- 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: "Net Neutrality" supporters want sites banned
Posted on 5/19/17 at 10:58 am to I B Freeman
Posted on 5/19/17 at 10:58 am to I B Freeman
quote:
simply declare that it is a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution for state and local governments to interfere with the transmission of interstate data.
They can't regulate radio stations or tv stations now for example.
I mostly agree with your OP, but this is a truly terrible idea.
Even if you ignore that local municipalities are responsible for the infrastructure needed for access to the internet in their areas so there is absolutely no way this could be enforced and the infrastructure continue to grow without the federal government providing said infrastructure, you are talking about a massive expansion of the federal government here.
This post was edited on 5/19/17 at 11:00 am
1
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:00 am to SoulGlo
quote:
I say government should stay the frick away from the internet. frick net neutrality.
If ISP X wants to frick around with bandwidth, I'll jump to ISP Y. Stay the frick out, government.
As shown above, that is impossible to do when most people do not have that option. At least if they want quality broadband speeds.
And even in areas where ISP's have not weaseled their way into a rent-seeking arrangement through local laws, the barriers to entry for the market are enormous.
You can eliminate government involvement or you can work toward a highly competitive marketplace, but you can't have both. So pick which one you really care about and recognize what that means.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:00 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You can eliminate government involvement or you can work toward a highly competitive marketplace, but you can't have both.
Yes you can. It may not be immediate, which is your problem with it, but it will happen.
ETA: These net neutrality folks want a short term solution to a long term issue even though the short term solution will be worse in the long term.
This post was edited on 5/19/17 at 11:02 am
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:04 am to imjustafatkid
No, you can't.
Eliminating government involvement means the current market distribution stands as is.
Meaning the ISP's will just continue to gobble up market space and no competitors can realistically jump in. And in that space they can begin the process of controlling internet traffic and acting like a legalized extortion system to consumers and internet companies.
But feel free to explain how this works out in your mind?
Eliminating government involvement means the current market distribution stands as is.
Meaning the ISP's will just continue to gobble up market space and no competitors can realistically jump in. And in that space they can begin the process of controlling internet traffic and acting like a legalized extortion system to consumers and internet companies.
But feel free to explain how this works out in your mind?
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:04 am to I B Freeman
quote:
You understand the FCC decision under Obama to consider the net as a utility does in fact give them the authority to censor???
Prove that statement. I haven't read or heard that anywhere.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:05 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
you are talking about a massive expansion of the federal government here.
That's what I have been trying to get I B Freeman to realize. You can't blanket preempt local regulations without the FCC filling the gap. That would be a disaster.
The better hope is to grow awareness in localities to roll back these regulations so that we can reach a point where NN is not needed.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:06 am to I B Freeman
quote:
But I will put you down as favoring bureaucrats dictating the service levels and possibly the content that is available to you from ISPs.
Put him down that way. Everyone else in the board will just consider you a cuck for Verizon and Comcast.
I also find this graph very interesting...
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:09 am to SoulGlo
quote:
If ISP X wants to frick around with bandwidth, I'll jump to ISP Y. Stay the frick out, government
What if it's your only option? What if both or so of your options does this? There's nothing to prevent them from secretly colluding, and making it an industry Norm.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:10 am to CCTider
I hope all of the NN haters in here will be happy when Netflix, YouTube, and ISP owned platforms will be the only viable video viewing platforms on the internet.
Want to talk about killing competition. That will stifle innovation in a heartbeat.
Want to talk about killing competition. That will stifle innovation in a heartbeat.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:11 am to CCTider
quote:
There's nothing to prevent them from secretly colluding, and making it an industry Norm.
Wel actually that would be a violation of antitrust laws. There are plenty of ways to get to a de facto industry standard without collusion though.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:13 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Wel actually that would be a violation of antitrust laws. There are plenty of ways to get to a de facto industry standard without collusion though.
Obviously they can't call a meeting of the masses, and it would be against the law. But with consolidation, it would essentially end up the same, as you said. Collision was the wrong term to use.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:16 am to CCTider
Comcast offers X service for Y dollars. That info is on their website. ATT can go look at that and "purely internally" decide X service for Y dollars is appropriate.
Rinse and repeat.
Rinse and repeat.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:16 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Want to talk about killing competition. That will stifle innovation in a heartbeat.
That's my biggest issue. Removing NN could greatly harm potential startups. Only large corporate backed entities will be able to afford to pay for the fast lane.
Richard Hendricks needs to hurry up and invent his new internet. Hopefully him and Gavin can get along.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:18 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Comcast offers X service for Y dollars. That info is on their website. ATT can go look at that and "purely internally" decide X service for Y dollars is appropriate.
Rinse and repeat.
Yep. And that's why I'm glad they didn't allow att and t mobile to merge. Without that added competition, they'd never offer unlimited data plans.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:19 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Net Neutrality is such a messy topic. Both sides have done well to obfuscate what it all really means.
Uhh no they havent. All the rhetoric against ne nuetrality have a vested interest financially. Its robber barron monopolies obvious
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:22 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Meaning the ISP's will just continue to gobble up market space and no competitors can realistically jump in. And in that space they can begin the process of controlling internet traffic and acting like a legalized extortion system to consumers and internet companies.
That could happen in the short term, but we haven't seen that yet. You're discussing a hypothetical.
ETA: That can't happen long-term because of our monopoly laws. There is no need for more government intrusion to prevent monopolies from occurring.
This post was edited on 5/19/17 at 11:23 am
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:24 am to I B Freeman
quote:
We need to end this net neutrality foolishness and we need to prohibit local governments from regulating the establishment of ISPs in their cities and states.
Go pump that garbage somewhere else. The regulation is to stop from the no doubt extreme corruption that would occur without it. Just look how hard they are trying to end it. That should show you why thry shouldnt have it. Its not hurtimg any company in the slightest
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:25 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
ETA: That can't happen long-term because of our monopoly laws. There is no need for more government intrusion to prevent monopolies from occurring.
That is a touch naive. You can still get an overwhelming market share despite our laws.
The bigger issue rather than a singular monopoly in Telecom is a de facto cartel.
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:27 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Meaning the ISP's will just continue to gobble up market space and no competitors can realistically jump in. And in that space they can begin the process of controlling internet traffic and acting like a legalized extortion system to consumers and internet companies.
That could happen in the short term, but we haven't seen that yet. You're discussing a hypothetical.
Yes. Yes we have.
It looks like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have done exactly like that, which led to the current NN rules. Verizon taking it to court is what led to the current regulations.
This post was edited on 5/19/17 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/19/17 at 11:28 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
The better hope is to grow awareness in localities to roll back these regulations so that we can reach a point where NN is not needed.
This is a good answer, but many localities can't attract any providers without such agreements.
A fallacy of the net neutrality crowd is that other providers will magically pop up in unattractive areas simply because you remove contracts with local governments. The reality is that large providers will move out of many areas when they start getting undercut by some startup and can no longer make a profit, and then you're right back to a local monopoly.
This post was edited on 5/19/17 at 11:29 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News