Net Nuetrality

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

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:21 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:His post does seem quite mbd- ish

Exactly what I was thinking when the other thread was made. I had to consult my handbook...

Image
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:36 pm

Phantom Phenom wrote:I'll say this again you dumbfuck.

If you don't like it then tough ****

Get used to seeing this kind of thing show up on your favorite websites if NetNeutrality isn't preserved. Spread the word


two threads, zero "this kind of thing"

WHAT'S THIS KIND OF THING!?

Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby NYBF » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:40 pm

1 thanks = 1 neutrality
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 6455
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 200 times
Been thanked: 530 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:58 pm

I've been on the board on my phone until now thinking there was something that the mobile app wasn't showing.


Maybe only smartfucks can see said thing?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:31 pm

I don't think I want to see the thing.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:32 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Phantom Phenom wrote:I'll say this again you dumbfuck.

If you don't like it then tough ****

Get used to seeing this kind of thing show up on your favorite websites if NetNeutrality isn't preserved. Spread the word


two threads, zero "this kind of thing"

WHAT'S THIS KIND OF THING!?

Image




This is a great one...even for a master such as yourself!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 375 times
Been thanked: 302 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:03 pm

User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby PanteraCanes » Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:53 am

I've started seeing bright red banners at the top of some website/services that would probably eat up a lot of bandwidth. These are encouraging people to get involved in preserving the Net Neutrality. Maybe that is what he is talking about?
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:05 am

So how did we get along without net neutrality laws prior to 2015...a mere 2 years ago? Wouldn't competition help keep ISP's from exploiting the lack of these laws like, I assume, they did prior to 2015? It seems to me that all this is more, the sky is falling, alarmist propaganda than something we really need to be worrying about. I'm just asking as I don't know where I stand on this issue.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:02 am

Buc2 wrote:So how did we get along without net neutrality laws prior to 2015...a mere 2 years ago? Wouldn't competition help keep ISP's from exploiting the lack of these laws like, I assume, they did prior to 2015? It seems to me that all this is more, the sky is falling, alarmist propaganda than something we really need to be worrying about. I'm just asking as I don't know where I stand on this issue.


The cable companies weren't losing customers exponentially in 2015 to competitors utilizing their infrastructure. This wasn't really an issue then.

Also, at one point, companies like Netflix were paying tolls to ISPs, which diminished the issue.

As I said previously, if net neutrality is maintained, one or both of these things will end up happening.

1. The internet prices will rise, which the government will likely restrict due to them being natural monopolies of sorts.
2. The cable companies will fail and the government will bail them out.

This is the reason for all of the mergers for the cable companies, which the government has also been blocking thanks to Neflix's lobbying. The biggest portion of their profits are from their original platform, digital entertainment. They are losing a share of this to places like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that are so cheap because they pay 0 into infrastructure.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:14 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
Buc2 wrote:So how did we get along without net neutrality laws prior to 2015...a mere 2 years ago? Wouldn't competition help keep ISP's from exploiting the lack of these laws like, I assume, they did prior to 2015? It seems to me that all this is more, the sky is falling, alarmist propaganda than something we really need to be worrying about. I'm just asking as I don't know where I stand on this issue.


The cable companies weren't losing customers exponentially in 2015 to competitors utilizing their infrastructure. This wasn't really an issue then.

Also, at one point, companies like Netflix were paying tolls to ISPs, which diminished the issue.

As I said previously, if net neutrality is maintained, one or both of these things will end up happening.

1. The internet prices will rise, which the government will likely restrict due to them being natural monopolies of sorts.
2. The cable companies will fail and the government will bail them out.

This is the reason for all of the mergers for the cable companies, which the government has also been blocking thanks to Neflix's lobbying. The biggest portion of their profits are from their original platform, digital entertainment. They are losing a share of this to places like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that are so cheap because they pay 0 into infrastructure.

Based on the above, I would tend to lean in favor of repealing the net neutrality laws. Seems only fair to me that Netflix, Hulu, etc. should contribute to the infrastructure they are currently taking free advantage of. While the cost of those services would likely go up for the consumer, it would probably help keep costs from the major ISP's more competitive and palatable to consumers. Seems like an equitable trade-off to make things fairer to all involved in bringing quality entertainment to our homes.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby PanteraCanes » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:26 am

Buc2 wrote:Based on the above, I would tend to lean in favor of repealing the net neutrality laws. Seems only fair to me that Netflix, Hulu, etc. should contribute to the infrastructure they are currently taking free advantage of. While the cost of those services would likely go up for the consumer, it would probably help keep costs from the major ISP's more competitive and palatable to consumers. Seems like an equitable trade-off to make things fairer to all involved in bringing quality entertainment to our homes.



I assume they are currently paying for the infrastructure similar to how we pay for it. They would need to have massive costs for upload bandwidth that some provider(s) is charging them. Then we are paying for our bandwidth to download it. They would most likely have many servers to hold all their media. Probably different locations with redundancies in case one went down or had issues. So they still have their own infrastructure they need to pay for.

Now I don't know if these bandwidth prices are capped by the government. Possibly capped in terms of Net Neutrality. At the same time I don't know if their servers and the providers that allow them to upload are even with the country. So who ever is charging them could very well not be under the FCC regulations.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:28 am

ISPs don't need to be competitive. Most of their regional monopolies ensure that customers don't get much choice who their ISPs are. Probably won't change anytime soon


As for NN, most people don't seem to mind about Netflix/Hulu having to pay for the infrastructure they use. They're more worried that someone like comcast deciding they prefer Hulu to Netflix(or having the Google Pay fiasco again), and encouraging their customers to do the same(Most likely by throttling Netflix and having Hulu run faster). Also ISPs determining what sites you can use and more data caps. Many are also afraid of the boogeyman price tiers that would force you to pay more to even access certain sites.

It's not as doomsday as most are making it to be. Most realistic scenario is that NN disappears, and changes happen over a decade. Not like it will goes away, and the next day your ISP calls about its new prices
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:01 pm

Comcast owns NBC Universal. Let's say you live in a more rural area and don't have any other internet provider available in your area besides Comcast. If Comcast decided to give full speed to MSNBC for news, but throttle every conservative news site to the point that it's almost unusable, how would those of you that support ending net neutrality feel?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:05 pm

There is no place where there isn't another option, but in your make believe scenario, they spent to provide infrastructure, it's their right.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:20 pm

Go read how this all started. All comcast users were getting slower internet due to the rise of Netflix. They asked Netflix to chip in on bolstering their infrastructure. Netflix agreed, at first to just benefit them, but then grew sour over paying "tolls". These streaming services not only take away the cable companies largest earner in their cable packages, they cost money. Due to their infrastructure, they can't fail. At some point it's either going to be another government owned entity or we let the market fix itself and other forms of internet can develop and improve.

The cable companies would rather just charge the Netflix companies, but they can't force that, so in return the will throttle their bandwidth. Sucks for the average Joe potentially, but they should be able to make money on their invested infrastructure.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:27 pm

This is one of those topics that I frankly don't give a **** about any of the nuance involved with the arguments.

Leave the internet the way it is. I don't give a **** what's "right" for corporations. Do not. **** with. the internet. leave it the way it is. ISP's can get fucked by their own *****.

I don't know who's on which side of this, as I really haven't dug into either sides arguments (again, because I've already decided and will never change my mind, as ignorant as that sounds), so I apologize in advance if I am rude to any of you, but if you can't imagine the damage that will be caused by charging people "per sector of the internet", you're either: a) lacking an imagination, b) experiencing the internet like you're on some linear-railed Disney theme park, going from your AOL.com homepage to your MSN.com newspage to your Facebook feed; and you think anybody that does otherwise is some weirdo or c) you are a flat-out corporate shill

the internet belongs to the people. it is built on our collective experiences, as a species. it is not something to be partitioned off and curated. It is wild, it is uncontrolled, it is emergent, and it needs to stay that way for the good of humanity. mark it - NN may not get axed this time around. but I believe (((they))) see it as a "matter of time" thing, and once it happens, it will mark a turning point in history where things got significantly worse for everyday people
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:32 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
the internet belongs to the people. it is built on our collective experiences, as a species. it is not something to be partitioned off and curated. It is wild, it is uncontrolled, it is emergent, and it needs to stay that way for the good of humanity. mark it - NN may not get axed this time around. but I believe (((they))) see it as a "matter of time" thing, and once it happens, it will mark a turning point in history where things got significantly worse for everyday people


The internet belongs to the people, but unless you are saying the government should buy out ISPs/Cable companies, the lines belong to them. Initially these companies didn't want to take this to the consumer, they wanted to charge the streaming services, but can't enforce that. With net neutrality, internet prices will rise and when they can't rise anymore, they will get more and more gov assistance as the model continues to change. I know liberals are fine with that, but I'm not.

No one is threatening to change anything about the internet outside of throttling large streaming services until they pay their "toll". It's the same ridiculous argument that conservatives make with liberals wanting to take their guns after any discussion about gun control.

edit: This is a perfect example of how people are willing to abandon their normal ideologies if it negatively affects them. Not speaking to you, Corsair,CLW, MB or any of those guys, but there are so many so called "libertarians" or conservatives backing Net Neutrality who will fight to the death about smaller government intervention in Banks or the Auto industry the next day.
Last edited by uscbucsfan on Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:37 pm

Seems to me if Mcbeard wants the internet to be for the people and left alone, then it needs to go back to what it was prior to 2015... You know... in the Wild Wild West of the Internet days.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12308
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 997 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:55 pm

Buc2 wrote:Seems to me if Mcbeard wants the internet to be for the people and left alone, then it needs to go back to what it was prior to 2015... You know... in the Wild Wild West of the Internet days.


No, the 2015 rules helped preserve the "wild wild west" nature of the content on the internet, and that's all that matters to me. I don't give a **** about the tweaks to the market. That's not "limiting the wild wild west" nature of the internet to me, that's limiting the "wild wild west" nature of these rich fuckers speculating on the internet. There always have been and there always will be sensible rules that need to be put in place to preserve the authenticity and function of markets.

For instance, back in the literal "wild west", there were still "rules". Yes, you had your freedom to ride around on your horse and **** and get drunk and tend cattle, but you couldn't just walk into a bar and kill a man and take his **** because you felt like it. that was against the rule. but if there wasn't that rule (no murdering people), the there would be no reliable market, there would be no shops, no bars, because all of society would exist in a constant state of panic or suspicion. But because of this simple rule, that you can't murder (or rob) people with impunity, people were able to establish trust in eachother, and the system, and thus the market was able to evolve and function freely.

but only within a framework of rules.

sensible rules to maintain the *freedom* of interaction and content, is all I'm saying.



editing to clarify why murdering is bad for the economy
Last edited by beardmcdoug on Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Nano » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:10 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Seems to me if Mcbeard wants the internet to be for the people and left alone, then it needs to go back to what it was prior to 2015... You know... in the Wild Wild West of the Internet days.


For instance, back in the literal "wild west", there were still "rules". Yes, you had your freedom to ride around on your horse and **** and get drunk and tend cattle, but you couldn't just walk into a bar and kill a man and take his **** because you felt like it. that was against the rule. but if there wasn't that rule (no murdering people), you wouldn't have the *freedom* to go around riding your horse and getting drunk whenever, because you'd always be worrying about getting shot by people with impunity



Pfft, pretty sure I did just that in RDR
User avatar
Nano
 
Posts: 7934
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:30 pm
Location: Somewhere above Tampa
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 273 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:13 pm

Nano wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
For instance, back in the literal "wild west", there were still "rules". Yes, you had your freedom to ride around on your horse and **** and get drunk and tend cattle, but you couldn't just walk into a bar and kill a man and take his **** because you felt like it. that was against the rule. but if there wasn't that rule (no murdering people), you wouldn't have the *freedom* to go around riding your horse and getting drunk whenever, because you'd always be worrying about getting shot by people with impunity



Pfft, pretty sure I did just that in RDR


:lol: can't wait for RDR2
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 420 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby PanteraCanes » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:44 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
the internet belongs to the people. it is built on our collective experiences, as a species. it is not something to be partitioned off and curated. It is wild, it is uncontrolled, it is emergent, and it needs to stay that way for the good of humanity. mark it - NN may not get axed this time around. but I believe (((they))) see it as a "matter of time" thing, and once it happens, it will mark a turning point in history where things got significantly worse for everyday people


The internet belongs to the people, but unless you are saying the government should buy out ISPs/Cable companies, the lines belong to them. Initially these companies didn't want to take this to the consumer, they wanted to charge the streaming services, but can't enforce that. With net neutrality, internet prices will rise and when they can't rise anymore, they will get more and more gov assistance as the model continues to change. I know liberals are fine with that, but I'm not.

No one is threatening to change anything about the internet outside of throttling large streaming services until they pay their "toll". It's the same ridiculous argument that conservatives make with liberals wanting to take their guns after any discussion about gun control.

edit: This is a perfect example of how people are willing to abandon their normal ideologies if it negatively affects them. Not speaking to you, Corsair,CLW, MB or any of those guys, but there are so many so called "libertarians" or conservatives backing Net Neutrality who will fight to the death about smaller government intervention in Banks or the Auto industry the next day.



Isn't their (netflix, twitchTV, etc) toll what they pay to their own provider(s) for their own upload and download bandwidth? Most of it probably upload bandwidth. Then your toll is you paying for your bandwidth. It seems like its double dipping by the providers possibly to then throttle or want another toll at that point. They have paid for their access to the internet, you have paid for your access. I am sure your provider's price points were based on providing people with certain bandwidths but that all their customers would hardly use that bandwidth. Either way you were still paying the same if you used 0 or if you used it to its full extant for the entire month. People are just starting to use it more. Its probably gone from like 2% usage to 5-10% usage if that on average.

I believe it was Delta who also brought up an interesting point that the infrastructure these providers are using is on public land. If so they are most likely getting a deal of not having to buy or maintain that land. They may even daisy chain into your private land to get to your neighbors without paying you any kind of fee for the usage of your land. Though I don't know the details of this so I have no idea if they are paying a fair market rental rate to all government agencies and possibly private owners.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 85 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:56 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:I believe it was Delta who also brought up an interesting point that the infrastructure these providers are using is on public land. If so they are most likely getting a deal of not having to buy or maintain that land. They may even daisy chain into your private land to get to your neighbors without paying you any kind of fee for the usage of your land. Though I don't know the details of this so I have no idea if they are paying a fair market rental rate to all government agencies and possibly private owners.


bucfanclw wrote:Charter/Spectrum has the tap to most of my neighbors in my back yard. Twice now they've left the gate open letting my dogs run free when I let them out after work. I have complained to them, but I can't legally forbid them from accessing my property because they fall under the same easement rules as, say, water and sewage, even though they are claiming not to be a public utility.

This is what I had said in regards to that last part. This whole thing comes down to whether the infrastructure should be filed as if it's the utility (Title II), or if they're filed as a content provider (Title I). If they are not covered under Title II as a utility giving the FCC the ability to regulate them, then why should I not have the same right to forbid them access to my land as I do for, say, someone that works for Yelp?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby PrimeMinister » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:21 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:There is no place where there isn't another option, but in your make believe scenario, they spent to provide infrastructure, it's their right.


There are many places where only one ISP is available.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 9003
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:29 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:There is no place where there isn't another option, but in your make believe scenario, they spent to provide infrastructure, it's their right.


There are many places where only one ISP is available.

Name that place.

According to huesnet and other sources, that's not true in the US. Maybe only one fast source.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:13 pm

I'm actually a little surprised there are consumers lining up to side with letting big business **** them over.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:45 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:I'm actually a little surprised there are consumers lining up to side with letting big business **** them over.

Maybe it's the only action they can get.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby Caradoc » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:25 pm

mightyleemoon wrote:I'm actually a little surprised there are consumers lining up to side with letting big business **** them over.



This has nothing to do with consumers being "screwed" by big business.

NN is just a power grab by the government. The excuse was theoretical problems that had actually never occurred. It provides a nonexistent solution to in imaginary problem.
Caradoc
 
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 275 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: Net Nuetrality

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:56 pm

Caradoc wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:I'm actually a little surprised there are consumers lining up to side with letting big business **** them over.



This has nothing to do with consumers being "screwed" by big business.

NN is just a power grab by the government. The excuse was theoretical problems that had actually never occurred. It provides a nonexistent solution to in imaginary problem.

You actually believe that? Weird.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ken Carson, PanteraCanes and 16 guests