- 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 1:11 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:11 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You think vehicle manufacturing doesn't have this?
No, it does, which is why there isn't a proliferation of new automakers
quote:
NN raises the bar for mothe of these
How? A lack of net neutrality will put delivery and content in the hands of the current ISPs. How will anyone else compete against that?
You think you're gonna watch 4K content that Steve Bannon produces? No, he will have no way of getting that to the masses.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:14 pm
2
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If Comcast has tigerdroppings on a blocked list or throttles speed to the site and I don't like it but Mom&PopISP doesn't, I may cancel my subscription to Comcast and go over to M&PISP
But Comcast already owns the pipe. That pipe is in a public right of way. M&P ISP isn't getting approval from the public service commission to run redundant fiber optic cables in that right of way. M&P ISP isn't an option because M&P ISP won't exist. The barriers to entry are not just regulatory, they are physical.
Unless you are arguing that the public should own the pipes and allow any M&P ISP that wants to use them. That is a completely other argument.
Right now, ISP's are treated like utilities when it suits them, but their consumers are not offered the protection that consumers of utility services are offered. ISP's are getting their cake and eat it too. Now they want more than just cake. They want the whole buffet.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:13 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Because you're a proponent of freedom limiting regulation. "Murica!
I'm a proponent of the status quo. I don't like the fact that 4 ISPs dominate the market any more than you do. That in the absence of NN I know what these companies will do is based on both what they tried to do before and what I've been told they will do if NN isn't there anymore.
If Comcast and YT come to an agreement that states that Comcast will ensure a higher quality of service to their site while at the same time throttling service to non-YT sites, the barriers of entry will now include startups who might have a better product and the ISPs will be providers, content distributors, and content controllers. It is the last thing I do not want. I fail to see how doing away with NN will avoid this last situation.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:15 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:13 pm to cahoots
quote:Believing that the FCC will act in consumer--rather than telecom interest is silly given the history. Absolute utter silliness. 100% unrealistic to think this.
It's a matter of choosing the most realistic alternative on the table
You are either dangerously naive or ignorant of how that bureaucracy operates.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:14 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:Liek they do over boradcast and printing?
Yeah you mean those people that are okay with small businesses and independent news sources having a harder time accessing customers?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:16 pm to cahoots
quote:
How? A lack of net neutrality will put delivery and content in the hands of the current ISPs. How will anyone else compete against that?
How will anyone new enter a market where the government dictates that no matter how much content is shoved down their systems, the MUST accommodate it all and can get no $$ from those sources to do it.
Hell, CURRENT providers can't even manage to fully keep up with that requirement.........but you think new guys will be able to?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:18 pm to cahoots
quote:You sure about that? Can you show me picture of a 1980 model Hyundai? Howabout a 1978 model Kia?
No, it does, which is why there isn't a proliferation of new automakers
Also... are you claiming that automotive sales is NOT a free market... you *sure* you want to make that claim?
quote:Capital requirement-- having to provide additional infrastructure to support unlimited deman to ensure QoS with no ability to recoup the cost.
How?
Regulation-- do I really have to expalin this?
quote:Why would I want to?
You think you're gonna watch 4K content that Steve Bannon produces?
* I knew it was coming. I been called old man. "dont understand the internet". I knew the Trumpkin accusation was coming... It was inevitable. Congrats cahoots on being *the one!*
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:18 pm to kingbob
quote:
ISP's are getting their cake and eat it too
In a world of wild wild west for providing content, you idiots think it's the ISPs who are having their cake and eating it too?
You people are insane
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:20 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
How will anyone new enter a market where the government dictates that no matter how much content is shoved down their systems, the MUST accommodate it all and can get no $$ from those sources to do it.
Hell, CURRENT providers can't even manage to fully keep up with that requirement.........but you think new guys will be able to?
What you aren't understanding is that there won't be any new ISPs to take advantage of offering alternative content to the current ISPs.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Capital requirement-- having to provide additional infrastructure to support unlimited deman to ensure QoS with no ability to recoup the cost.
It is stunning on a level I can barely even understand that these morons don't get this
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:21 pm to cahoots
quote:Not if you have your way, that's for sure.
What you aren't understanding is that there won't be any new ISPs to take advantage of offering alternative content to the current ISPs.
Alternatively, if you don't get your way, economics, as always, will win.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
In a world of wild wild west for providing content, you idiots think it's the ISPs who are having their cake and eating it too?
They are licking their chops, yes.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:23 pm to cahoots
quote:
They are licking their chops, yes.
My God.
I can only hope that economic and business morons like you aren't ever the majority.
Otherwise, the nation is fricked.
I mean, you don't even understand the BASICS!
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:23 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Liek they do over boradcast and printing?
Your latest whataboutism has changed my mind. Let the internet Giants Crush all the little guys and we'll just get our independent news from pamphlets and AM radio. Derp
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:24 pm to ShortyRob
These providers aren't losing money on infrastructure I can assure you. If that's your argument it's weak. They are giant near-monopolies.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:24 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:You don't appear to even know what whataboutism is now.
Your latest whataboutism has changed my mind
I mean, are you intentionally TRYING to set the bar lower for how your intellect is perceived?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:25 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I mean, you don't even understand the BASICS!
The major ISPs oppose net neutrality dude. Wonder why
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:26 pm to cahoots
quote:
The major ISPs oppose net neutrality dude. Wonder why
The major content providers support it.
Wonder why.
In an amazing twist of fate, it turns out that if the government plans to force Party A to cover the cost of Party B's profit seeking ventures, Part B supports said plan.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:26 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
And no one seems to want to discuss what providers and content creators (which Comcast is) will do when they can control the content access of a user. Again, if a company agrees to pay a fee to a provider to ensure equal access to service, doesn't that create a barrier to entry for other content creators?
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 1:26 pm to cahoots
quote:
On Monday, the last day to submit comments, firms such as Comcast, AT&T and trade associations representing the telecommunications industry filed statements in support of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal to scrap the net neutrality rules the agency approved in 2015.
LINK
Page 22 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News