- 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 12:39 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If these companies are colluding or creating a monopoly, as another poster said, that gets into anti-trust issues. Net neutrality won't solve that; it will make it worse.
I'll ask this question again. If an internet provider is also a content distributor, would it run afoul of anti-trust rules?
1
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Removing barriers to entry into the market is the way to go. Go talk to local municipalities that are working exclusively with one company for those rights (to set up infrastructure), for instance. In these matters, it's usually government that is the problem, not the solution.
You're not wrong about this issue, but it's not realistic to expect government to stop favoring certain providers in the near term. Therefore, granting content control to the current ISPs is problematic.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:45 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Another guy who is aware of some infinity hub
Ive had multpile ISPs go away because they couldn't make any money, what with all of those hogs out there......no....no I haven't. Theyre doing fine
I cant figure out why Republicans always want to limit access or liberty but it is awfully confusing. Don't you realize that by charging sites more to gain a faster level of access for consumers really limits small businesses and or people that like to blog or make articles on their own?
Goodbye the private citizen telling you information that maybe you wouldn't have known from the mainstream media. You're actually giving the mainstream media more power now
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:45 pm to cahoots
quote:
No, but the market cannot easily adapt because of the barriers to entry - high capital, regulation, etc. ...
There are only so many "big companies" that can compete.
By this "logic" the automobile industry is NOT a free market.Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:46 pm to Centinel
quote:"everybody's guilty of something"
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 12:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Wha? Unpossible. It costs next to nothing to deliver unlimited amount of bandwidth. Why wouldn't they offer it to be competitive?
But many of them do not offer the speeds of the larger companies.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:49 pm to FooManChoo
They only own the pipe because the government GAVE them the pipe! Typically those pipes are in public right of ways. We have a say in how they use those pipes.
It's a two part issue you idiot. Without neutrality, they get both a monopoly on providing the service AND get a monopoly on what services you can access via the internet.
The problem is they already own the pipe, and municipalities aren't just going to let new competitors come in and lay pipe everywhere. They'll behave in ways consumers don't like because consumers won't have choices to switch. The ISP's will just do what they've always done and divvy the country up into a series of geographic monopolies.
Government has fed these ISP's into giant monsters while keeping them and all the small competitors on a leash. Letting all of them off the leash just means the big boys will swallow the small ones even faster.
See, your problem is that you see this as being just about ISP's or cable companies. You think this is just about the big sites like ebay, netflix, amazon, steam, and streaming services. This is about EVERY site. This is about the mom and pop autobody shop on the corner. This is about your friend jan's shop at the farmer's market. This is about every business in the entire world.
Allowing what you are prescribing will force every business in the entire world to either pay homage to these large ISP's, give up control of their distribution to ebay or amazon, or be relegated to a corner of the internet that no one will ever be permitted to find.
And it's not just commerce, it's thought itself. You think little message boards like this will be allowed to live? If chicken can't afford the extortion money, no one will be able to find/use the site. It's not just this site, it's EVERY site. EVERY blog, every forum, EVERY place where people freely share ideas.
The result is that the people who already control discourse in this country, the 4 media companies that own 90% of all newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations will also have eliminated all other competing venues for sharing opinions.
What is being destroyed is the foundation of a free-thinking, free-trading, society.
quote:
If these companies are colluding or creating a monopoly, as another poster said, that gets into anti-trust issues. Net neutrality won't solve that; it will make it worse.
It's a two part issue you idiot. Without neutrality, they get both a monopoly on providing the service AND get a monopoly on what services you can access via the internet.
quote:
If you encourage competition, you'll naturally remove behavior that consumers don't like because they will gladly give their money to a competitor that gives them what they want.
The problem is they already own the pipe, and municipalities aren't just going to let new competitors come in and lay pipe everywhere. They'll behave in ways consumers don't like because consumers won't have choices to switch. The ISP's will just do what they've always done and divvy the country up into a series of geographic monopolies.
Government has fed these ISP's into giant monsters while keeping them and all the small competitors on a leash. Letting all of them off the leash just means the big boys will swallow the small ones even faster.
See, your problem is that you see this as being just about ISP's or cable companies. You think this is just about the big sites like ebay, netflix, amazon, steam, and streaming services. This is about EVERY site. This is about the mom and pop autobody shop on the corner. This is about your friend jan's shop at the farmer's market. This is about every business in the entire world.
Allowing what you are prescribing will force every business in the entire world to either pay homage to these large ISP's, give up control of their distribution to ebay or amazon, or be relegated to a corner of the internet that no one will ever be permitted to find.
And it's not just commerce, it's thought itself. You think little message boards like this will be allowed to live? If chicken can't afford the extortion money, no one will be able to find/use the site. It's not just this site, it's EVERY site. EVERY blog, every forum, EVERY place where people freely share ideas.
The result is that the people who already control discourse in this country, the 4 media companies that own 90% of all newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations will also have eliminated all other competing venues for sharing opinions.
What is being destroyed is the foundation of a free-thinking, free-trading, society.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
By this "logic" the automobile industry is NOT a free market.
What are you on about? The internet market is an uncompetitive market because it has high capital requirements and heavy regulation. I have no interest in debating the meaning of "free market" in this context.
The point is that a lack of net neutrality will grant content control to companies favored by government and protected from competition through high capital requirements and regulations.
I view this as a problem.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:50 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why wouldn't they offer it to be competitive?
In the instance of this utility service, they are specifically aimed at lower income individuals who want internet access, and their prices reflect that. 12 Mbps isn't fast enough for anything I need to do or want to do.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
By this "logic" the automobile industry is NOT a free market.
It's not. Try starting an auto company and getting regulatory approval to sell your automobiles. It's almost impossible.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:51 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Who made that claim?
I really hope you morons understand if you think the corporation is always right
quote:Like how unregulated printers ended free speech?
Overturning Net Neutrality will end the free market on free speech.
I've never seen some many people petrified of their own freedom.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:53 pm to rocket31
quote:
another clueless baby boomer
Nope.Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:53 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I've never seen some many people petrified of their own freedom.
How does wanting more options and not wanting my content controlled by providers mean I'm petrified of my freedom?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:55 pm to OMLandshark
quote:You can thank the FCC for that for gutting the ownership laws. And congress is looking to eliminate the last barriers on ownership. I pointed that out that was far bigger deal tha "net neutrality" earlier in this thread
If there were still 50, then this probably wouldn’t be as big of a deal.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:55 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If these companies are colluding or creating a monopoly, as another poster said, that gets into anti-trust issues. Net neutrality won't solve that; it will make it worse.
I’d love to hear your ridiculous logic on how Net Neutrality makes this worse when Net Neutrality is the only thing that allowed independent media like Breitbart and Drudge to exist in the first place.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:56 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Not sure exactly as I'm not an expert in anti-trust law, but it sounds awfully like the government's view of Microsoft back in the 90s and early 2000's which found that their bundling of products constituted a monopoly.
I'll ask this question again. If an internet provider is also a content distributor, would it run afoul of anti-trust rules?
Whether an ISP is also a content distributor should be a moot issue if there were greater competition in that market. Other ISPs could get involved and create their own competing content if they chose, or partner with other content providers to compete for consumers' money.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:56 pm to kingbob
quote:
They only own the pipe because the government GAVE them the pipe! Typically those pipes are in public right of ways. We have a say in how they use those pipes.
quote:
If these companies are colluding or creating a monopoly, as another poster said, that gets into anti-trust issues. Net neutrality won't solve that; it will make it worse.
It's a two part issue you idiot. Without neutrality, they get both a monopoly on providing the service AND get a monopoly on what services you can access via the internet.
quote:
If you encourage competition, you'll naturally remove behavior that consumers don't like because they will gladly give their money to a competitor that gives them what they want.
The problem is they already own the pipe, and municipalities aren't just going to let new competitors come in and lay pipe everywhere. They'll behave in ways consumers don't like because consumers won't have choices to switch. The ISP's will just do what they've always done and divvy the country up into a series of geographic monopolies.
Government has fed these ISP's into giant monsters while keeping them and all the small competitors on a leash. Letting all of them off the leash just means the big boys will swallow the small ones even faster.
See, your problem is that you see this as being just about ISP's or cable companies. You think this is just about the big sites like ebay, netflix, amazon, steam, and streaming services. This is about EVERY site. This is about the mom and pop autobody shop on the corner. This is about your friend jan's shop at the farmer's market. This is about every business in the entire world.
Allowing what you are prescribing will force every business in the entire world to either pay homage to these large ISP's, give up control of their distribution to ebay or amazon, or be relegated to a corner of the internet that no one will ever be permitted to find.
And it's not just commerce, it's thought itself. You think little message boards like this will be allowed to live? If chicken can't afford the extortion money, no one will be able to find/use the site. It's not just this site, it's EVERY site. EVERY blog, every forum, EVERY place where people freely share ideas.
The result is that the people who already control discourse in this country, the 4 media companies that own 90% of all newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations will also have eliminated all other competing venues for sharing opinions.
What is being destroyed is the foundation of a free-thinking, free-trading, society.
This. /thread
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:57 pm to cahoots
quote:And they say we aern't spoilded...
But if Comcast is the only ISP that can provide 4K speeds and Comcast controls the content, then what are you left with? Comcast-preferred 4k content
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:57 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Who made that claim?
DarthRebel, LSURussian, and ShortyRob for starters. Anyone who thinks if we call out corporations and then get called Communists in return.
quote:
Like how unregulated printers ended free speech?
I've never seen some many people petrified of their own freedom.
Unregulated printers? It’s now as if there will 3 printers or less in your area and then those printers will decide how much you pay depending on how much they like the message, who you’re connected with, and how much they can get out of you. It is the definition of shooting the messager.
And how is this freedom? Letting Comcast dictate the terms of whether my message is acceptable and how much I’m willing to pay for it, which I need to remind you has a lower approval rating than the IRS?
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 12:59 pm to cahoots
quote:What you are arguing is that we should have the government take action. If given the choice between the government taking action against barriers to entry in the market or forcing businesses to offer their products and services against how they do so normally, which would you prefer? I would prefer letting the market stay as free as possible but make sure market entry is kept open.
You're not wrong about this issue, but it's not realistic to expect government to stop favoring certain providers in the near term. Therefore, granting content control to the current ISPs is problematic.
Page 20 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News