- 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: Isn’t repealing net neutrality just going back to how it was for decades?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:14 pm to Korkstand
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:14 pm to Korkstand
quote:More like, what if a company bought some of the roads in your town and then set up toll booths?
What if a company bought all the roads in your town, then set up toll booths and starts deciding who pays how much, and who can enter your town at all?
Some people would pay, most others would probably go a different way.
ETA: That's why competition is necessary, so that people have options.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 5:15 pm
3
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:20 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:You claimed to not be against NN, just Title II. You went so far as to suggest you might support NN. How do you suggest enforcing it if not via regulations?
Regulations are a nice little front cap tool to protect some and clock others
quote:Not in its entirety, have you?
Have you read the 1934 regulation?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:21 pm to FooManChoo
Right but those other roads are gonna take 10 hours longer and not even close to worth it. You’re just gonna pay the toll and secretly wonder why tf you supported toll booth regulations
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Just don't say you weren't warned.
warned about what? No one can explain what the issue is not even you. Everything you have posted is things that Could happen quote:
What if a company bought all the roads in your town, then set up toll booths and starts deciding who pays how much, and who can enter your town at all? That company would decide who your local businesses could source products from. Competition would no longer exist in your city. Now scale that out across 90% of the country. Would you care then? Would you like a little government intervention at that point? Or would you let "the free market" figure it out, and let companies just start building roads every fricking where? Assuming, of course, that it's even viable to make inroads here
I wouldnt care and this would never happen so what a waste of time writing it out
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:27 pm to FooManChoo
quote:In some lucky towns, that may be the case. In many towns, it's all the roads.
More like, what if a company bought some of the roads in your town and then set up toll booths?
Some people would pay, most others would probably go a different way.
quote:I know why competition is necessary. But I also know that competition at the utility/infrastructure level has the exact opposite effect. Redundant infrastructure is expensive, and consumers bear the cost. Or, more likely, monopolies arise very quickly regardless of the regulatory environment.
ETA: That's why competition is necessary, so that people have options.
Neither free markets nor regulation are the solution to every problem, but most problems can be adequately solved with a combination.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:29 pm to olddawg26
quote:Not necessarily. It's kind of a bad analogy but I'm not usually one to say so (I use bad analogies a lot). For one, roads take up physical space and you don't have more than one road existing in the same space at one time, so you'd have to build roads in different places or in levels above other roads to make it work. The internet doesn't work that way.
Right but those other roads are gonna take 10 hours longer and not even close to worth it. You’re just gonna pay the toll and secretly wonder why tf you supported toll booth regulations
Regardless, that's why more competition is needed. You have a few big companies that control the space and you're forced to choose from a few different providers. If they are colluding together to jack up prices and limit content, that's already against the law regardless of whether NN is a thing. If collusion isn't happening, then even with a small group, eventually prices will go down and more content will become available. It's just things work when companies are competing for business (and money).
But, if barriers were removed so that more companies could become ISPs, that would drive down prices and open up services (assuming the worst case scenario happened--which it won't) even faster, as people would have access to faster speeds and more content at lower prices.
Everyone is complaining that a near-monopoly would be controlling the internet without NN and not really talking about why only a few companies are essentially controlling the internet, or at least access to it. Why don't we increase competition so that everyone benefits, rather than look to the government to fix all of our problems (most of which they created, themselves)?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:31 pm to Korkstand
quote:
quote:
Regulations are a nice little front cap tool to protect some and clock others
You claimed to not be against NN, just Title II. You went so far as to suggest you might support NN. How do you suggest enforcing it if not via regulations?
quote:
Les comprehensive regulation. Title II is incredible overkill
quote:
Have you read the 1934 regulation?
Not in its entirety, have you?
Yes you can find it in PDF form online.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
More like, what if a company bought some of the roads in your town and then set up toll booths?
Some people would pay, most others would probably go a different way.
ETA: That's why competition is necessary, so that people have options.
Exactly. But now imagine that the local government decides that all of the roads are now up for auction, but sets the bid requirements so only one or two companies are able to submit qualified bids. Now, those two companies collude and simply split the streets.
Now they all have toll booths and you have zero options. That's the internet without Net Neutrality.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Everyone is complaining that a near-monopoly would be controlling the internet without NN and not really talking about why only a few companies are essentially controlling the internet, or at least access to it. Why don't we increase competition so that everyone benefits, rather than look to the government to fix all of our problems (most of which they created, themselves)?
This absolutely should be done. Much of the problem is at the state and local level. However, Net Neutrality should not be repealed until AFTER it's no longer necessary, not before.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:34 pm to SDVTiger
quote:Well son of a bitch. I have never in all my life conversed with such a dense individual.
warned about what?
quote:The things I've posted are things that began to happen, but were prevented from being carried out completely by a government that gave a frick.
No one can explain what the issue is not even you. Everything you have posted is things that Could happen
quote:I'm sorry that you are allowed to vote.
I wouldnt care
quote:Of course the fricking toll booth example would never happen, because we would never allow it to happen. The point is the same exact scenario is set up in ISP land (a few big players own all the roads in many places), and NOW we're about to let them decide who can come and go, and set tolls as they please. It's an absolutely terrible situation for our tech industry, and the first symptom we will see is tech companies and the jobs they create will begin to move overseas.
this would never happen so what a waste of time writing it out
But I know, you don't care lol your netflix will cost more haha who cares.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not necessarily. It's kind of a bad analogy but I'm not usually one to say so (I use bad analogies a lot). For one, roads take up physical space and you don't have more than one road existing in the same space at one time, so you'd have to build roads in different places or in levels above other roads to make it work. The internet doesn't work that way.
Regardless, that's why more competition is needed. You have a few big companies that control the space and you're forced to choose from a few different providers. If they are colluding together to jack up prices and limit content, that's already against the law regardless of whether NN is a thing. If collusion isn't happening, then even with a small group, eventually prices will go down and more content will become available. It's just things work when companies are competing for business (and money).
But, if barriers were removed so that more companies could become ISPs, that would drive down prices and open up services (assuming the worst case scenario happened--which it won't) even faster, as people would have access to faster speeds and more content at lower prices.
Everyone is complaining that a near-monopoly would be controlling the internet without NN and not really talking about why only a few companies are essentially controlling the internet, or at least access to it. Why don't we increase competition so that everyone benefits, rather than look to the government to fix all of our problems (most of which they created, themselves)?
Scarcity is a thing you know.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:39 pm to Korkstand
Actually, what the ISP's are going to do is much worse than the toll booth example because with toll booths, as long as you pay, you get to drive that way. Without NN, not only can they charge you more based on where you want to go, they can simply decide to close entire streets if the people on those streets don't pay up. Or, maybe they just don't like the people that live on that street. Maybe those people have opinions the ISP doesn't like. I'm sorry, you can no longer leave your house by car and no one else is allowed to drive there.
They can literally start cutting off entire neighborhoods.
Ending Net Neutrality isn't just opening up sites and consumers to be extorted based on what kind of content they consume, but also permits the ISP's to shut down any and EVERY site they don't like with no avenues for redress. Oh, your independent blog publishes critical views of Comcast? Now it won't load, no matter how much you pay.
They can literally start cutting off entire neighborhoods.
Ending Net Neutrality isn't just opening up sites and consumers to be extorted based on what kind of content they consume, but also permits the ISP's to shut down any and EVERY site they don't like with no avenues for redress. Oh, your independent blog publishes critical views of Comcast? Now it won't load, no matter how much you pay.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:40 pm to kingbob
quote:
This absolutely should be done. Much of the problem is at the state and local level. However, Net Neutrality should not be repealed until AFTER it's no longer necessary, not before.
Sounds like pretty simple and straight forward logic to me.
Wish the same half dozen people wouldn't struggle so much grasping it.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:49 pm to kingbob
quote:This is an issue with barriers to entry in the market and obvious anti-trust issues (collusion). These are what needs to be addressed, not who "controls" the internet. If we cant prevent local municipalities from getting kickbacks in a pay-to-play scenario that prohibits competition and if we have the government use it's existing regulatory powers to bust companies who are illegally colluding at the expense of the consumer, then the fears that people have about removing NN should largely be abated.
Exactly. But now imagine that the local government decides that all of the roads are now up for auction, but sets the bid requirements so only one or two companies are able to submit qualified bids. Now, those two companies collude and simply split the streets.
Now they all have toll booths and you have zero options. That's the internet without Net Neutrality.
The problem as I see it is that the government is preventing entry into the market and creating these monopolies or oligopolies and then people are looking for the government to meddle even more to fix it. What we should be doing is forgetting about NN and looking at ways to increase competition and prevent collusion. That will ensure a free and open internet at the lowest cost possible.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:49 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Well son of a bitch. I have never in all my life conversed with such a dense individual.
So you are mad that i dont agree with your doomsday fearmongering
You sound like the typical broke liberal millennial
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Internet infrastructure also takes up space, though granted not as much. However, it's not so much a lack of space that is the problem, but rather the cost.
For one, roads take up physical space and you don't have more than one road existing in the same space at one time, so you'd have to build roads in different places or in levels above other roads to make it work. The internet doesn't work that way.
Let's say as a rough estimate that it costs $100k to run lines through a neighborhood of 100 houses. Let's also estimate that the margins on service are $40/month/house, so that if all 100 homes are signed up, it'll take about 2 years to recoup the investment for one provider. Now let's throw in a competitor, which also has to invest the same $100k to run their own lines. If they provide similar service at a similar price, they should get about half the customers. So now we have a neighborhood with infrastructure that was twice as expensive as necessary, and two companies that now need 4 years to recoup their investments.
Now make it a dozen companies and 24 years. Do you see how this is not ideal for these companies? Don't you think at some point (very soon) we will see either consolidation or deals made to stay off each other's territory? That's just the only thing that makes sense.
Competition among utilities doesn't make sense. If you want to force competition, then we must force them to share infrastructure and compete on top of it.
The only possible saving grace here may be wireless connectivity, but personally I wouldn't count on it. There is only so much spectrum to go around.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:52 pm to SDVTiger
quote:Not mad. I am dumbfounded that you seemingly cannot comprehend the topic.
So you are mad that i dont agree with your doomsday fearmongering
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:54 pm to kingbob
quote:With NN existing, there's no incentive for any other changes to take place. The same monopolies and oligopolies that exist today will exist tomorrow and no one will be trying to get any new legislation passed to fix the problems. In fact, the ignorant masses will just make another huge fuss about it like they are today if another attempt to repeal NN occurs even after the barriers to entry are removed, as if Comcast is a greater enemy to the free people than the government.
This absolutely should be done. Much of the problem is at the state and local level. However, Net Neutrality should not be repealed until AFTER it's no longer necessary, not before.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:54 pm to Korkstand
quote:
were prevented from being carried out completely by a government that gave a frick.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 5:55 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Yes, I know.
Scarcity is a thing you know.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News