- 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: Marco Rubio on Net Neutrality: ‘This Is a Solution in Search of a Problem’
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:42 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:42 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:You are wrong, there's no way around it. You are advocating extortion.
Your presumption of being "wrong" is your own issue.
quote:You are insufferable.
You're paying your ISP different rates for Netflix and Billy Bob's Konsipracy Blog? I thought that was illegal.
quote:No, that's the basis of extortion. But I guess you do have a point.. in a truly free market, extortion is a valid business model.quote:
Why should the ISPs pricing reflect that difference in value?Because it's the basis of a free market.
quote:And, you know, I probably would pay a lot more to ship gold than a brick, and that's okay. If we negotiate a rate and come to an agreement, I'll pay and they should deliver. We have a problem, though, with the next sentence that you neglected to quote... what happens when they demand more money from the receiver?quote:If customers are willing to pay for it... sure. Why not?
Should FedEx charge me more for shipping a pound of gold vs. a brick?
quote:It just blows my mind that you can acknowledge that I pay my ISP to deliver Netflix to me, then immediately claim that my ISP doesn't get paid for delivering Netflix to me.
Ok. Stop paying Netflix and see if you can still offload their content. Stop paying your ISP and see if you can offload their content. Both are part of the delivery of the content. One gets paid for it. The other does not.
quote:Your analogies always mold to fit your agenda. You argue about "both ends" of the delivery system when it suits, and you argue using only one end of the delivery system here. Obviously, Tommy would pay much less than the large company, and he would probably pay an amount proportional to his use of the road vs the large company. That's how things should work, right? Netflix pays many 1000s of times more than I do to serve their content.
Let's run with this toll booth analogy. Say you owned a toll road. One customer makes $10,000,000 per year in profit, and floods the road with delivery vehicles to the point you have to add lanes to keep the road passable. And there's Tommy, who owns a single motorcycle and only travels the road to visit his grandma once a month. Would you charge both customers the exact same toll? Does your road have the same economic value to the delivery company's customers as it does to grandma?
Now, the other end. Tommy's grandma also has a toll booth. Should grandma pay more to receive a delivery from the company than she would to let Tommy in? Or should the company have to pay more to get in than Tommy does? What if the company is sending grandma her meds via motorcycle courier? Should the toll booth operator care? Or is a motorcycle a motorcycle? "Just you, Tommy? That'll be $1. Wait, you have grandma's medications? That'll be $10."
quote:You are just shameless with the cherry-picking of words. I don't care who knows what I buy. Why don't you answer the question as asked?quote:Walmarks knows exactly what you buy. If you think ISPs don't log their traffic. I don't know what to say.
So tell me, what would you call it if there was someone who inspected the things you buy
You seem to like Walmart analogies, so let's try this: what if your ISP gets bought by Amazon, and Amazon decided to block your access to walmart.com unless Walmart pays up? Walmart would have to pay Amazon whatever arbitrary fee they ask, and then increase their prices to cover these new costs, so that Amazon's prices are more competitive.
In your view, this should be totally legal, if not the way things should be. After all, those bits coming from walmart.com are pretty valuable, right? Amazon the ISP should be able to charge more to cover the value of those bits, right?
Or do you think maybe Walmart should have some legal grounds to stand on when they give Amazon a big "frick you"?
1
Posted on 7/13/17 at 1:53 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You are advocating extortion.
nah. That's the FCC's specialty. quote:?
You are insufferable.
quote:Pricing power != extortion.
No, that's the basis of extortion. But I guess you do have a point.. in a truly free market, extortion is a valid business model.
quote:They can pay for it if it's worth it or not if it isn't worth it to them.
We have a problem, though, with the next sentence that you neglected to quote... what happens when they demand more money from the receiver?
quote:Just because you paid them something, doesn't mean you paid them for the full value.
It just blows my mind that you can acknowledge that I pay my ISP to deliver Netflix to me, then immediately claim that my ISP doesn't get paid for delivering Netflix to me
quote:
Your analogies always mold to fit your agenda.
Indeed. quote:She doesn't own the road. She's trespassing.
Tommy's grandma also has a toll booth
quote:Not sure why you brought privacy into it then.
I don't care who knows what I buy.
quote:Because it's a distraction from the issue.
Why don't you answer the question as asked?
quote:This happens all the time. Why do you think "store brands" exist?
so let's try this: what if your ISP gets bought by Amazon, and Amazon decided to block your access to walmart.com unless Walmart pays up? Walmart would have to pay Amazon whatever arbitrary fee they ask, and then increase their prices to cover these new costs, so that Amazon's prices are more competitive.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 2:14 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:We aren't talking about pricing power, we're talking about the ability to tax a competitor's goods.
Pricing power != extortion.
quote:Oh my god. She has a toll booth in front of her house. Just forget it, it's obvious you're going to continue being obtuse.
She doesn't own the road. She's trespassing.
quote:I brought privacy into it because a third party has no right to charge either me or walmart for the things I buy from walmart. Do you still not get it?
Not sure why you brought privacy into it then.
quote:NO! That question is the ROOT of the issue! No wonder you're on the wrong side of this, you haven't even begun to comprehend the topic.
Because it's a distraction from the issue.
quote:House brands are not even remotely comparable to this.
This happens all the time. Why do you think "store brands" exist?
So I'll ask the question again, since again you haven't answered. How should Walmart respond to an extortion attempt by Amazon the ISP?
Posted on 7/13/17 at 2:37 pm to MastrShake
quote:
i stopped writing it like 5 years ago. the company that bought it got bought and then they got bought and things went to hell, and Ive moved on so I'd honestly have to check to see if it even still exists, but it is (was?) wwtdd.com. "what would tyler durden do".
Thought that was you...that was so great!
Posted on 7/13/17 at 2:54 pm to AUstar
quote:
I am as libertarian as the next guy
quote:
there is a need to regulate
You're not libertarian.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 3:31 pm to Korkstand
quote:Nah. ISP aren't putting anyone in jail for not paying them.
We aren't talking about pricing power, we're talking about the ability to tax a competitor's goods.
quote:Your ISP isn't a third party. They are an integral part of the delivery of the goods.
I brought privacy into it because a third party has no right to charge either me or walmart for the things I buy from walmart. Do you still not get it?
quote:Entirely are. You often see house brands right next to other brands that paid for their shelf space.
House brands are not even remotely comparable to this.
quote:I have no answer to a loaded question, because I don't buy the premise. I don't equate competitive advantage to extortion.
So I'll ask the question again, since again you haven't answered. How should Walmart respond to an extortion attempt by Amazon the ISP?
Posted on 7/13/17 at 3:35 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Just forget it, it's obvious you're going to continue being obtuse
Standard response when you don't accept someone's flawed premise.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:23 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:thank you but its a little annoying that some people somehow still remember that dumb little site, and that i wrote it, because that ruins me being an anonymous dickhead on a message board, often for no other reason than procrastinating from actual work.
Thought that was you...that was so great!
it was fun though, and i would definitely prefer that they hadnt fricked it up so badly, but at least it served its purpose.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 4:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:You take exception to my using the word "tax" to describe this, just because they don't have the power to imprison people?
Nah. ISP aren't putting anyone in jail for not paying them.
quote:Ah, yes, that key word "delivery", which I pay my ISP to do for me. That makes them first party to the delivery transaction, and third party to the other transaction, whether that be arguing on TD or streaming Netflix. So why is that not the end of it? Why do you insist that my ISP have the right to inspect my purchases and interactions, and decide if they should take some sort of action on that information?
Your ISP isn't a third party. They are an integral part of the delivery of the goods.
quote:So? You are talking about advertising, and trying to compare it to anti-competitive behavior by an ISP. The fact that you still don't understand the difference is not surprising to me.
You often see house brands right next to other brands that paid for their shelf space.
quote:OK, let me unload the question for you. Would it be ok, in your view, for Amazon the ISP to seek payment from Walmart in exchange for allowing AmazonISP's customers to access walmart.com?
I have no answer to a loaded question
quote:We aren't exactly talking about your run-of-the-mill competitive advantage. We are talking about a handful of companies abusing their position as gatekeepers to a multi-trillion dollar slice of the economy.
I don't equate competitive advantage to extortion.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 5:11 pm to notsince98
quote:what area do you live in? because i will be very surprised if you have more than 1 option for true high speed (100mbps), or even half that honestly. only 10 percent of the country does.
Where I live has gone completely unregulated and it is awesome.
Posted on 7/13/17 at 6:14 pm to notsince98
quote:thats a fair point. it's also irrelevant because those fixes are obviously not gonna get done before this goes through. so we have a choice between one huge problem or two huge problems.
If there are monopolies in your area, it is the responsibility of your local government to tackle the issues.
those are the only options. there is no middle ground and nothing else.
at least the monopoly issue can be worked out. the NN changes would break the internet to a degree where it would be impossible to ever fix in any realistic way. by the time that happened the dye would be cast.
74 percent of the US has either comcast or charter for an ISP
65 percent of the US also has comcast or charter for cable TV, and guess what; they dont want you watching things like Netflix online.
more and more people are cord-cutting in the US. the number of pay TV subscribers in America dropped by 1.1 million in 2015.
6% of the country now uses only the internet to watch TV, and in the 18-34 demographic, that number more than doubles to 13%.
for now, thats an option for people.
if these new rules go through, it will not be.
if they are allowed to, these companies WILL, with absolute certainty, make every streaming or video site so insufferably slow that people will just tap-out and either go back to watching TV or to a site owned by them (which, as if by some miracle, will be blazing fast).
more than anything, THAT is what this is about.
no matter what netflix or whoever tried to pay them for faster speed, they'd make more with their cable operations.
yes, they'd also love to sell every ounce of bandwidth to the highest bidder which will immediately destroy sites like this, and they'd be elated to censor every bad story about them so that you never see it (or just edit your news feed to fit in with the politics of the people who own and run them), but thats a bonus.
all we want is for every site to be treated equally, so ISPs cant dictate where we go and what we do online. that anyone can somehow disagree with that very simple request defies belief.
Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:07 pm to MastrShake
Today was a great victory the WH announced the are in support of the FCC rolling back NN!
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 7/19/17 at 1:48 pm to Korkstand
quote:When netflix forces me to pay them I'll be worried.
You take exception to my using the word "tax" to describe this, just because they don't have the power to imprison people?
quote:Because without delivery to your house... Netflix has no business model. That by definition... means it has value to them.
That makes them first party to the delivery transaction, and third party to the other transaction, whether that be arguing on TD or streaming Netflix. So why is that not the end of it?
quote:I thought this wasn't about privacy?
Why do you insist that my ISP have the right to inspect my purchases
quote:
So? You are talking about advertising
Nope. I gave you an example of a company that charges it's direct competitors for access to it's customers. Curiously, it has not put their competitors out business nor ended the free market. quote:Sure. Their ISP investment should have whatever value they make from it. Just as Walmart would charge Amazon to put their "AmazonBasics" items in their stores.
Would it be ok, in your view, for Amazon the ISP to seek payment from Walmart in exchange for allowing AmazonISP's customers to access walmart.com?
quote:That's where we disagree. These sorts of middle-brokering arrangements exist all throughout our economy without causing the disasters imagined for ISPs.
We aren't exactly talking about your run-of-the-mill competitive advantage.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 7/19/17 at 2:32 pm to Taxing Authority
For the nth time, cable and phone providers have a built in competitive advantage as competition is limited by government regulation (and for good reason).
If any business could run phone lines there would be hundreds of copper wires on every utility pole. It would be a dangerous mess.
Small ISPs are forced to lease those copper wires from the big 6 companies that put them up in the first place (AT&T, Cox, Comcast, etc). They are NOT ALLOWED to put their own line up next to AT&T's.
Thus it is not a true free market. But they want the regulations that limit competition while whining about the ones that protect consumers. They only want a free market when it's convenient for them.
If any business could run phone lines there would be hundreds of copper wires on every utility pole. It would be a dangerous mess.
Small ISPs are forced to lease those copper wires from the big 6 companies that put them up in the first place (AT&T, Cox, Comcast, etc). They are NOT ALLOWED to put their own line up next to AT&T's.
Thus it is not a true free market. But they want the regulations that limit competition while whining about the ones that protect consumers. They only want a free market when it's convenient for them.
This post was edited on 7/19/17 at 2:35 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News