- 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
Why do we assume this net neutrality issue will primarily target consumers?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:45 pm
Isn't the big battle here more likely between ISPs and the big internet sites, that will work itself out in the wash, so to speak?
7
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:50 pm to Y.A. Tittle
The consumer is going to pay either way
fast lanes for content through your ISP or your content provider charging more bc the added cost to make sure your ISP doesn't degrade their content.
fast lanes for content through your ISP or your content provider charging more bc the added cost to make sure your ISP doesn't degrade their content.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:51 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Isn't the big battle here more likely between ISPs and the big internet sites, that will work itself out in the wash, so to speak?
With respect to net neutrality alone, consumers lose without it.
Basically every major player on the internet today would have hell getting started without net neutrality. In order to throttle speeds in real time, you have to monitor data in real time, and that capability has only been around for a decade or so. In the 1990s and early/mid 2000s, it wasn't even possible, so net neutrality was the default.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:52 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The consumer is going to pay either way
Not if it risks effecting Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc., I wouldn't think.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:52 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Don't you think that would ultimately end up having the content user pay more?
Isn't the big battle here more likely between ISPs and the big internet sites
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:53 pm to Yak
quote:
Don't you think that would ultimately end up having the content user pay more?
No, not necessarily.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:54 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Not if it risks effecting Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc., I wouldn't think.
They are the content
ISPs are the gateway to content and are about to hold it hostage if they want too.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:56 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:OK, and that's fine if you think that, but I'm not going to trust that it won't happen, when it already did
No, not necessarily.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:56 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
ISPs are the gateway to content and are about to hold it hostage if they want too.
Hence, my belief that this is where the actual fight will lie, if anyone wants to make it one.
At the end of the day, I can't see how it would be in either's interests to hold the actual consumers hostage.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:57 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The consumer is going to pay either way
yet you support higher corporate taxes.
you literally are the definition of an imbecile,
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:57 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Its the internet. Its needed in this day and age to do anything. You cant really live without it
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:58 pm to Greace
Who "needs" who more?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:59 pm to Y.A. Tittle
You will pay them because they are going to be the only people who provide internet.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 3:59 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Isn't the big battle here more likely between ISPs and the big internet sites, that will work itself out in the wash, so to speak?
The agreements have been made between the Big Six. It will be the consumer and independent thought on the internet at large that will be destroyed.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:00 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
The agreements have been made between the Big Six. It will be the consumer and independent thought on the internet at large that will be destroyed.
I don't know what this means.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:02 pm to CptBengal
quote:
yet you support higher corporate taxes.
proof
I have never said such thing
quote:
you literally are the definition of an imbecile,
You need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:04 pm to Y.A. Tittle
I think hes basically saying you will lose "access" to sites that think outside of the box. Or that goes against what the companies support.
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:06 pm to Yak
quote:
Don't you think that would ultimately end up having the content user pay more?
Define more? What I mean is how much? Do you expect that absent NN ISPs will make streaming services $20/m, $100/m, $1000m what? Did you expect Netflix to be $9.99 forever? Also if more and more people start streaming and it uses more bandwidth who pays for that?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:07 pm to Greace
quote:
I think hes basically saying you will lose "access" to sites that think outside of the box. Or that goes against what the companies support.
I guess that's a potential concern, but on its face it seems like more trouble for them than it would be worth. What percentage of overall bandwidth are the "outside the box" sites collectively taking up? I mean, you think they are just going to go this route out of spite?
Posted on 12/14/17 at 4:08 pm to Y.A. Tittle
They have no reason to support them. Why support something that goes against their own interest
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News