- 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 3:01 pm to Breesus
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:01 pm to Breesus
quote:Nope. And really, you don't know about Cathy? Go find her interviewing Jordan Peterson. You're basically her.
I don't know who Cathy Newman is, but yes you did say that.
quote:So, you anticipate dying in the short term absent your access to TD? Anyone else dying?
Well, yeah. They are dieing for now. There's going to be consequences for deregulation of water. But that just until the free market settles and big businesses get into the water distribution business
quote:
We all know the OT is responsible for helping law enforcement identify at least one kidnapper and murder. So yes. Someone might die.
Dear God. You're desperate. 
0
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:01 pm to Breesus
quote:
What are you talking about? Who's advocating zero Regs?
quote:
ShortyRob
Ahh. Now you're just going to start lying I see.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:02 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It's right out of the playbook. Everything's in extremes...
Yeah. He's "not liberal" but his entire argument is from liberal economics 101 for the last fricking 100 years.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:04 pm to Breesus
quote:
ShortyRob
In a perfect world, BigCom could throttle and offer ala carte internet in a market where UpstartCom could offer a full package so the consumer could have choices on what they want to pay for
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:05 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
entire argument is from liberal economics 101
I'm blown away at the idea of his that highly regulated industry is a free market
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:07 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It's right out of the playbook. Everything's in extremes...
It's not an extreme thought.
Comcast has already proven that it will throttle based on content without input from the market or user.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have already proven they have no problem using their power and resources to silence political opinions they don't agree with.
I am simply saying that in the time between our current monopoly system and however long it takes to develop national competition in the ISP market we should make sure these companies cannot censor content and create an artificially controlled market without any possible recourse or push back from consumers.
Further, I have asked how it is possible to foster ISP competition without any government regulation or how a new ISP can overcome the physical infastructure barrier to entry and I have no responses there either.
I have tried to use hypotheticals to understand why you think the way you do or draw comparisons so we can find common ground but you refuse to indulge that with me.
Instead of having an intellegent debate about why NN is a bad thought or why you have no problem with that censorship happening I have had all three of you call me retarded and a four year old while refusing to bolster any of your arguments and repeating some nonsense about how you're right and I'm wrong and you'll never explain why.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:09 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
In a perfect world, BigCom could throttle and offer ala carte internet in a market where UpstartCom could offer a full package so the consumer could have choices on what they want to pay for
I don't even like to delve into what future markets may bring.
If you'd asked me in 1900, "Shorty.....we are going to have more than 36% of the current jobs Americans do simply cease to exist by the year 2000...........what are those people going to do?", my answer would have been "I don't fricking know".
And yet, here we are.
Hell. If you'd asked me in 1980 to predict the biggest employers or even CATEGORIES of the biggest employers, I'd have failed huge.
Markets don't give a frick what I "think" will happen or could happen over the next 40 years.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:12 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Yeah. He's "not liberal" but his entire argument is from liberal economics 101 for the last fricking 100 years.
Breesus: not every aspect of society can benefit from a free market. Sometimes government regulations are necessary, for example, when the consumer is incapable of regulating that market and thus it isn't truly free or when a monopoly controls a market and the consumer needs protection.
ShortyRob: nope. every market should be a free market it's always beneficial. Always.
Breesus: how about these two markets
ShortyRob: well no. Not those markets. But the rest of the markets
Breesus:why not those? And if those must be regulated, then can't we agree some regulation is a good thing?
ShortyRob: you're a liberal idiot who could never understand. All markets should be free except those that I don't think should be free for reasons I don't have to explain.
I think that about sums this up.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:13 pm to Breesus
quote:Dude, what the frick are you even responding to? He's talking about your "muh anarchist" approach.
It's not an extreme thought.
Comcast has already proven that it will throttle based on content without input from the market or user.
quote:I'm sure that if we create a govt regulatory agency this will be solved. Ya know. Since at least one party in government openly wants to work with those companies to CONTINUE the behavior(oh, and the companies like that party).
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have already proven they have no problem using their power and resources to silence political opinions they don't agree with.
quote:
Further, I have asked how it is possible to foster ISP competition without any government regulation or how a new ISP can overcome the physical infastructure barrier to entry and I have no responses there either.
Barriers to entry are just that. Barriers. They aren't insurmountable mountains.
quote:Dude. Your hypotheticals are just comical. Moreover, they often demonstrate they don't even know very basic stuff about market competition. VERY basic stuff.
I have tried to use hypotheticals to understand why you think the way you do or draw comparisons so we can find common ground but you refuse to indulge that with me
quote:Well, economically, you are retarded in the extreme. I don't know how you are on other subjects.
Instead of having an intellegent debate about why NN is a bad thought or why you have no problem with that censorship happening I have had all three of you call me retarded
That said, you not liking an explanation or you not comprehending an explanation is NOT the same thing as one not being provided.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:15 pm to Breesus
quote:
Breesus: not every aspect of society can benefit from a free market. Sometimes government regulations are necessary
ShortyRob: every market should be a free market it's always beneficial. Always.
Breesus: how about these two markets
ShortyRob: well no. Not those markets. But the rest of the markets
Like watching a fish explain walking.
I addressed water and electricity.
Then, you made some of the most laughable posts in the history of TD to try and claim that you might die if you don't get to access TD. It was a hoot.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:19 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I addressed water and electricity
You said without governmental monopoly on water and electricity you wouldn't be able to survive. TD is not the same so they are not comparable.
I pointed out that there are plenty of ways to survive, and further that without those government monopolies surely a free market would emerge, and according to you a free market is always more beneficial than a government monopoly.
You said that none of what I said matters because it adversely affects your argument so you are going to dismiss it and insult me again.
quote:
Then, you made some of the most laughable posts in the history of TD
You asked me for one example of how someone's life could be effected without tigerdroppings.com. I provided a real example for you. You immediately Crawfished and then went back to insulting my intellegence.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:24 pm to Breesus
quote:K
You said without governmental monopoly on water and electricity you wouldn't be able to survive. TD is not the same so they are not comparable.
quote:And I pointed out
I pointed out that there are plenty of ways to survive, and further that without those government monopolies surely a free market would emerge, and according to you a free market is always more beneficial than a government monopoly.
1. In places with poor water access, many die even if some get to it and
2. While eventually that would be solved, no one will die without accessing TD..........EVER!
If that's a tough one to grasp, I can't help you.
quote:It doesn't adversely affect my argument. I'm not an anarchist. So, this means that in extreme circumstances, I accept the inherent inefficient of government as a necessary evil..........A NECESSARY EVIL!
You said that none of what I said matters because it adversely affects your argument so you are going to dismiss it and insult me again.
You being able to get on TD doesn't even raise my eyebrow in terms of something we should give a frick about.
If you equate that with some people dying due to lack of access to water, you go ahead and hold on to that rhetorical "victory".
quote:
You asked me for one example of how someone's life could be effected without tigerdroppings.com. I provided a real example for you. You immediately Crawfished and then went back to insulting my intellegence.
Dude. You embarrassed yourself by reaching in way stretch armstrong would envy.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:40 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
1. In places with poor water access, many die even if some get to it and
2. While eventually that would be solved, no one will die without accessing TD..........EVER
Dude there’s a shite ton of cases where a free and open internet has and can save lives. Think about any police investigation that’s used internet activity/search history. Or times where rapid, widespread communication could help people avoid disasters (natural or otherwise). Or even something more abstract where someone considering suicide finds help and support through an internet community. And stuff like this is just barely scratching the surface. Just because you use it to argue Online doesn’t mean that’s all it’s good for.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:44 pm to weedGOKU666
quote:
Dude there’s a shite ton of cases where a free and open internet has and can save lives. Think about any police investigation that’s used internet activity/search history. Or times where rapid, widespread communication could help people avoid disasters (natural or otherwise). Or even something more abstract where someone considering suicide finds help and support through an internet community. And stuff like this is just barely scratching the surface. Just because you use it to argue Online doesn’t mean that’s all it’s good for.
Which of those things are impacted by NN?
Oh. And
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:53 pm to kingbob
quote:Not in this case.
Because the internet is NOT the chicken. The internet is NOT the zuchini. The internet IS THE MARKET ITSELF!
The market is the environment or system where goods and services are bought and sold. In this discussion, the market is that invisible space where ISPs exist for the purpose of selling access to the internet. The internet is not the market and the internet, itself, is not the product/service in this case. Access to the internet is the product/service and it is sold by ISPs. There is a difference as ISPs don't "own" the internet. Competition is when multiple ISPs offer access to the internet with various perks (faster speeds, lower prices, better service, etc.) that are meant tin entice customers to buy that access from them rather than their competitors.
The example given about the chicken and the zucchini was meant to exemplify how two or more different products (food in this case) can compete for business even though they are not an exact replacement of one another. An "exact" replacement would be Pepsi and Coke, but beer, iced tea, milk, and water are also competitors to Pepsi and Coke because a consumer can substitute their Coke/Pepsi consumption with those other options. In the example provided, if chicken became too expensive or everyone became vegans, zucchini would be purchased instead as a substitute.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:57 pm to Breesus
quote:
I believe that access to the internet should be free from any gatekeeper restrictions based on content or corporate policy
Unless that gate keeper is almighty government
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:57 pm to Breesus
quote:
You mean exactly like how an up and coming ISP can't just build an entire infrastructure in a region to supplant the current ISP?
WHY IS THAT THE CASE?
Its not about the cost of running cables.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:59 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You being able to get on TD doesn't even raise my eyebrow in terms of something we should give a frick about.
If you equate that with some people dying due to lack of access to water, you go ahead and hold on to that rhetorical "victory".
It's not about my lack of access to tigerdroppings.com. I tried to use your example and discuss within that framework.
The loss of net neutrality could:
Allow pharmaceutical companies to impede competitive research
Allow companies to silence bad reviews and negative comments about their products
Impede police investigations
Impede someone's ability to call for help or research how to save a life
Etc....
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The market is the environment or system where goods and services are bought and sold. In this discussion, the market is that invisible space where ISPs exist for the purpose of selling access to the internet. The internet is not the market and the internet, itself, is not the product/service in this case. Access to the internet is the product/service and it is sold by ISPs. There is a difference as ISPs don't "own" the internet. Competition is when multiple ISPs offer access to the internet with various perks (faster speeds, lower prices, better service, etc.) that are meant tin entice customers to buy that access from them rather than their competitors.
The example given about the chicken and the zucchini was meant to exemplify how two or more different products (food in this case) can compete for business even though they are not an exact replacement of one another. An "exact" replacement would be Pepsi and Coke, but beer, iced tea, milk, and water are also competitors to Pepsi and Coke because a consumer can substitute their Coke/Pepsi consumption with those other options. In the example provided, if chicken became too expensive or everyone became vegans, zucchini would be purchased instead as a substitute.
This GIF really doesn't say it. But frickin A, it's nice to see someone in the room who understands.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 3:59 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I believe that access to the internet should be free from any gatekeeper restrictions based on content or corporate policy
Unless that gate keeper is almighty government
How about neither?
Page 28 of 34
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News