- 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 to free Internet From Obama's “Net Neutrality” Rules
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:57 pm to I B Freeman
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:57 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Of course they do. THIS is why the attack should be on the local governments. If Congress were tomorrow say "there shall be no regulation of ISPs by state and local governments" the ISP would fall all over themselves trying to get the FCC to regulate them and create barrier of entry to competition
Again, name me these billion dollar companies that are knocking down doors with the capital, resources, manpower, and capacity to build out entire cable and fiber infrastructure, and be profitable, if more states(many of which already do) just take away their crony laws? Take us out of your abstract nonsense and make a stronger case to your point.
Countries have made this work. Like England. But it requires a mix of consumer focused government intervention and investment(like municipal broadband) all built on consumer focused regulation. Which you are also aghast and against. Since in England where competition is strong and options plenty, they also enforce net neutrality laws and even enforce price caps in some areas where competition is not as robust.
You continue to live under this delusion that this vast consumer friendly and competitive infrastructure is being held back by the government. That these start up billionaire companies would roll into town and build all this new infrastructure for an eventual hope at securing enough market share to pay it off. It’s this detrimentally simplified one size fits all narrative about how every market works, which just does not prove to be the case in reality. Yes there are a lot of crony laws ISP’s model legislate through (mostly) state governments(often through the Republican Party, but not exclusively), including banning municipal broadband, creating minefield hurdles, and if-than laws. Which is also what signals to me that you don’t quite grasp this topic since you seem to think it is a localized issue where these crony laws happen. It’s almost always at the state level.
But again, none of that makes the current need for net neutrality laws obsolete. Frankly it simply highlights why we are not in a position to even consider abandoning them.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 12:59 pm
2
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:57 pm to Centinel
quote:quote:All irrelevant to the discussion of ISPs having monopolies or near-monopolies.
Geostationary satellite internet service will NEVER be good enough for gaming. The laws of physics don't allow it. And while it may be fast enough to stream video, that's only until you've watched maybe 2 movies before you hit your soft cap, then you're limited to SD video streaming for the rest of the month. And it's expensive as hell.
It is entirely relevant. Current-gen satellite internet barely counts as an ISP. You might as well say that anyone can get a dialup internet account, so no cable company has an ISP monopoly.
What if there was only one car company? Would you say they don't have a monopoly because you can buy a fricking motor scooter?
How about your local electricity provider? Do they not have a monopoly because you can install solar panels or run a generator?
I think your thoughts are what's irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:58 pm to atlgamecockman
The bottom line is these are huge corporations with no loyalty other than profit margin for shareholders. They have to keep making money hand over fist. We've already seen proposals for creating fast/slow lanes, paying extra for streaming content etc.
When push comes to shove and the ISPs are looking for a little more bang for quarterly revenues, do you really think they aren't going to try this shite? It's the bottom line before everything for these corporations, so they'll take any chance they can to improve it.
When push comes to shove and the ISPs are looking for a little more bang for quarterly revenues, do you really think they aren't going to try this shite? It's the bottom line before everything for these corporations, so they'll take any chance they can to improve it.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:58 pm to Centinel
quote:
Gig fiber has limitations. It's not 10Gig.
You are arguing just for the sake of arguing and it’s not helping your point
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:58 pm to Centinel
quote:
They aren't becoming the norm, they've been the norm.
Soft caps were the norm for a very long time. Hard caps are becoming the norm.
Do you need further clarification on this topic?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:01 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Why would an ISP like Charter throttle??
Charter provides cable too, do they not?
Many people are ditching cable for streaming-based entertainment. It is definitely within Charter's best interests to throttle Netflix, Hulu, and other services since they are in direct competition.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:03 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
So, because the fedgov hasn't done something, that means they won't . . . or can't, even though this law makes it explicit that they can. Got it, chief!
Yeah, but it involves trusting the crocodile, who I know for a 100% fact will kill me. I’d rather deal with someone who I think is too incompentent to pull it off rather than someone malicious who certainly would.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:03 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Actually, I can push a whole lot more than 10GIG down a fiber to you. The limitations are the equipment that you put on each end and the power of your light. 1GIG is just the most common capability limit of the optic that would be installed in an end user NID.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:03 pm to bonhoeffer45
Well lets see---NTS built out a fiber network in my town over the last 3 years.
LINK
So did Uniti fiber
LINK
Charter is here and so is ATT. Cox has actually asked to be "allowed" to operate here. It is BS that a cable company has to ask but the fiber guys can just come in. They should be allowed in regardless.
You live in another world if you think the reason you don't have ISP competition available to you is because no one is willing to invest.
Have you ever once considered by your electric company is not bring you ISP services??? It is regulation.
LINK
So did Uniti fiber
LINK
Charter is here and so is ATT. Cox has actually asked to be "allowed" to operate here. It is BS that a cable company has to ask but the fiber guys can just come in. They should be allowed in regardless.
You live in another world if you think the reason you don't have ISP competition available to you is because no one is willing to invest.
Have you ever once considered by your electric company is not bring you ISP services??? It is regulation.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:03 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
Charter provides cable too, do they not?
Many people are ditching cable for streaming-based entertainment. It is definitely within Charter's best interests to throttle Netflix, Hulu, and other services since they are in direct competition.
Throttling and caps also reduce the load their systems bear. Not that it is that big of a thing, but it saves a bit of money and than they are able to make more money on fees and scary letters to force people into higher tiers.
It’s all classic rent-seeking. It’s really not that complex of a dynamic to grasp.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:05 pm to Tigers0891
quote:
People make it sound like the ISP will frick you. And maybe they will. But if I was a provider , I would gladly keep things as they are. If every other person wants to start slowing and restricting sites, I'll open it wide up and every person will be on my service.
If I was an ISP, I would LOVE my competition to start fricking customers over. I could then take said customers.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:05 pm to bonhoeffer45
A bunch of areas of government are at risk of regulatory capture at the moment, including FCC. I mean, with Pai in there, it basically already is.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:07 pm to Dirtman16
quote:
On the wireless side, there are actual physical limitations on available bandwidth.
The same physical limitations exist on wire or fiber.
There has always been physical limitations on bandwidth for wireless. Speeds haven't been improved by more bandwidth. They've been improved by more efficient use of it. First with tech like TDMA, then on to modulation improvements such as QAM, QPSK, Offset PSK, etc.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:07 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Why would an ISP like Charter throttle??
Charter has very little content of it's own to sell.
The thing you're overlooking is they don't NEED their own content to sell... they can simply sell everyone else's content!
What ISPs have is the gateway to customers for other companies! They have realized that Netflix, for example, cannot have access to their customers unless they allow them to. And here's the best part: the ISP can sell basic internet access, and then charge their customers extra for the ability to access Netflix. Then, on the other end, they can charge Netflix for access to their millions of customers that they can't otherwise sell to! It's actually MORE PROFITABLE for an ISP to sell content that it DOES NOT OWN than it is for them to sell content they do own. It requires literally zero investment, AND they can double dip at both ends of the transaction.
This is the power the gatekeepers wield.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:08 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
Many people are ditching cable for streaming-based entertainment. It is definitely within Charter's best interests to throttle Netflix, Hulu, and other services since they are in direct competition.
Wrong.
As I pointed out ISP services are more profitable than content delivery services.
Charter, I suspect, would MUCH rather your ISP business than your TV business. They have to pay for content and resell it to you.
At the end of the day they want you to use them for ISP services more so than for content services. They are not going to cause you to have bad experiences with NetFlix because of their ISP service.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:10 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Well lets see---NTS built out a fiber network in my town over the last 3 years.
LINK
So did Uniti fiber
LINK
Charter is here and so is ATT. Cox has actually asked to be "allowed" to operate here. It is BS that a cable company has to ask but the fiber guys can just come in. They should be allowed in regardless.
You live in another world if you think the reason you don't ISP competition available to you is because no one is willing to invest.
Where is your town?
And again, people have already posted for you the collective data on this topic. The majority of America has one or fewer broadband providers in their area. And no one disagrees that crony laws should be abandoned. Problem is when people like yourself go to bat for these crony laws based on some delusional red herring argument.
Possible future competition, you still haven’t articulated in any convincing manner, is not precedent to abandon needed consumer protection laws in the present.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:11 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It is entirely relevant. Current-gen satellite internet barely counts as an ISP. You might as well say that anyone can get a dialup internet account, so no cable company has an ISP monopoly.
No it's not. It's still fits the criteria of a broadband ISP.
quote:
What if there was only one car company? Would you say they don't have a monopoly because you can buy a fricking motor scooter?
There isn't one car company. Just like there isn't one ISP.
quote:
How about your local electricity provider? Do they not have a monopoly because you can install solar panels or run a generator?
Electricity is not an ISP.
quote:
I think your thoughts are what's irrelevant to this discussion.
You want to have a discussion about quality of service, that's fine. But that's irrelevant to the discussion of monopolies.
1s and 0s still travel, no matter if you're using wireless, satellite, fiber, or copper.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:13 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Charter, I suspect, would MUCH rather your ISP business than your TV business. They have to pay for content and resell it to you.
This.
The Net Neutrality pushers seem to have no concept of how competition and markets work.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:13 pm to Centinel
quote:
The same physical limitations exist on wire or fiber.
This is just factually inaccurate. You can lay four fiber lines together. You can't create four 20 MHz blocks between 600-620 Mhz. There's only one available.
quote:
Speeds haven't been improved by more bandwidth.
This is also not accurate. Cell phones can use carrier aggregation to access multiple frequencies at once and boost throughput. Your point regarding efficiency is a good one, but it applies equally to wireline technologies.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:14 pm to biggsc
quote:
Didn't know this thread would go 7 pages
These always do. There are a group of True Believers with their Reddit talking points and memes who think net neutrality is the only thing keeping the world from ending that go batshit insane over this.
All the while having little to no knowledge of the technology or industries involved.
Page 8 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News