- 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: Where do you stand on net neutrality?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:31 am to DeoreDX
Posted on 11/21/17 at 11:31 am to DeoreDX
quote:Let's say your power company (let's go with Entergy) could monitor what appliances you were powering with "their" electricity. Entergy brings to market their own line of appliances that can use the electricity that Entergy delivers for free! Refrigerators, A/C, light bulbs, everything. You could basically use electricity for free if you buy everything from Entergy. Efficiency, innovation, nothing else matters anymore.. you just can't beat the free cost of operation. Is this an abuse of power?
I also feel that companies should be able to take advantage of their synergies when providing content and service. So lets say a service provider owns a content provider. All data streamed from the content provider doesn't count towards your data limit. I'm perfectly fine with that.
quote:Why not? This is a direct contradiction to your previous statement that you are fine with. Data caps are simply throttling by a different name... it just makes the act of throttling an act of the user rather than the ISP.
But, I don't believe the companies should be able to artificially throttle content delivery from competing services.
quote:Here you are asking what happens if the ISP oversells their network by too much. Logic dictates that it's fricking bullshite that ISPs are allowed to sell services that they can't provide, doesn't it?
But what if the demands of using content provider B puts a strain on the network so if you don't throttle service from content B it negatively effects all of the ISP's customers? To get service to the customers from content provider B now the ISP has to do a lot of network upgrades to keep all of the ISP's customers working properly.
quote:Again, logic dictates that any company in any industry should probably make sure they can provide a service before selling it.
Who pays for the upgrade in the infrastructure?
quote:Absolutely not. If the ISP has oversold their capacity by too large a margin, all CUSTOMERS (not content providers, as they have done no wrong) should be throttled equally, as they all should direct their anger at the source of the poor service: the ISP.
Are we OK with the ISP throttling service to content provider B to keep the larger majority of their users working properly?
quote:The same is true of video delivered via streaming. Netflix pays their ISP bills just like we do.
When NetFlix delivered DVDs by mail the cost of delivering content was included in the subscription fee to NetFlix.
quote:The content provider isn't demanding that, the ISP's customers are demanding that. Is it too much for a customer to ask their ISP to deliver the services they paid for?
So if delivery of their content is now done via ISP instead of mail why should the content provider be able to demand that the ISPs bear all the cost and stresses in the service of delivering their content?
quote:No, Net Neutrality says that the ISP should pay for upgrades necessary to deliver the services that they have charged their customers for. Actually, just plain old common sense dictates this. Net Neutrality does have a lot in common with common sense, though.
So it comes down to which consumers should pay for the infrastructure upgrade necessary to deliver the content. Net Neutrality would say that all of the ISPs consumers should bear the cost of the infrastructure upgrades regardless of whether or not you use content provider B.
quote:Exactly right. What's the difference if I'm streaming a movie or downloading a thousand webpages per hour? The average data use is about the same, and it's well below the speed that I have paid for. I'll tell you the difference: streaming video competes with the ISP's other services, and they don't like that.
Does the ISP charge users of that service a extra charge? (No says Net Neutrality!).
quote:NN doesn't "forbid" a content provider from helping with the costs. But, again, common sense and logic says that if the content provider pays their ISP for service and the customer pays their ISP for service, why have so many people been convinced that an extra service fee is required, and seemingly ONLY when the content being delivered competes with the ISP's other services?
Or does the content provider help pay the delivery costs of delivering their service? (No says Net Neutrality!).
quote:It's really not complicated at all. It only seems complicated because ISPs and their supporters have muddied the waters.
The conversation of net neutrality is a little more complicated than what most people make it out to be.
Your ISP will gladly hook up your neighbor with internet service, and then blame that neighbor and Netflix when their network gets congested. Well son of a bitch, if your ISP can't provide you with the service you've paid for, why in the frick are they allowed to collect money from even more customers that they can't provide the service to? How can so many people fall for this bullshite story the ISPs are feeding you?
0
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:14 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Well we're getting pretty close (if not there already) that the internet is pretty necessary to living a normal life so yea, you're pretty much forced to deal with these companies if you want access to the internet.
Um.
The fact that it's companIES means you aren't forced to deal with any one of them. There is no monopoly.
Government has a monopoly of force, and once they get involved in something it is extremely difficult to get them out.
quote:
You've yet to provide a single decent argument against retaining our net neutrality rules.
I give you every government abuse of power that has ever happened, especially those that stem from programs and agencies that were sold as a means for citizen's protection and safety. There are countless examples. Take your pick.
Honest question… who do you think comes up with the government rules and regulations?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 12:22 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
The fact that it's companIES means you aren't forced to deal with any one of them. There is no monopoly.
You can't just drive down to the ISP store and buy an internet.
quote:Do you not understand that government INaction is just as forceful as government action?
Government has a monopoly of force, and once they get involved in something it is extremely difficult to get them out.
Why aren't you up in arms about all the other rules and laws that we all abide by? Government implemented and enforces them, right? I wonder how bad things will have to get before the anti-NN crowd realizes they have fricked up.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:09 pm to Korkstand
quote:
quote:
The fact that it's companIES means you aren't forced to deal with any one of them. There is no monopoly.
You can't just drive down to the ISP store and buy an internet.
You don't even need to drive. They come to you.
And yes, there are stores if you really want to drive to them.
quote:
Do you not understand that government INaction is just as forceful as government action?
Again, why is government required to act?
quote:
Why aren't you up in arms about all the other rules and laws that we all abide by? Government implemented and enforces them, right?
I am and do.
The VAST majority of government regulation is in place due to lobbying done by the very companies you are so scared of… to stifle competition and bury smaller competitors that may threaten market share.
Why would this be any different?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:11 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
The fact that it's companIES means you aren't forced to deal with any one of them. There is no monopoly.
Oh so you're just completely ignorant of the situation and out of your depth on this topic. I'll leave you be.
quote:
The VAST majority of government regulation is in place due to lobbying done by the very companies you are so scared of… to stifle competition and bury smaller competitors that may threaten market share.
But you're in support of removing NN...just like the companies want...
You have no idea what you're even arguing baw.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:19 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
I give you every government abuse of power that has ever happened, especially those that stem from programs and agencies that were sold as a means for citizen's protection and safety.
People fail to realize that the root of what got us into this whole mess with internet service providers and their monopolies across the country was government regulation and oversight. This was done by the little boys at the local level. Now we want to give this power to the federal level.
What happens when the FCC is bought and paid for by ATT and Verizon then they split the country in half by population saying that only ATT can provide service here and only Verizon can provide service here????
We the people can't do anything to get rid of that once it is in place.
I realize that is a fear mongering example....but it's basically the same as those stupid flyer pictures that you guys get from reddit.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:25 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
You don't even need to drive. They come to you.
And yes, there are stores if you really want to drive to them.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:28 pm to LSU316
quote:
What happens when the FCC is bought and paid for by ATT and Verizon then they split the country in half by population saying that only ATT can provide service here and only Verizon can provide service here????
The irony is that the current FCC chair is already bought and paid for by Verizon. You realize that right?
Oh and what happens when ATT and Verizon decide to remove all access to opposing political views? Because removing NN gives them that power.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:37 pm to LSU316
quote:
People fail to realize that the root of what got us into this whole mess with internet service providers and their monopolies across the country was government regulation and oversight. This was done by the little boys at the local level. Now we want to give this power to the federal level.
DING DING DING DING DING DING
we have a winner.
quote:
We the people can't do anything to get rid of that once it is in place.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 1:54 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Oh so you're just completely ignorant of the situation and out of your depth on this topic. I'll leave you be
This statement shows not only your ignorance, but also your unwillingness to view the bigger picture or anything that threatens your idea.
quote:
But you're in support of removing NN...just like the companies want...
Net Neutrality isn't the issue here.
In order to ensure that you FEEL like you have a free and open internet and make sure no big entities get to have control over it, you want to make sure that one big entity(controlled by those other entities) has control over it.
It is a purely emotional reaction to a "problem" hyped by the people who actually want control, under the guise of keeping it free.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:10 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
It is a purely emotional reaction to a "problem" hyped by the people who actually want control, under the guise of keeping it free.
Just so we're clear, you realize your stated position on this issue is aligned with those big companies and the federal government right?
You're acting like these two sides are split but they are anything but.
Why do you agree with the FCC's position? They are the government right? Why do you trust their opinion? Why are you aligned with Verizon, Comcast, ATT etc? Do you trust them when they say removing NN will increase access and competition? Why?
You're being played like a fiddle. The government is "reducing" their power and the largest corporations on earth are inviting increased competition out of the goodness of their hearts, right?
If there was ever a time when "I'm against anything group X is for" this is it.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:30 pm to SoulGlo
quote:Yes, a defining characteristic of a utility, but for some reason anti-NN folks do not want to classify ISPs as such.
You don't even need to drive. They come to you.
quote:Because inaction against anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior is not acceptable to some of us.
Again, why is government required to act?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:33 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
The irony is that the current FCC chair is already bought and paid for by Verizon. You realize that right?
Oh and what happens when ATT and Verizon decide to remove all access to opposing political views? Because removing NN gives them that power.
So finally somebody sees the light that we are fighting a lose lose battle here for the consumer.
We don't win either way with Net Neutrality. We are fighting the wrong battle here. There are people out there that realize this.....but this board is sorely lacking on them.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:36 pm to LSU316
Please enlighten us.
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:42 pm to JohnnyKilroy
We need to focus on complete and utter de-regulation of the ISP industry. That starts and basically stops at the local level....make the backroom under the table deals between municipalities and any ISP illegal.
Also, remove the ability of any ISP to create any barrier of entry into the industry from any competitor. This is what has completely buried Google Fiber.
These aren't easy things to do....but I sure as hell know one thing Net Neutrality or the lack of it (by itself) won't do any of that.
But I guarantee you we won't do that....we are the same society that for years have allowed our legislators to be paid off by the electrical providers to keep in govt regulations that essentially tell a customer exactly which provider they have to use in both places even though multiple providers run on the same lines. Insanity....this certainly could happen for internet and who knows how long it will be that way....how long has it been now for electricity...30...40...50 year who knows.
Also, remove the ability of any ISP to create any barrier of entry into the industry from any competitor. This is what has completely buried Google Fiber.
These aren't easy things to do....but I sure as hell know one thing Net Neutrality or the lack of it (by itself) won't do any of that.
But I guarantee you we won't do that....we are the same society that for years have allowed our legislators to be paid off by the electrical providers to keep in govt regulations that essentially tell a customer exactly which provider they have to use in both places even though multiple providers run on the same lines. Insanity....this certainly could happen for internet and who knows how long it will be that way....how long has it been now for electricity...30...40...50 year who knows.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:55 pm to LSU316
quote:
But I guarantee you we won't do that...
I agree, so it would be much more intelligent and productive to focus on an issue that is actually in front of us instead of useless wishing we could go back in time and undo the previous bad shite.
quote:
We need to focus on complete and utter de-regulation of the ISP industry. That starts and basically stops at the local level....make the backroom under the table deals between municipalities and any ISP illegal.
Also, remove the ability of any ISP to create any barrier of entry into the industry from any competitor. This is what has completely buried Google Fiber.
These two paragraphs contradict each other.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:57 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
it would be much more intelligent and productive to focus on an issue that is actually in front of us instead of useless wishing we could go back in time and undo the previous bad shite.
In my opinion it is short sighted and very dangerous for the future.
I'm not 100% convinced that what the ISPs would do without Net Neutrality would be worse than would that would do with it. Like you said they already control the FCC 100%.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 2:58 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
your stated position on this issue is aligned with those big companies
Yep.
quote:
and the federal government right?
Im all for government NOT doing something we have not specifically charged them to do.
quote:
You're acting like these two sides are split but they are anything but.
Not at all.
Again, you fail to see the big picture. THIS FCC chair/administration scraps NN. The last one ASSUMED the power to do what they wanted.
My point is that the power we give to government(abdicating our own power) must be trusted in the hands of those you trust as well as those you don't. If I have a hammer but give it up to someone I trust, I have to also be prepared for whatever the next guy with that same hammer(and power to use it) may do.
quote:
Why do you agree with the FCC's position? They are the government right? Why do you trust their opinion?
Because this ruling scraps a ruling made by the previous admin that was terrible in the first place. Again, the FCC ASSUMED the power to do this. It was not legislated or anything like that. Unelected bureaucrats told us all they have power that we did not give them.
quote:
You're being played like a fiddle
Do you know who kicked up net neutrality and when?
I'm not the one being played.
I happen to be on the side of the ISPs for now because I am against them in the bigger fight.
This post was edited on 11/21/17 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 11/21/17 at 3:03 pm to LSU316
quote:
I'm not 100% convinced that what the ISPs would do without Net Neutrality would be worse that would that would do with it. Like you said they already control the FCC 100%.
So why do the isps want to do away with net neutrality? What is their motivation? You think they are doing it to be nice?
The current regulatory framework was put in place after repeated anti-consumer and anti-free market actions by ALL of the major telecoms. Why do you believe the public will be better off after removing these rules? Why do you trust the federal government's position on this issue?
It appears most don't understand that being anti-regulation aligns you WITH the federal government on this issue.
If you believe the government screws you every chance it gets, why are you taking the government's side on this?
Posted on 11/21/17 at 3:08 pm to SoulGlo
quote:
The fact that it's companIES means you aren't forced to deal with any one of them. There is no monopoly.
I have ONE ISP in my neighborhood.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News