- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 to free Internet From Obama's “Net Neutrality” Rules
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:42 pm to bmy
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:42 pm to bmy
quote:
Yet there's not exactly thriving competition in our population centers either.
Yes there is. And if there's not, you should look as to the reason there isn't.
Address that problem and you solve your original issue.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:43 pm to Centinel
quote:
Ah...but how did they create a local monopoly?
You heard of Altus right
That’s all you need to know, place is currorpt as frick
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:43 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
So you are for local monplies and let ISPs being able to prioritize traffic
This is why I basically only snipe at this point.
It's futile.
You guys haven't even the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:44 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Your only reason for not liking it was nextflix and that it would cost 10 more
It wouldn’t be just Netflix it would be all kinds of services and websites
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:44 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
A major reason is bc start up ISPs get locked out the game
Why does this happen? And how does Title II or NN help this?
You're starting to see the actual issue at hand. An issue that current regulation does ZERO to fix.
THAT is my problem with all this. Title II and NN is a solution that ignores the actual problem.
THAT is why I'm adamantly against it.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:45 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
This is why I basically only snipe at this point.
It's futile.
You guys haven't even the slightest idea what you're talking about.
You still can’t explain why all traffic should not be treated the same.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:46 pm to Centinel
quote:
THAT is why I'm adamantly against it.
It’s like you are on our side but just don’t like the solution in place right now
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:48 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You still can’t explain why all traffic should not be treated the same.
LOL.
You say it all should be the same as some sort of article of faith..........come on
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:48 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
It’s like you are on our side but just don’t like the solution in place right now
Bingo.
I'm against regulation for the sake of "doing something"
Crisis and Leviathan brother. Crisis and Leviathan.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:49 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
I dont know. No one has said how this is bad other than they have to pay internet + netflix or netflix slows down and will have to use someone else
And one dude said the childrens college funds will be gone cause of math
“There are a lot of ways to describe net neutrality, but my favorite has its roots with justice [Antonin] Scalia: Pizza delivery. Imagine you are in a town with two pizza places — Domino’s and Papa John’s — and one phone company, AT&T. In a normally functioning free market, if you want to order pizza you are likely to call whichever pizza place that tastes best to you or has the best bang for your buck. But let’s say AT&T and Domino’s cut a special deal where any calls to Domino’s are favored over the calls going to other pizza places. So anyone calling Papa John’s has to wait behind everyone else calling Domino’s. For most people even if you might think Papa John’s tastes better, you know you will get your pizza faster if you choose Domino’s.
Worse, let’s say AT&T acquired Domino’s and profits directly from Domino’s profits. Now AT&T has even more reason to block or throttle calls going to Papa John’s. We doubt any new pizza shops are going to set up shop near you if they know they are facing this kind of unfair treatment from the established big guys. So, here we have fewer choices and higher prices for everyone involved. The strong net neutrality rules currently on the books prevent big providers like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast from favoring one pizza chain — or in the case of internet, content creator — over another. It means all traffic and content travels over your connection at an equal pace. This means more entrants to the market, more reasons for people to continue making their services better, and happier customers, whether they prefer Domino’s or something else.
Scalia totally gets NN
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:50 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
LOL.
You say it all should be the same as some sort of article of faith..........come on
Once again you have no idea and can’t explain your point thinking traffic should be treated differently.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:51 pm to Centinel
quote:
Bingo.
I'm against regulation for the sake of "doing something"
Crisis and Leviathan brother. Crisis and Leviathan.
As a practical issue.. there are immediate steps that can be taken to protect consumers while the real problem (and a MUCH more difficult one) is addressed.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:52 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Once again you have no idea and can’t explain your point thinking traffic "should "be treated differently.
I realize I've already had to cover this ground before, and I'm loathe to do it again.............but "should" isn't a market question.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:53 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I realize I've already had to cover this ground before, and I'm loathe to do it again.............but "should" isn't a market question.
The main issue of NN was making sure all traffic is equal
What is your opposition to that?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:53 pm to bmy
quote:
As a practical issue.. there are immediate steps that can be taken to protect consumers
Protect consumers from a "might"
I'm against legislating against "might"
You should be too. It sets a nasty precedent.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:56 pm to Centinel
quote:
Protect consumers from a "might"
I'm against legislating against "might"
You should be too. It sets a nasty precedent.
There's no "might" about it. It's been an issue multiple times with a variety of ISPs in the last decade
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:58 pm to bmy
quote:
There's no "might" about it. It's been an issue multiple times with a variety of ISPs in the last decade
Two. One got called out in public and quickly changed their policy due to market pressure.
The other was Netflix taking advantage of peering courtesies. The ISP correctly made Netflix compensate for this courtesy because Netflix was unable to return the courtesy like occurred between other peering networks.
Both issues resolved without Title II or NN.
ETA: This shite is what pisses me off about folks like you. You read something on Reddit or a social media site and then go parrot the talking points without understanding the actual details...and the people who created the talking points you parrot also don't understand the actual details.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 8:58 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The main issue of NN was making sure all traffic is equal
What is your opposition to that?
Oh. The unicorns approach. I know this game.
We'll portray some government thing as ONLY having the stated consequence and ignore all of history, economics and well, reality.
I mean yeah. I'm all FOR perfectly equal traffic if we're talking about the unicorns and rainbows world where this is some singular thing that exists in a silo isolated from all else.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 9:02 pm to ShortyRob
So you can’t give an actual answer
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 9:03 pm to Centinel
quote:
Two. One got called out in public and quickly changed their policy due to market pressure.
The other was Netflix taking advantage of peering courtesies. The ISP correctly made Netflix compensate for this courtesy because Netflix was unable to return the courtesy like occurred between other peering networks.
More than two..
Comcast and the P2P drama. Madison River Communications company was fined for restricting their customers access to Vonage which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. Verizon vs Netflix in 2017
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 9:04 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News