- 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 2:21 pm to rocket31
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:21 pm to rocket31
quote:
there is no competition.
You say this, then post this:
quote:
a few ISPs own the fiber
That is competition.
Now that we've determined there is in fact competition, I'll ask you again to define "adequate competition."
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:21 pm to bmy
quote:Which will exponentially increase the barriers to entry.
When there isn't healthy competition and the barriers to entry are enormously high the only realistic solution is government intervention.
No. I'm not going to re-explain it because it's been covered by multiple people in this thread.
The fact you don't understand why is a given.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:21 pm to Centinel
quote:
I know quite well how the internet "works". Considering I've been in telecommunications for 12 years prior to moving to cybersecurity.
Uh.. anyone else find this ironic? You call it a telecom
The entire NN debate centers around whether or not the internet is a telecommunication service. Proponents of overturning the net neutrality rules say that it isn't a telecom
Telecommunications providers are regulated as common carriers via Title II and used by the FCC to impose bans on blocking, throttling, prioritization, etc.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Which will exponentially increase the barriers to entry.
It will, in a way, serve as an anti-competitive measure, but it's necessary to protect content delivery in the current environment. I already explained this part to you
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:23 pm to cahoots
It's like you still don't truly understand how much AT&T, Comcast and others have us by the balls.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:25 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Which will exponentially increase the barriers to entry.
No. I'm not going to re-explain it because it's been covered by multiple people in this thread.
The fact you don't understand why is a given.
It doesn't increase barriers to entry in any significant way because they are near infinitely high as is. (Evidenced by the lack of competition in the pre-NN era)
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:26 pm to bmy
quote:
Uh.. anyone else find this ironic? You call it a telecom
There is nothing ironic in what I said. Do you understand what the term telecommunications and it's industry area entail? I'll give you a hint...it's not just your landline telephone service.
quote:
Telecommunications providers are regulated as common carriers via Title II
That shite needs to be repealed too.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:27 pm to Centinel
quote:
That is competition.
we have regional ISP monopolies.
for "adequate competition", the biggest obstacle in starting up an ISP is getting access to poles/lines.
it's all heavily regulated/gated at the municipal level.
if every business had equal claim to access, the only major obstacle left is the monetary investment of adding additional lines alongside existing ones, and there is a lot of capital that could make that happen.
like Comcast can afford to put lines in right next to Verizon's, but most areas contract out/license the access to just one or the other.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:27 pm to bmy
The guy worked at a Verizon store selling Otter Boxes so he knows more about NN than we do. You should respect him a little more IMO.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:27 pm to bmy
quote:
It doesn't increase barriers to entry in any significant way because they are near infinitely high as is. (Evidenced by the lack of competition in the pre-NN era)
Net neutrality adds 1 foot to a one hundred foot wall. Shorty doesn't get that
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:29 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
The guy worked at a Verizon store selling Otter Boxes so he knows more about NN than we do. You should respect him a little more IMO.
You've already proved multiple times you have no idea of what you're talking about.
"Kodi is a group of websites!!!"
GTFO of here.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:30 pm to Centinel
And you pay for your porn. 
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:30 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:I know what Socialism is for Christ's sake.
Socialists primarily worry about who controls the means of production.
quote:I don't mean it as a pejorative as much as I'm simply pointing out that capitalists don't worry about "should" in market results.
That you are retreating to its use as a pejorative is what it is
quote:Actually, I COMPLETELY see what they will do.
I can admit my education in business isn't up to yours, but I still think you aren't seeing what those bloodsuckers at these ISPs will do.
You'll notice that at no point in this thread have I ever denied that the ISPs will, in fact, try to manipulate the market to their advantage.
Now that I've pointed that out, slow your roll and recognize the WHY of my position.
quote:Interestingly, I despise them too. And, NN helps KEEP them entrenched.
has everything to do with how much I despise the providers
I'm going to step away from the net for a second.
There was a time in America when the vast majority of work was in farming. Off the top of my head, as recently as about 1950, still well over half was in farming.
If I'd talked to the typical American in 1950 and said, "you know, less than 10% of Americans will be able to get jobs in farming in the year 2010", I suspect almost everyone I talked to would drop in to a cold sweat panic.
Why? Because they could ONLY see their day. Hence, you tell them, "X is going to go away". And, Y doesn't even exist yet. They can't conceptualize what Y is and.........best part here........NEITHER can the people who tell them it will be OK.
That's right. Even the capitalists in the room in 1950 could NOT have said, "here's specifically HOW the market will solve the problem". If you'd gotten the 100 best minds in business in 1950 to try and predict the 2010 employment breakdown, they not only would have been wrong........they'd have been HILARIOUSLY wrong.
But, their basic premise would have been correct. Meanwhile, their opponents would have been clamoring for government regulation to solve the problem. Which, would have exacerbated it.
What I'm telling you is, my premise is correct. And no, I can't tell you what "right" will look like 10 years from now.
But, alas, I have a pretty solid idea of what it looks like when you break the market.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:32 pm to rocket31
quote:
we have regional ISP monopolies.
Where? And don't link to some town in BFE Montana either.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:33 pm to cahoots
quote:
It will, in a way, serve as an anti-competitive measure, but it's necessary to protect content delivery in the current environment. I already explained this part to you
And, I already explained this to you actually.
This is literally the errant reason for every stupid regulation.........ever
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:33 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
And you pay for your porn.
Run back to Reddit for your talking points. It's rather obvious you have zero knowledge of even basic networking.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:34 pm to Centinel
quote:
There is nothing ironic in what I said. Do you understand what the term telecommunications and it's industry area entail? I'll give you a hint...it's not just your landline telephone service.
Oh, I get what telecom is. Internet is absolutely telecom. Ajit Pai just doesn't agree with that.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:36 pm to ShortyRob
I'm reasonably certain that I've covered all of the arguments multiple times in this thread.
If you have something you want me to respond to, too easy. It's almost certainly already in the thread.
Have fun guys.
Maybe John Oliver will teach a couple of you brain surgery next week and you can go argue with a brain surgeon.
If you have something you want me to respond to, too easy. It's almost certainly already in the thread.
Have fun guys.
Maybe John Oliver will teach a couple of you brain surgery next week and you can go argue with a brain surgeon.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 2:36 pm to Centinel
quote:
Where? And don't link to some town in BFE Montana either.
About Comcast in Nashville, TN 37209
92.4% of residents in this zip code can get XFINITY (Comcast) cable. The fastest internet service the ISP offers here is 250 Mbps, 100.0% of local XFINITY (Comcast) customers can get this download speed
About Windstream in Nashville, TN 37209
Less than 1% of residents in this zip code can get Windstream fiber. The fastest internet service the ISP offers here is 10 Mbps, which is below average speed for residential internet providers in 37209.
About AT&T in Nashville, TN 37209
65.0% of residents in this zip code can get AT&T DSL. The fastest internet service the ISP offers here is 75 Mbps, which is below average speed for residential internet providers in 37209. 1.0% of local AT&T customers can get this download speed.
About HughesNet Satellite Internet
HughesNet satellite internet is probably the best satellite internet-only option available. Remember that while speeds may reach 15 Mbps, the latency of satellite Internet will make it feel like a significantly slower connection.
About Global Capacity in Nashville, TN 37209
0.7% of residents in this zip code can get Global Capacity DSL. The fastest internet service the ISP offers here is 6 Mbps, which is below average speed for residential internet providers in 37209. 9.5% of local Global Capacity customers can get this download speed.
Popular
Back to top



1



