Net Nuetrality

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

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:13 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So you 2 are flat out admitting that they built out a network with public money, but are arguing that it's wrong that the public have a say in how those lines are used because those lines belong to them?

It's just crazy how many hoops you have to jump through to defend breaking up net neutrality.


If there was public financing involved (which there shouldn't have been), the agreed upon rules should have been specified in the funding contract. They should not be added afterwards. It would then have been up to the ISP's to decide whether the funding was worth the extra regulation.


I am jumping through no hoops...everything I have posted regarding this topic is the same I post to any topic.

I am 100% for free markets.

Does that mean sometimes the consumer doesn't get what he/she wants? Absolutely.

So your answer is to play Captain Hindsight? How does that help?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:13 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
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?

???


I'll quickly try to respond to you and clw, but these big mergers are taking place or trying to due to the shift of consumers in entertainment. Peope are cutting cable and streaming on these media companies lines. They make most of their money off of this. With NN they can't prevent this and will eventually fail, but they are too big and important to fail. They will be bailed out. Anytime the government steps in like this, it fucks with the market. It was erong for the government to prop them up and foot the bill, but two wrongs doesn't make a right. I am kust against big government in business. It's almost always terrible.

I don't trust big companies. I don't trust big government. I do trust consumers in a free market.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:15 pm

Im posting from my phone, sorry for the brevity and errors.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:16 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So your answer is to play Captain Hindsight? How does that help?



I have given you my answer multiple times...you can call it what you want, I don't care.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:24 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:So your answer is to play Captain Hindsight? How does that help?



I have given you my answer multiple times...you can call it what you want, I don't care.

Your answer is they shouldn't have been allowed to get into this position as monopolies (which of course was sold as keeping government out of business at the time) but you don't have any ideas to fix the issue going forward outside of removing any sort of regulations from them and breaking them up in a particular way that wasn't like last time?

OK
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:28 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:Im posting from my phone, sorry for the brevity and errors.


let's be honest...your computer work isn't any better! :buttmoon:
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:29 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

I have given you my answer multiple times...you can call it what you want, I don't care.

Your answer is they shouldn't have been allowed to get into this position as monopolies (which of course was sold as keeping government out of business at the time) but you don't have any ideas to fix the issue going forward outside of removing any sort of regulations from them and breaking them up in a particular way that wasn't like last time?

OK



No that's not my position. But OK.

You and CSG seem the best at telling people what they think...I wouldn't want you to stop on my behalf...so carry on.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:35 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Your answer is they shouldn't have been allowed to get into this position as monopolies (which of course was sold as keeping government out of business at the time) but you don't have any ideas to fix the issue going forward outside of removing any sort of regulations from them and breaking them up in a particular way that wasn't like last time?

OK



No that's not my position. But OK.

You and CSG seem the best at telling people what they think...I wouldn't want you to stop on my behalf...so carry on.

You've yet to clarify a plan that does not include title II regulations, so I have to rely on what you've typed so far.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:41 pm

I THINK THE NET NEUTRALITY BILL SHOULD BE REPEALED


simple enough for you?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:47 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:???




As you have worked in private business...you very well know the answer to that. All businesses hate restrictions on how they can behave. I have no idea, nor does anyone else for that matter, how the ISPs will change their way of doing business if net neutrality is taken away. We have no idea if it will help create new businesses/technologies that can capitalize either on what the current law limits...or if they can exploit the future response of the current ISPs.




Why don't you answer the corollary to you own question --

What were the specific companies doing that warranted the creation of the law in the first place? Give me specifics as to what companies were doing what that justified government intrusion into the marketplace.


Glad to.

In 2005, a NC based ISP was ordered by the FCC to stop blocking a VOIP program that competed with their homegrown program.
In 2007 Comcast began blocking Bittorrent. The FCC eventually ordered them to stop. Comcast fought it in court and won because Title I was insufficient
in 2012 AT&T is asked by public interest groups to stop blocking facetime. AT&T relents in 2013.
in 2013, Verizon admits in court proceedings regarding the FCC's Open Internet order that the FCC's Open Internet rules are the only thing preventing it from charging websites from reaching Verizon subscribers. Verizon would win because Title I was insufficient.
in 2014, AT&T and T-Mobile both offer content providers the ability to pay to be exempted from Data caps.
Title II was passed in 2015 and has successfully withstood judicial scrutiny.

http://whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9324
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:50 pm

So you just don't care about creating an anti-competitive market that these media distributors that have transitioned into information services providers are aiming for? Then you're getting your wish and I guess we're done here.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:55 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:


As you have worked in private business...you very well know the answer to that. All businesses hate restrictions on how they can behave. I have no idea, nor does anyone else for that matter, how the ISPs will change their way of doing business if net neutrality is taken away. We have no idea if it will help create new businesses/technologies that can capitalize either on what the current law limits...or if they can exploit the future response of the current ISPs.




Why don't you answer the corollary to you own question --

What were the specific companies doing that warranted the creation of the law in the first place? Give me specifics as to what companies were doing what that justified government intrusion into the marketplace.


Glad to.

In 2005, a NC based ISP was ordered by the FCC to stop blocking a VOIP program that competed with their homegrown program.
In 2007 Comcast began blocking Bittorrent. The FCC eventually ordered them to stop. Comcast fought it in court and won because Title I was insufficient
in 2012 AT&T is asked by public interest groups to stop blocking facetime. AT&T relents in 2013.
in 2013, Verizon admits in court proceedings regarding the FCC's Open Internet order that the FCC's Open Internet rules are the only thing preventing it from charging websites from reaching Verizon subscribers. Verizon would win because Title I was insufficient.
in 2014, AT&T and T-Mobile both offer content providers the ability to pay to be exempted from Data caps.
Title II was passed in 2015 and has successfully withstood judicial scrutiny.

http://whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline



Thank you.

Quickly reading those at face value I don't see any anti-competitive practices being used. ISP's are partnering with providers. I see no problem with that. Providers can pay to get better services from the ISP. I see no problem with that...provided the ISPs are offering those same deals to everyone which they must do under Robinson Pattman.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:56 pm

bucfanclw wrote:So you just don't care about creating an anti-competitive market that these media distributors that have transitioned into information services providers are aiming for? Then you're getting your wish and I guess we're done here.



I have said MANY times, I do think the government has failed us all at breaking up monopolistic companies and practices. I specifically said, if public money was used in building IT infrastructure, it shouldn't have been...because that public money was actually helping create the monopoly that could exploit the lack of competition....but you called that Captain Hindsight.

Net neutrality however, has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices. If Verizon charges $10 more for Netflix users how does that help eliminate their competition? It doesn't. If they partner with other content providers to give them better speed, how does that create entry barriers for other infrastructure companies to compete with Verizon? It doesn't.

As such, there is nothing anti-competitive about it.


Will customer bills go up if net neutrality is revoked? Most probably. But there is nothing anti-competitive about it.

Now, if Verizon, ATT and the other ISP conspire to set prices, that would be another story. But I see no evidence of that.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:07 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Glad to.

In 2005, a NC based ISP was ordered by the FCC to stop blocking a VOIP program that competed with their homegrown program.
In 2007 Comcast began blocking Bittorrent. The FCC eventually ordered them to stop. Comcast fought it in court and won because Title I was insufficient
in 2012 AT&T is asked by public interest groups to stop blocking facetime. AT&T relents in 2013.
in 2013, Verizon admits in court proceedings regarding the FCC's Open Internet order that the FCC's Open Internet rules are the only thing preventing it from charging websites from reaching Verizon subscribers. Verizon would win because Title I was insufficient.
in 2014, AT&T and T-Mobile both offer content providers the ability to pay to be exempted from Data caps.
Title II was passed in 2015 and has successfully withstood judicial scrutiny.

http://whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline



Thank you.

Quickly reading those at face value I don't see any anti-competitive practices being used. ISP's are partnering with providers. I see no problem with that. Providers can pay to get better services from the ISP. I see no problem with that...provided the ISPs are offering those same deals to everyone which they must do under Robinson Pattman.

It's not a partnership. It's gatekeeping.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9324
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:10 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:It's not a partnership. It's gatekeeping.



That doesn't matter IMO. Call it what you want.

Walmart isn't forced which brands or products to carry. They can carry whatever they want and they can set whatever prices they want on different brands.

Again, as long say Verizon offers the same discounts/packages/etc to all content providers I don't see any problem with it.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:26 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:It's not a partnership. It's gatekeeping.



That doesn't matter IMO. Call it what you want.

Walmart isn't forced which brands or products to carry. They can carry whatever they want and they can set whatever prices they want on different brands.

Again, as long say Verizon offers the same discounts/packages/etc to all content providers I don't see any problem with it.

What you're saying is that ISP's should not only be able to charge for access (not in contention here) but they should also be able to charge for having content to be accessed.

This goes back to our Granny discussion yesterday.

Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.


Like I said before, the top 3 ISP's provide 70% of internet traffic. Which is why I said this:

Mountaineer Buc wrote:What you'd have is a cartel with monopolistic type control.


You said you didn't disagree, and advocated for these entities to be broken up, a move that I would enthusiastically support.

Is this the plan? Get the government out of regulating these guys away from monopolistic control and allow them to exert that control in order to justify breaking them up? Mind you, the only place where this is even being entertained is on this forum. To my knowledge, nobody in DC is even considering it outside of blocking mergers.

So since that is off the table for now, would it be okay if we just go ahead and leave the rules in place to protect consumers and content providers and deal with the anti-trust aspect of this later?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 9324
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 507 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:40 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:What you're saying is that ISP's should not only be able to charge for access (not in contention here) but they should also be able to charge for having content to be accessed.


Yes, I see no problem with that. Both the end consumer and the provider are using the ISPs services.


Mountaineer Buc wrote:This goes back to our Granny discussion yesterday.

Mountaineer Buc wrote: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.


A few things:

1.) As far as I have seen, ISPs won't be blocking access to all search engines or sites in general...they will just be prioritizing some.

2.) I don't think your analogy is a great one. I see it more like going to Disney....you pay a standard fee to get into the park...if you want premium service (the fast pass or whatever it is called) you pay more. I have no issue with that.


Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Like I said before, the top 3 ISP's provide 70% of internet traffic. Which is why I said this:

Mountaineer Buc wrote:What you'd have is a cartel with monopolistic type control.


You said you didn't disagree, and advocated for these entities to be broken up, a move that I would enthusiastically support.

Is this the plan? Get the government out of regulating these guys away from monopolistic control and allow them to exert that control in order to justify breaking them up? Mind you, the only place where this is even being entertained is on this forum. To my knowledge, nobody in DC is even considering it outside of blocking mergers.

So since that is off the table for now, would it be okay if we just go ahead and leave the rules in place to protect consumers and content providers and deal with the anti-trust aspect of this later?




I think we need to see the breakdown of the 70% to have any more detailed discussion here. If everyone had access to all choices and the best 3 accounted for 70% I would have no issue with it. But it seems that's not the case here...part of the reason those 3 have 70% of the market is because the government granted them monopolies in certain geographic regions.




Again, I think the net neutrality issue is 100% orthogonal to the anti-competitive issue (or close to it). One can't fix the other.

Anti-competition is about creating entry barriers to limit future competition.

Net neutrality isn't about that IMO.






And on a tangent, let's not pretend that only "Big Business" is only on the Removal side of net neutrality. Two of the largest companies in the world -- Facebook and Google -- are on the support side. And they aren't on that side out of the goodness of their heart. They are there because they get free access to something that isn't theirs. As soon as it's no longer free for them....and they are charged as incredibly heavy "users" their profits will dwindle. It is those dwindling profits they are concerned about...not me and you.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:45 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Again, as long say Verizon offers the same discounts/packages/etc to all content providers I don't see any problem with it.

And that would enforceable how, exactly?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:49 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:Again, as long say Verizon offers the same discounts/packages/etc to all content providers I don't see any problem with it.

And that would enforceable how, exactly?



The same laws that say if I walk into Walmart and buy a candy bar for $1.25, then you walk in, Walmart has to:

1.) Sell you the candy bar
2.) Charge you the same price as me


Most of it falls under Robinson Pattman
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:04 pm

People on this board defend the rights of nazis to run people over and senate candidates diddling little girls. And you're surprised they don't give a **** about your internet service?

You guys need a drink.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4203
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:14 pm

NYBF wrote:People on this board defend the rights of nazis to run people over and senate candidates diddling little girls. And you're surprised they don't give a **** about your internet service?

You guys need a drink.


Hey Zarni, look at this. If we don't give a **** about their individual internet experiences we are grouped with pedophile and Nazi defenders. Who knew?

I gotta go update my Linkedin.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2761
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:17 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
NYBF wrote:People on this board defend the rights of nazis to run people over and senate candidates diddling little girls. And you're surprised they don't give a **** about your internet service?

You guys need a drink.


Hey Zarni, look at this. If we don't give a **** about their individual internet experiences we are grouped with pedophile and Nazi defenders. Who knew?

I gotta go update my Linkedin.



He also forgot we support mass murderers who use guns to kill, we want to destroy the environment and we want to chain up the LGBTQ community.

He's slacking.



Make sure you add those to LinkedIn too...I'll endorse them for you!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:21 pm

and the poor!! How could I forget about the poor!!

we want to A Modest Proposal them and their kids
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:11 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:And that would enforceable how, exactly?



The same laws that say if I walk into Walmart and buy a candy bar for $1.25, then you walk in, Walmart has to:

1.) Sell you the candy bar
2.) Charge you the same price as me


Most of it falls under Robinson Pattman

Except there inherent flaws to the way RP is enforced that would make a reliance on that unworkable. There's a reason it hasn't been enforced in decades. It would put the onus on the content providers to prove they were told they needed to pay a different price in negotiations than others, to which an ISP could simply say "there was no transaction so there is no recourse" and walk off without penalty until said provider coughed up the money. Aside from that aspect, the ISP could simply say this provider uses different parts of our network and that's why we charge them more which reverts right back to the core argument for net neutrality: bytes are bytes regardless of their origin.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:53 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Except there inherent flaws to the way RP is enforced that would make a reliance on that unworkable. There's a reason it hasn't been enforced in decades. It would put the onus on the content providers to prove they were told they needed to pay a different price in negotiations than others, to which an ISP could simply say "there was no transaction so there is no recourse" and walk off without penalty until said provider coughed up the money. Aside from that aspect, the ISP could simply say this provider uses different parts of our network and that's why we charge them more which reverts right back to the core argument for net neutrality: bytes are bytes regardless of their origin.


Yes, that is how our court system works...a person or company is presumed innocent. It is the accuser's job to prove guilt.

For your last point...that is correct, one of the allowances for charging different prices under Robinson Patman is that some customers cost considerably more to serve....as such firms can charge them more. If the ISP has more costly customers, then they are rightfully allowed to charge them more. If the customers think they are being unfairly charged more, they can sue. If I recall, Apple users did this a while back because they found that they were being quoted higher prices than PC users were on some products when they were purchasing on-line That is what laws are for. If someone breaks them, they should be punished. As far as I know there are only two other allowances -- the first is price discounts for quantity (which really is the same as lower cost to serve customers who buy in bulk) and the second is when a firm lowers their price when they are negotiating in good faith -- which is basically why if I go to a Ford Dealer and buy an F-150, and you go buy the same exact one, we will likely pay different prices because one of us (cough, cough) will be a better negotiator than the other.


There have been plenty of price fixing lawsuits that have been applied over the years...just as there have been plenty of discrimination lawsuits when a company refuses to do business with others. They might not directly reference Robinson Patman but they have gone through the courts. I worked in industrial purchasing as a supply chain manager before i went back to school to eventually teach. my company wasn't even that big ... my purchasing budget was only about $500M per year....which is like pennies to multinationals. It wasn't difficult for me to find out what my suppliers were charging other customers.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 175 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:05 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Except there inherent flaws to the way RP is enforced that would make a reliance on that unworkable. There's a reason it hasn't been enforced in decades. It would put the onus on the content providers to prove they were told they needed to pay a different price in negotiations than others, to which an ISP could simply say "there was no transaction so there is no recourse" and walk off without penalty until said provider coughed up the money. Aside from that aspect, the ISP could simply say this provider uses different parts of our network and that's why we charge them more which reverts right back to the core argument for net neutrality: bytes are bytes regardless of their origin.


Yes, that is how our court system works...a person or company is presumed innocent. It is the accuser's job to prove guilt.

For your last point...that is correct, one of the allowances for charging different prices under Robinson Patman is that some customers cost considerably more to serve....as such firms can charge them more. If the ISP has more costly customers, then they are rightfully allowed to charge them more. If the customers think they are being unfairly charged more, they can sue. If I recall, Apple users did this a while back because they found that they were being quoted higher prices than PC users were on some products when they were purchasing on-line That is what laws are for. If someone breaks them, they should be punished. As far as I know there are only two other allowances -- the first is price discounts for quantity (which really is the same as lower cost to serve customers who buy in bulk) and the second is when a firm lowers their price when they are negotiating in good faith -- which is basically why if I go to a Ford Dealer and buy an F-150, and you go buy the same exact one, we will likely pay different prices because one of us (cough, cough) will be a better negotiator than the other.


There have been plenty of price fixing lawsuits that have been applied over the years...just as there have been plenty of discrimination lawsuits when a company refuses to do business with others. They might not directly reference Robinson Patman but they have gone through the courts. I worked in industrial purchasing as a supply chain manager before i went back to school to eventually teach. my company wasn't even that big ... my purchasing budget was only about $500M per year....which is like pennies to multinationals. It wasn't difficult for me to find out what my suppliers were charging other customers.

That's a pretty nice wall of text to make absolutely no salient point with regards to the issue at hand. Congrats.

Let's use your truck analogy. During the negotiation, let's say the sales guy asks you if you plan on driving to Oklahoma. You, realizing your significant other (or whatever it is you Texans call your cattle) is in Oklahoma, answer in the affirmative. They tell you that Ford charges an additional $1500 for trucks that go to Oklahoma. Same truck, same equipment, driving the same miles, but because of WHERE you're going, you get charged more. "Well", you think, "I'll just go get another American truck" only to find out Chevy has a $1700 Texas charge and Dodge is still waiting for clearance from Ford and Chevy before they're allowed to sell to that area.

Now under price fixing legislation, that's perfectly legal because they charge all the people in that market the same, but since I choose not to go to those backwards states unless I'm on a layover, I dont have to worry about those fees and pay less than you.

So like a good little consumer you're just going to pay those additional fees even though there's no particular reason that Oklahoma miles driven are any different than Texas miles driven, right?
Last edited by bucfanclw on Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 135 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:15 am

Suddenly you realize that you forgot to buy the radio ad-on
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 6407
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 223 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Pirate Life » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:10 am

Problem with some of the examples used to say the repeal of net neutrality is giving ISPs the same sort of business model as Wal-Mart et al is that the internet isn't a retail business or a service business - it's more akin to a utility these days in how the majority of us are able to access it on a regular basis.

The vast majority of homes in the US don't have a choice in their internet provider. Unlike the Wal-Mart example, if I don't like Wal-Mart's service, I can pop over to Target rather easily. If I don't like comcast, it's not so simple for me to change to another ISP outside of moving or using less capable methods to connect to the internet. To use the Wal-mart example, if I didn't like Wal-mart's service, then my options are the Dollar store or the gas station convenience store for my shopping needs.

If the removal of net neutrality also removes the rights for ISPs to exclusively service entire zip codes, then sure that's great. We will see actual competition then. But if it's repealed and I can't immediately contact another provider for my home, then it's neither a free market or consumer friendly.
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:24 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
If the providers offer awful services others will spring up

If not then you have to do without



http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... -sabotage/
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4203
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby PrimeMinister » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:18 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:
You can't drop Spectrum/Time Warner in my neighborhood because Spectrum/Time Warner is your only option that isn't some sort of Satellite option or dial up (And those aren't options).

You're acting like cable companies weren't already trying to go down this road prior to the initial net neutrality push. They were starting to open those doors (eg Comcast/Netflix) which is WHY the push for net neutrality became a thing.

Look, you don't want to side with companies like facebook and google because your news sources tell you those companies are evil liberal dens. But, that means you're siding with what Time Warner and Comcast want. You think Time Warner and Comcast are pushing as hard as they are because they want what's good for the consumer? You sound as naive as some hippy retard trying to sell me on the benefits of essential oils.


I've never claimed they are looking out for anyine but themselves. They care about profit and aren't going to completely **** on the customer base. They would lose their bsuiness.

I don't believe there is only 1 internet option where you live. We've been over this. Provide your location and we can prove it.

If this was just about money, why wouldn't they just raise their prices? You claim there are no other choices, right? They aren't because it's not true. They would lose business.


You keep saying this, but those who live in apartments and some dorms often have one available option for internet.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 162 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests