- 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: Wait...some of you are actually against NN??
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:22 pm to Orange_and_Blur
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:22 pm to Orange_and_Blur
I'd say the argument against is to prevent what could happen...aka putting our trust in Comcast, ATT, etc
0
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:24 pm to Orange_and_Blur
quote:
So is anyone going to explain how things are better since NN?
No, because there is no actual physical proof. At this point NN is going into the realm of Climate Change fake science.
I have never seen so much fear over something that has never happened. People really are weak and easily controlled by talking points.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:29 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
Y'all pay $100k to my GoFundMe I'll move.
Typical 
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:30 pm to DarthRebel
My proof is my $180 Comcast bill every month. I want them to burn to the ground but not before they have to pay every customer $15k for fleecing us for a decade.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 11:31 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:34 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all.
2015 wasn’t some magic year, either: the FCC and Congress had proposed net neutrality rules going back more than a decade before then. It’s only in 2015 that they made them stick.
Now, even if we were to grant that ISPs had not attempted these things when they clearly did, it would be unreasonable to think that they wouldn’t attempt to in the future. Voluntary agreements not to are hardly a substitute for strong rules against anti-consumer practices known to have been instituted before.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:37 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
It's like some of you forget about your internet life before 2015
Shitty, and slowly getting shittier. Made even worse when ISP's began creeping into the territory that prompted the urgency for NN. Which was ISP's recognizing and beginning to exercise the extortionary power of their natural monopoly arrangement and gatekeeper status to further buffer profits at the expense of consumers and internet dependent businesses. Like Verizon throttling Netflix, Comcast extorting companies to not throttle their traffic.
The situation remains shitty today thanks to the often crony arrangement these natural monopolies are still afforded in most areas though model legislation and politicians friendly to their rent-seeking behavior. Like when earlier this year the administration passed legislation to allow ISP's to collect and sell your data without your consent.
If you think the best course of action is to give those trustworthy ISP's the ability to start back with their creeping behavior and hope for the best, feel free to make the case. Several people have tried miserably all day, but maybe you are up for the task?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:46 pm to Ole Messcort
One of the best things to ever happen for the American consumer was the breakup of AT&T, for those of us old enough to remember it was the biggest scam going.
Remember being charged for each phone in your house?
How about them making it impossible to buy a phone from anyone else but them?
Super high rates?
This breakup helped foster the tech revolution and was a boom for consumers everywhere and had it not happened there would be no internet today.
Why we want to let the gang get back together and control even more is beyond me, the only possible reason I can come up with is ignorant political dogma paid for by the corperations.
Unless there is a federal law that forces line sharing as happened in the phone industry NN should be the law of the land, if the ISP's are willing to give up their monopolies on service then by all means adandon NN.
There is no way on earth the ISP's are willing to do this and the reason is why NN needs to stand.
Remember being charged for each phone in your house?
How about them making it impossible to buy a phone from anyone else but them?
Super high rates?
This breakup helped foster the tech revolution and was a boom for consumers everywhere and had it not happened there would be no internet today.
Why we want to let the gang get back together and control even more is beyond me, the only possible reason I can come up with is ignorant political dogma paid for by the corperations.
Unless there is a federal law that forces line sharing as happened in the phone industry NN should be the law of the land, if the ISP's are willing to give up their monopolies on service then by all means adandon NN.
There is no way on earth the ISP's are willing to do this and the reason is why NN needs to stand.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:59 pm to Ole Messcort
quote:
My proof is my $180 Comcast bill every month. I want them to burn to the ground but not before they have to pay every customer $15k for fleecing us for a decade.
You think your $180 bill is too high? Why? I'm not saying it isn't, but you should have some sort of substantive argument detailing why the price you pay is not indicative of the cost of the product.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:10 am to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:17 am to Centinel
quote:
but you should have some sort of substantive argument detailing why the price you pay is not indicative of the cost of the product.
Nope. $180 is detailed enough for you to agree it's way too high to pay for Comcast. Sometimes you don't need detailed spreadsheets for proof that something is outrageously priced. Like if you told me you spent $350 dollars for a dozen wings at Hooters I just nod and agree with you that's ridiculous. I don't need you to provide how much it costs for Sysco to drive a truck of chicken to Hooters to know it's still way too much to pay for some wings.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:20 am to cave canem
quote:
Why we want to let the gang get back together and control even more is beyond me, the only possible reason I can come up with is ignorant political dogma paid for by the corperations.
Unless there is a federal law that forces line sharing as happened in the phone industry NN should be the law of the land, if the ISP's are willing to give up their monopolies on service then by all means adandon NN.
There is no way on earth the ISP's are willing to do this and the reason is why NN needs to stand.
Yep, heres the deal I would be willing to cut with the ISP's.
We can eliminate NN if you go along with measures that remove all of your model legislation in states that put up legal hurdles or otherwise prevent pathways of increased competition and accountability. Give up all the cronyism that perverts the market-space. Accept measures that lowers the barrier for entry for competitors, and no longer attempts to sabotage local investment they can't control.
Hurdles like in Lafayette, LA. That thanks to crony legislation to protect established natural monopolies, made it a war to get the legal rights to build what the electorate voted on and funded; a municipal broadband option. Hell, some states just ban that right altogether, or any investments that don't hand operating rights to them. Along with several other anti-competitive measures.
Some even do really sick things like make terms in legislation that if a city creates a public municipal broadband company, a private ISP can come in, and if they show they have the capacity to do so, by law be allowed to take over operations without oversight. Now, what kind of fricked up lemon socialism bullshite is that? The public pays the full cost, and the private established company can come in and take over operations and do as they please for no investment cost.
ISP's promise to eliminate that AND do like you just mentioned, like what has happened in England, we can talk.
Where law requires the pipes and poles to be shared by anyone that wants to enter the market(pipe and polls that are already heavily subsidized to be built in the first place throughout most of the country), and if a start up wants to tap into existing infrastructure they can pay a fee to the major company to do so(with oversight). Eliminating the biggest barrier to entry, the big one, the one that isnt even regulatory(but requires regulatory solutions), the 200-700 million+ it takes to build you own network in a major city. Which would largely be a resource duplication when it occurs. A cost that requires additional millions in ongoing operating costs with only the possibility of breaking even up to decades later. Making the investment unrealistic and cementing why this arrangement is a natural monopoly.
They do that, get us to a place where we actually have a competitive marketplace in the vast majority of areas in this country by drastically lowering barriers to entry and getting rid of the rent-seeking nonsense, then you can have your no net neutrality. Fine by me.
But they aren't going to take that, or even care if they conceded all that, because it is only of concern to them when it can be purposed to pad profits and exploit that arrangement at the expense of reliant businesses and customers. When the environment is such where the benefits far outweigh the costs.
ISP's spend millions to buy politicians and lobby congress for this ability, it's their holy grail right now. Which should signal that they are only investing that much in this because they think they have a way to frick you enough to make the ROI worth the investment. Competition and accountability destroys that. So they will never agree.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:22 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
NN was only policy since 2015
I’ll take your word on that, but look at whats happened over the past few years with regard to cord cutting. Cable TV companies are often also internet providers. They’re losing boat loads of money from people dropping their cable TV in favor of Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Sling and other cheaper streaming services. Cable/internet companies would have an easy way to combat that now by throttling or charging extra if you want to access Netflix or Youtube. They could monopolize TV content by charging more to access to streaming services and make it more expensive than just keeping cable
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:28 am to Ole Messcort
quote:
My proof is my $180 Comcast bill every month. I want them to burn to the ground but not before they have to pay every customer $15k for fleecing us for a decade.
This is due to your stupidity.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:31 am to Ole Messcort
Glad NN is going away. Free market is gonna free market :)
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:37 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
LINK to best thread I’ve seen yet
That told me nothing.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:39 am to bonhoeffer45
Yep, There was no whining about government intrusion when they were granted FREE right of ways at public expense and then paid by the government to run the cables.
Now they don't want to share the cables, want carte blanche on the content, and beg for laws barring anyone else entering the market, sounds like a hell of a deal to me.
Now they don't want to share the cables, want carte blanche on the content, and beg for laws barring anyone else entering the market, sounds like a hell of a deal to me.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:41 am to cave canem
quote:
Yep, There was no whining about government intrusion when they were granted FREE right of ways at public expense and then paid by the government to run the cables.
Honest question, when did this occur? As in what years?
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:58 am to Centinel
quote:
Honest question, when did this occur? As in what years?
There is no specific date for a lot of this, it is an ongoing relationship:
quote:
AT&T has struck a deal with the US government to get nearly $428 million per year to bring 10Mbps Internet service to parts of rural America after protesting that it shouldn't have to provide speeds that fast.
The money comes from the Connect America Fund, which draws from surcharges on Americans' phone bills to pay for rural Internet service. AT&T accepted the money even though it argued last year that rural customers don't need Internet service better than the old standard of 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream. The FCC ignored AT&T's protests in December, raising the Connect America Fund download standard to 10Mbps while leaving the 1Mbps requirement unchanged.
quote:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted Wednesday to shift US$9 billion over five years from traditional telephone subsidies to broadband subsidies, in an effort to bring high-speed Internet services to 5 million U.S. residents who don’t have access.
The FCC, as expected, voted on a proposal to shift $1.8 billion a year from the rural telephone subsidies in its Universal Service Fund to its broadband-focused Connect America Fund, amounting to a 70 percent increase in broadband deployment subsidies.
quote:
"The country must be aggressive with the expansion of broadband," he said, winning a loud round of applause from some 100 technology CEOs and luminaries gathered at the White House for the address.
Bush also commented on the government's $53 billion technology spending budget--the largest such appropriation in history. "If you're a recipient, make sure the product actually works," he said, half-jokingly.
quote:
Daschle and Gephardt pointed out that $750 million has already been earmarked to help underwrite the costs of deploying rural broadband, a provision approved as part of the Farm Bill that is expected to provide high-speed Net access to some 6 million homes.
I have no issue with the motivation of the investments themselves, but I certainly have an issue when the companies receiving them want to insulate themselves with cronyism and rent-seeking. Avoid accountability and double and triple dip on exploiting the consumers and tax payers. Asking them to subsidize the bills, hand them monopoly control in many regions, insulate them from competition and oversight, and than be allowed the rights to sell their private data and extort them as customers. Rent-seek at their expense.
This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 1:01 am
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:21 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016).
NN didn't stop that. Data caps still exist.
If you want NN, write some goddamn rules for the internet. Stop throwing shite in a bucket for telecoms from 1934.
Posted on 11/22/17 at 1:25 am to DarthRebel
quote:
No, because there is no actual physical proof. At this point NN is going into the realm of Climate Change fake science.
Its amazing. No one makes a clear argument of why its needed
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News