- 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: Sky Screamers Rejoice! Senate votes to repeal the repeal of Net Neutrality
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:29 am to GeorgeTheGreek
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:29 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:You're talking about Google. The reason why they are in favor of classifying the internet as a title II utility is because they want to be classified as a utility provider with access to the poles and pipes without having to get permission from other parties like AT&T without having to barter or enter into agreements (like they already have). They can also apply to become a Title II utility provider today but they aren't doing that.
That’s funny, Google is expanding Google Fiber yet is in favor of Title II. Seems odd since that would be a massive barrier for them
Reclassifying ISPs as Title II companies would mean that the government would have more access and control and regulating power over those companies, leading to extra fees, fines, and increased red tape without the freedom to act quickly as a business typical does.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 11:05 am
0
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:30 am to IllegalPete
If you like the internet as it is, you like net neutrality. Why is this even a thing, except that companies want more ability to control what access you have to various internet services?
Internet should be regulated like a utility. It’s as essential today as anything, and allowing companies with monopolies or virtual monopolies to control access is a terrible idea.
Internet should be regulated like a utility. It’s as essential today as anything, and allowing companies with monopolies or virtual monopolies to control access is a terrible idea.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:31 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Well yes, it does.
Which is why we get a lot of really stupid economic policy.
We can't have it both ways. That same populace elected the politicians that represent us. We are either a society that is intelligent and capable of governing ourselves.. or we are not and our style of government is a poor fit. If thats the case we are fricked and NN is not even worth discussing.. and we should be stocking food instead
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 10:33 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:32 am to FT
quote:
If you like the internet as it is, you like net neutrality.
Ladies and gentlemen of the thread.
I want you all to know that I 100% agree with the above statement. It is an absolutely true statement.
Which is why I oppose it.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:33 am to americanrealism
quote:
Wait, there are really people who want Xfinity and Uverse to be able to sell you internet like this?:
That's not the point. That example is an absolute best case scenario to ISP involvement in internet traffic.At least in that example you can choose to pay for access to the rest of the content.
A worse scenario is Cox New Orleans or Comcast partners with a company like Netflix to allow Netflix highspeed access to all end users while all other video streaming services get throttles effectively ending the free market in practice because it makes start up competition impossible. The end user is no longer participating in the decisions of the market. Even if a better product comes along that is favored by the users in the market, the ISP can just throttle it into obscurity.
Worst case scenario is Cox New Orleans could partner with Google to just straight up ban your access to any other search engines making it impossible for competition to begin in the first place.
And because most of america has access to one or sometimes two ISPs it makes these scenarios unavoidable nightmares. ]
The internet should be a free platform. A foundation for building blocks. The blocks built on its foundation can be as unregulated as you want but that foundation should stay open and free to all.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 10:37 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:33 am to bmy
quote:I can easily say that I prefer elections to totalitarians and that I recognize that even elected leaders are prone to tyranny.
We can't have it both ways. That same populace elected the politicians that represent us.
In fact, that's kinda 100% fact.
quote:Our founders had the good sense to know that there wasn't really a natural barrier to an elected govt being just as bad as an unelected one.
We are either a society that is intelligent and capable of governing ourselves.
That's why they tried to put a fair amount of shackles on it.
They lost.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:35 am to kingbob
quote:
No, but I don't see a better option right this moment. What I would do is use title II in the short term while a new classification is debated and created.
Look at the 2015 congressional legislation proposal. Let's start there. What do you like and don't you like about it? Squabbling is pointless. If we agree that Title 2 sucks, lets look at the options to achieve the goal we all want while avoiding it.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:37 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Canned partisan response
Republican voters overwhelmingly support NN. Republican leadership opposes it.
There is only one reason elected representatives abandon the wishes of their constituents... an obligation to a higher power. In this case its their corporate overlords.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 10:38 am
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:38 am to ShortyRob
The problem is you see access to the internet as a product that is sold in a huge marketplace of different access points.
I don't see the internet as the product, but as the market itself. The issue is that the access points to that market are not a free market in and of themselves, but already a highly, tightly controlled cartel of geographic monopolies. In a perfect world, marketing those access points as products could be a free market where consumer choice would ensure that the providers of these access points don't limit what parts of the market these consumers can access.
Imagine the internet as being like a shopping mall. There's a food court, anchor stores, smaller shops, and tiny cart vendors. The food court and the anchor stores are on one side with the smaller shops and carts on the other. The ISP's are the doors to the outside world. Each ISP controls a door to enter the mall, where you have to pay a fee (like Costco) to enter.
Now, if there are doors all over, the ISP doesn't have much power to determine where you go. If one ISP tries to say you can only go to Nordstrom's and Sbarro, you'll just go to the other ISP that allows you to go to all of the stores. But imagine there are only two doors: one by the food court, and one by the anchor stores. In that case, those ISP's can get together and determine which stores people can access and force all of the stores to pay extra to be on the list. They can steer traffic wherever they want. Consumers only have the illusion of a choice, but not a real one.
To allow the ISP's to not only charge for entry to the market but also determine what parts of that market can even be patronized is to eliminate consumer choice entirely. It is to transition from a quasi-free global market to an entirely controlled cartel where the ISP is the king-maker of global commerce. And it's not just commerce, but the share of information and thoughts as well. There is no free exchange of ideas if the information is not forced to be treated equally in the market.
The internet is not the product.
The internet is the market.
I don't see the internet as the product, but as the market itself. The issue is that the access points to that market are not a free market in and of themselves, but already a highly, tightly controlled cartel of geographic monopolies. In a perfect world, marketing those access points as products could be a free market where consumer choice would ensure that the providers of these access points don't limit what parts of the market these consumers can access.
Imagine the internet as being like a shopping mall. There's a food court, anchor stores, smaller shops, and tiny cart vendors. The food court and the anchor stores are on one side with the smaller shops and carts on the other. The ISP's are the doors to the outside world. Each ISP controls a door to enter the mall, where you have to pay a fee (like Costco) to enter.
Now, if there are doors all over, the ISP doesn't have much power to determine where you go. If one ISP tries to say you can only go to Nordstrom's and Sbarro, you'll just go to the other ISP that allows you to go to all of the stores. But imagine there are only two doors: one by the food court, and one by the anchor stores. In that case, those ISP's can get together and determine which stores people can access and force all of the stores to pay extra to be on the list. They can steer traffic wherever they want. Consumers only have the illusion of a choice, but not a real one.
To allow the ISP's to not only charge for entry to the market but also determine what parts of that market can even be patronized is to eliminate consumer choice entirely. It is to transition from a quasi-free global market to an entirely controlled cartel where the ISP is the king-maker of global commerce. And it's not just commerce, but the share of information and thoughts as well. There is no free exchange of ideas if the information is not forced to be treated equally in the market.
The internet is not the product.
The internet is the market.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:38 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If ISPs were already abiding by the restrictions, then why remove freedom of choice by adding more government regulation?
Lawsuits against ISPs who were being abusive with their power were very effective prior to NN was even a thing (legally, at least). More competition would solve that problem, anyway.
The fact that you made this statement with generic talking points goes a great deal to invalidate your perception of being knowledgeable on this topic.
The codification of tradition (which they were moving away from for the sake of profits) occurred explicitly because the lawsuits were failing.
The final one that brought it all to a head was when a judge stripped the FTC from having any authority to offer guidance by virtue of the carriers being legally protected by Title 2 provisions as per Comcast’s legal argument.
This whole thing was the FCC stepping in and going, “Fine, if you are defining your internet arm as being a common carrier, you are now bound by the rest of the provisions of Title 2 and subject to our authority.
What’s hilarious is we have had multiple people who work in small businesses (typically where most market innovation happens, from emergent agents) talk about how the big telecoms have used their mandated monopoly of the hardware to bully and squash all opposition by blocking and defeating traffic they are getting paid to provide.....but somehow still letting them continue is a true free market.
Take away mandated monopoly and I’ll support taking away control in the current. climate. But it’s not a process, it’s one or the other.
If you accept billions of government aid, with government grants to monopoly, you are subject to government mandate.
If they are willing to actually renter the free market, then I’ll be happy to support them being only limited by the market.
But they aren’t, they want their cake and eat it too.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Can we restrict this to shite I've actually said please?
Did you not say earlier that free markets and economics always win and governmental deregulation is always a good thing?
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:39 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It's actually not.
It’s probably best for another thread. I’m no expert on this but arguments I’ve heard are as follows.
It’s too easy to manipulate main stream opinions in the current environment. Government is worried about a bad actor gaining favorability through the Internet. (Think ads, hacking, Russian arguments real or not).
Wrong person gaining favorability, winning the Presidency and having their finger on the nuke button. Still 10-15 years away but that’s the argument.
I haven’t really formed an opinion on it yet and it’s a topic for another thread. Interesting though.... and right now still seems far fetched.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:39 am to kingbob
quote:We already have regulation for monopolies.
My sweet summer child
quote:Yes, and I've said as much. More regulation (NN) isn't the answer. Less regulation (removing barriers to entry) is. Competition is what will both keep the market (mostly) free as well as provide consumers with what they want.
Neither does removing it. All NN is is a consumer protection that ensures the internet continues to function as it was intended to function. Keeping or ditching it has no impact on the lack of competition in the ISP market. Those are separate issues. We cannot eliminate NN as long as there remains a lack of competition. Removing NN will not foster increased competition.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:40 am to ShortyRob
quote:
That's why they tried to put a fair amount of shackles on it.
They lost
It was a nice run though. Their system of government was ill-equipped to deal with the influence of corporations and banks.
It worked for a nation of yeoman but industrialization fricked it all up.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:41 am to bmy
quote:
Republican voters overwhelmingly support NN. Republican leadership opposes it.
Without Title II, I'll bet you almost everyone is onboard.
You're trying to argue about equal opportunity to transmit internet content. I'm arguing against archaic, overbearing legislation.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:42 am to Volvagia
quote:
you are subject to government mandate.
I have no problem with the mandate. I have issues with how its regulated.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:42 am to kingbob
quote:
The problem is you see access to the internet as a product that is sold in a huge marketplace of different access points.
I don't see the internet as the product, but as the market itself.
100% this.
The internet is the market. It is the foundation on which the market place is built. And it has to remain open and free. There is no "other internet" to compete with the internet.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:42 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Yes, and I've said as much. More regulation (NN) isn't the answer. Less regulation (removing barriers to entry) is. Competition is what will both keep the market (mostly) free as well as provide consumers with what they want.
Yes, but until the lack of competition can be remedied, NN is needed. WIthout NN AND competition, those ISP's get to ensure there never will be any competition.
Now, once there is competition, NN can be de-regulated because it is something the market will overwhelmingly demand if given the choice to do so.
Right now, the consumers have no leverage because they have no choice.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:42 am to Breesus
quote:I took the below
Did you not say earlier that free markets and economics always win and governmental deregulation is always a good thing?
quote:to mean that I wouldn't support ANY regulation ever. Which, of course, would mean that I'm opposed to preventing you from dumping chemicals in my yard.
there is never a reason for government regulation in any aspect
I'm not an anarchist.
But yes. In terms of markets, there is never a good reason for govt interference.
The "good" reasons are pretty much always temporary. Moreover, the government is godawful at identifying "good reasons".
Our govt tried to fricking sue SEARS in the late 90s because they were too powerful in the market!!
In the mid 2000s, our government tried to regulate Blockbuster!!
Posted on 5/17/18 at 10:43 am to kingbob
quote:
Right now, the consumers have no leverage because they have no choice.
THis just isn't true.
Page 14 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News