Net Nuetrality

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:06 pm

This is escalating quickly
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:This is escalating quickly

That caught me by surprise. A lot of capital letters means I'm onto something.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:12 pm

If I was asked to bet whether someone would be called a piece of **** in this thread I would have said no ... and I would have been wrong
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:19 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:You guys are nuts.

You sound nuts, man. You are usually more rational than this.

There's going to be throttling and paywalls.

Tell me this. If there's nothing to fear, if I am being irrational and this is much ado about nothing, then why is it necessary to do away with net neutrality?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:18 am

I didn't say you had nothing to fear. There will be throttling. It's the goal for these large, entertainment based ISPs in attempts to kill their competitors stealing business on their infrastructure, but what you and Phantom are proposing is a crazy extreme. I get it if you are campaigning support, but it's not realistic. If these comapnies start this, they would lose customers. It's the same reason they arent charging $500 per month for 50mbps, because people would go elsewhere.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:05 am

Meanwhile, the last time Title II was put into effect was to cover automatic roaming for wireless carriers in 2007. Agreements between carriers allowed for network sharing at reasonable rates meaning the consumer was able to travel to other parts of the country without crazy bills even if they used a smaller carrier. Then consolidation of networks hit its stride (sound familiar?) and the smaller carriers couldn't compete because the big guys hiked up the rates to choke out competitors. Title II required that carriers must share automatic roaming at reasonable rates, as well as implementing rules for rural call completion, tracking service outages, and reliable 911 functionality.

Those rules were put into effect and caused almost no financial hardship to the carriers (much like cable owners have candidly admitted) and the net result was more investment into networks and a more competitive environment. Title II for cable would have the same effect as the rules would change regarding things like costs for utility pole access to spur network growth and development of higher bandwidth fiber systems (ask Google what has been slowing them down) that would create a better product for consumers and increased competition. Ending net neutrality is the most anti-competition stance you can take because it allows the biggest carriers to set all the rules and prices to keep competition out.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:26 am

bucfanclw wrote:Meanwhile, the last time Title II was put into effect was to cover automatic roaming for wireless carriers in 2007. Agreements between carriers allowed for network sharing at reasonable rates meaning the consumer was able to travel to other parts of the country without crazy bills even if they used a smaller carrier. Then consolidation of networks hit its stride (sound familiar?) and the smaller carriers couldn't compete because the big guys hiked up the rates to choke out competitors. Title II required that carriers must share automatic roaming at reasonable rates, as well as implementing rules for rural call completion, tracking service outages, and reliable 911 functionality.

Those rules were put into effect and caused almost no financial hardship to the carriers (much like cable owners have candidly admitted) and the net result was more investment into networks and a more competitive environment. Title II for cable would have the same effect as the rules would change regarding things like costs for utility pole access to spur network growth and development of higher bandwidth fiber systems (ask Google what has been slowing them down) that would create a better product for consumers and increased competition. Ending net neutrality is the most anti-competition stance you can take because it allows the biggest carriers to set all the rules and prices to keep competition out.


Good post.

I disagree that ending net neutrality is anti-competition for ISPs, it's more about the competition in entertainment mediums, but I'll be back later to articulate on this more.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:38 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:They CAN'T.

You deregulate the internet and that's exactly what will happen. This will absolutely stifle competition on the internet.

You're going to get the internet they decide you should get. Amazon has the money, they pay the providers so Amazon is what you get if you want to shop online.

Startups? How much money you got?

Are you drunk?

They can raise the monthly price right now. They don't to keep customers. Why do you think everything is going to change like this? You think people wouldn't leave the major ISPs in mass if the did?

You sound like a gun owner who thinks any legislation is a path to take their guns. We didn't have net neutrality prior to 2015, this wasn't an issue. There is an alternate isp every single place in the US. Most places have 5 or 6. You don't have to abd won't get bullied by the big ISP. Calm down.

But the consumers already paid the ISP's for more infrastructure than what is in place. ISP's already didn't hold up their end of the bargain and now we're supposed to trust them to do what's right for the consumer? C'Mon, man!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ku ... 39394.html

And who are these smaller ISP's that we have the option of using? That's an honest question. The only 2 that I know who are available to me are Spectrum and Century Link. With all of the mergers...and lobbying to get the mergers passed through, I don't see any increase in competition coming soon.
I'm with MB here. I don't understand how this is a partisan issue and what is convincing people that we need to stand up for the poor ISP's to make more money from the people that they stole money from by not installing the infrastructure they we paid them to install.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:44 am

deltbucs wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:Are you drunk?

They can raise the monthly price right now. They don't to keep customers. Why do you think everything is going to change like this? You think people wouldn't leave the major ISPs in mass if the did?

You sound like a gun owner who thinks any legislation is a path to take their guns. We didn't have net neutrality prior to 2015, this wasn't an issue. There is an alternate isp every single place in the US. Most places have 5 or 6. You don't have to abd won't get bullied by the big ISP. Calm down.

But the consumers already paid the ISP's for more infrastructure than what is in place. ISP's already didn't hold up their end of the bargain and now we're supposed to trust them to do what's right for the consumer? C'Mon, man!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ku ... 39394.html

And who are these smaller ISP's that we have the option of using? That's an honest question. The only 2 that I know who are available to me are Spectrum and Century Link. With all of the mergers...and lobbying to get the mergers passed through, I don't see any increase in competition coming soon.
I'm with MB here. I don't understand how this is a partisan issue and what is convincing people that we need to stand up for the poor ISP's to make more money from the people that they stole money from by not installing the infrastructure they we paid them to install.


I never said they would do what's right for the consumer, they would do what is right for them, maximizing profits. This means not losing all of their consumers by making the internet outlandishly expensive or restrictive. What is your post code? I'd bet there is at least 3 or 4 where you are.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:18 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
deltbucs wrote:But the consumers already paid the ISP's for more infrastructure than what is in place. ISP's already didn't hold up their end of the bargain and now we're supposed to trust them to do what's right for the consumer? C'Mon, man!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-ku ... 39394.html

And who are these smaller ISP's that we have the option of using? That's an honest question. The only 2 that I know who are available to me are Spectrum and Century Link. With all of the mergers...and lobbying to get the mergers passed through, I don't see any increase in competition coming soon.
I'm with MB here. I don't understand how this is a partisan issue and what is convincing people that we need to stand up for the poor ISP's to make more money from the people that they stole money from by not installing the infrastructure they we paid them to install.


I never said they would do what's right for the consumer, they would do what is right for them, maximizing profits. This means not losing all of their consumers by making the internet outlandishly expensive or restrictive. What is your post code? I'd bet there is at least 3 or 4 where you are.

I used https://broadbandnow.com to search and there are 3 results, but only those 2 provide service to my address. I actually shopped around a few months ago when I cut the cable. Is there somewhere else I should be looking?
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:57 pm

Here's how you buy internet access in Spain and Portugal with no net neutrality:

Image
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:02 pm

while i can't speak to the specifics as the details aren't given to speed,etc....that actually seems like a reasonable thing...you pay for what you use.

this way the little old grandma sitting at home checking her AOL e-mail once a week doesn't have to subsidize the incredibly heavy users anymore
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:22 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:while i can't speak to the specifics as the details aren't given to speed,etc....that actually seems like a reasonable thing...you pay for what you use.

this way the little old grandma sitting at home checking her AOL e-mail once a week doesn't have to subsidize the incredibly heavy users anymore

Or Grandma could just buy a lower bandwidth plan... A heavy cell phone user back when people cared about minutes (the era before title II regs) would get on a plan that gave them more minutes, which was fair. The plan was structured around quantity of use, not content. People would have been irate if their phone couldn't call to make reservations at a restaurant because they didn't have the "dining" plan from their carrier.

Of course, title II encouraged more competitive buildup and newer tech which means even basic plans have unlimited minutes now, but that goes back to my point of how ending net neutrality is an anti-competition move.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:while i can't speak to the specifics as the details aren't given to speed,etc....that actually seems like a reasonable thing...you pay for what you use.

this way the little old grandma sitting at home checking her AOL e-mail once a week doesn't have to subsidize the incredibly heavy users anymore

She isn't subsidizing anyone. She's paying for access like everyone else does.

What happens when she wants to book a fulfill her lifelong dream of visiting Paris? She has to upgrade her internet package. So she does and searches "Paris vacation deals" on whichever search engine paid her provider the most money and her filtered results pump her to whichever travel site the provider lets her access meaning she pays whatever it tells her it costs.

She decides to shop around but every link she sees is a news story telling her that the site she just came from is the best doggone travel site in the whole wide world.

It'll be like walking into a shopping mall, but the anchor stores are the only ones you can walk into or even look in the window without paying more.

Which is what this is all about. Routing Granny's money where someone else decides it should go.




Would you like to know more?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:42 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Here's how you buy internet access in Spain and Portugal with no net neutrality:

Image


AY HOL UP




how do I pay for 4chan
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 163 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:46 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Here's how you buy internet access in Spain and Portugal with no net neutrality:

Image


AY HOL UP




how do I pay for 4chan

Probably depends on how much 4 chan pays your provider.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Rocker » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:47 pm

I’m with MB on this one.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:46 pm

Rocker wrote:I’m with MB on this one.

It doesn't draw on ideological lines.

This should be universal.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby StillCSG » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:56 pm

Here is the Basic reason why Net Neutrality is a good thing...

You enjoy Netflix? Good luck getting good speed for it on Comcast with Net Neutrality gone...Verison already did this once as a "test"

Wanna know why...Comcast owns the main competition (Hulu)

it will start out small...with an "incentive" "Hulu won't count against your data cap, But Netflix will use twice as much bandwidth."

Eventually you could be barred from Netflix on Comcast...and the kicker...as long as Comcast puts out a press release...it's legal
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 648 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Rocker » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:27 am

Reddit is going all out... so, we’ve got that.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Rocker » Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:28 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Rocker wrote:I’m with MB on this one.

It doesn't draw on ideological lines.

This should be universal.


Common sense and hard line ideology rarely share the same space, IMHO.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 2271
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:15 am

[quote="Rocker"]Reddit is going all out... so, we’ve got that.[/quote]
They are...but there's really nothing that can be done. Unless one of the Republican FCC voters switches his vote.
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 6263
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 219 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby deltbucs » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:21 am

Rocker wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It doesn't draw on ideological lines.

This should be universal.


Common sense and hard line ideology rarely share the same space, IMHO.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:19 am

Rocker wrote:Reddit is going all out... so, we’ve got that.

You should see it this morning.

Even The_Donald is waffling on the issue. They just can't take the final step and admit that they agree with the libtards on something.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:53 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Rocker wrote:Reddit is going all out... so, we’ve got that.

You should see it this morning.

Even The_Donald is waffling on the issue. They just can't take the final step and admit that they agree with the libtards on something.

I've done what I can by contacting my legislatures and voicing my disapproval of doing away with NN, but they typically don't give a **** what their constituents think anyway.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7620
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:08 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:It doesn't draw on ideological lines.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4044
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:19 am

NYBF wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It doesn't draw on ideological lines.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I cannot be held accountable for my posts when I am drunk.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:32 am

I don’t see why the issue wouldn’t fall fairly heavily on party lines. One side is basically saying this is a public good in which the government should play a heavy role in regulating private industry....the other side doesn’t like public good or govt interference


I see no inconsistency on the party lines. Now I see some inconsistency in some conservatives who want govt intervention because they think their lives will be better for it.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:35 am

Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t see why the issue wouldn’t fall fairly heavily on party lines. One side is basically saying this is a public good in which the government should play a heavy role in regulating private industry....the other side doesn’t like public good or govt interference


I see no inconsistency on the party lines. Now I see some inconsistency in some conservatives who want govt intervention because they think their lives will be better for it.

So you think the AT&T/Time Warner merger shouldn't be blocked? Isn't that government intervention?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:37 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:I don’t see why the issue wouldn’t fall fairly heavily on party lines. One side is basically saying this is a public good in which the government should play a heavy role in regulating private industry....the other side doesn’t like public good or govt interference


I see no inconsistency on the party lines. Now I see some inconsistency in some conservatives who want govt intervention because they think their lives will be better for it.

So you think the AT&T/Time Warner merger shouldn't be blocked? Isn't that government intervention?




I have gone on the record many times saying that merger should be blocked as well as many others that went through

Read Adam Smith and other free market folks...you will see that the government has a responsibility to block monopolies because when they form they are anti competitive


There is nothing in net neutrality as far as I can tell that is anti competitive in nature
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Buc2, Swashy, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests