preferred content.
If my aunt had gonads she'd be my uncle.... 
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:01 pm to cahoots
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm generally against any regulation that's enacted based on what a company "might" do.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:04 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If they do they will experience massive defections of their customers to other ISPs.
What about in areas do not have viable alternatives?
quote:
I wonder why Comcast bothered to do that?
Yes, I do see why they would want to throttle the main competitor of Hulu, of which Comcast owns a 30% stake.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:04 pm to LSURussian
quote:
There are at least 3 ISPs serving 95% of the country right now. And that excludes the Coxs and Comcasts of the ISP world.
Link?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:07 pm to LSURussian
quote:
There are at least 3 ISPs serving 95% of the country right now. And that excludes the Coxs and Comcasts of the ISP world.
But many of them do not offer the speeds of the larger companies. In my area, there are two, Comcast, and one through the public utility. The public utility's speeds are much lower than Comcast's. They offer 12 Mbps, while I pay 160 dollars for 250 Mbps.
Page 17 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News