Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Net Neutrality 2017

Springfield

By Springfield
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

FanboyOf91

FanboyOf91

Posted
Posted

Conservative sites: FINALLY THE END OF THE OBAMA OVERREGULATION OF THE INTERNET ALL YOU WHINY LIBTARD CUCKS CAN SHUT THE F-

 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777500/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-republican-politics-whoops?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

Quote

It’s also worth noting that the first media businesses to feel the pain of paid prioritization schemes will likely be conservative sites. We live in an age of massive media mergers, and it’s going to be trivial for Comcast to prioritize MSNBC on its network, or extend that favor to Vox Media and BuzzFeed, companies in which it has taken significant investment. (Obvious disclosure: Comcast’s NBCU division is a minority investor in Vox Media, which owns The Verge.)

 

When the AT&T / Time Warner deal closes, it won’t take a second’s hesitation before CNN travels over AT&T’s network for free. Verizon owns The Huffington Post and TechCrunch and already operates a complicated accounting scheme that lets its Go90 video unit bypass data caps. It’ll be sites like The Daily Caller and Breitbart that suffer for their lack of corporate patronage. And 21st Century Fox just sold off its movie studios, leaving Fox News alone in a smaller company unattached to a wealthy network company to send its data along for free. This knife cuts both ways.

 

Conservative sites: ???????????????????

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted (edited)

There's one blog I read (Karl Denninger) by a "right-side" libertarian who used to run an ISP.  The analogy that he's been running with is: "Suppose someone built an attraction (like Disneyworld) in your city and it attracted tons of people who clogged up the roads, sewers, etc -- who should pay for upgrading of the streets, and other infrastructure to support that?"    Maybe not quite so directly --- I mean in this case you would say "the city would get a huge benefit and the increased taxes collected by such an attraction would result in improved infrastructure naturally." 

 

I guess his argument is that all of these streaming services that people expect to work like Netflix, Hulu, MLB, Xbox/PS4, etc. force the ISPs to increase their general infrastructure -- AND Net Neutrality doesn't allow the ISPs to charge the heavy users (as in 1/5th of all your traffic is Netflix) for the cost of providing that traffic.  So if you spend all of your bandwidth serving Netflix to people -- ISPs should come to Netflix and ask them to pay for the cost of provisioning that -- Netflix is getting a "free ride" because Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from charging them more.   

 

I can't wrap my head around the anti-Net Neutrality argument other than it's going to begin what I'll term "Internet Inequality".  I think I have a 10/1 plan, which really doesn't matter anymore... but I guess now I really will be able to shell out $20/month more for a guaranteed 3/1 plan or something (no?)?  And if you are too poor to pay the extra fee, than you get to deal with buffering and lower quality videos.  So long as the ISPs are transparent about it.   

 

I always thought Netflix should all you to straight download their items and store for offline viewing (I think they actually do that now). 

 

I absolutely think the Internet should remain as it is and I shouldn't have to pay extra if I want to use a P2P video app, or streaming service with constant bandwidth.

 

The CableCos didn't do anything foolish with their internet services even prior to 2015 -- throttling BitTorrent was a major no-no, and I think bandwidth caps were also an idea that got shot-down and doesn't occur anymore.  I don't know if we aren't over-reacting....  

 

Edited to add: And what I also find funny about someone like Denninger is that his position is that last mile and other local monopolistic practices is worse than Net Neutrality -- so the FCC / Federal Government should step in and allow other companies to come in and compete for Internet.  In a truly free market with "last mile" opening up we can see ISPs with different policies come in and crush the current telcos if they go down a way more restrictive route... but that's not what the **** ****ers in the government are doing, nor were they put there to do.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Fergasun
Edited to add
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I hope that we are over reacting as well Ferguson.  However the ISP’s don’t have a track record of playing nice prior to net neutrality.  Blocking VPN’s, throttling streaming, limiting the capabilities of devices, all been done prior to NN.

 

While that blood sucking libertarian has his point about Disneyland blocking up the streets, he fails to realize the boon to employment that an attraction would provide.  One would think a city would provide upgrades to accommodate a Disneyland.  So, in his example, extorting Netflix is seen as good because it will let the ISP upgrade its network... which they won’t.  How do I know they won’t?  Because they’ve been given non-compete clauses on the promise that they would offer fiber to all their clients in certain areas, by 2005.  They haven’t, big surprise there.

 

Plus, while they’re busy extorting Netflix, they will push their own streaming services and prevent new possible streaming services from entering the market, stifling innovation.  Because streaming HD video is so 2008 that it is a huge burden on all of our networks (it isn’t).

 

The Netflix cry is flat out bull****.

 

Thats all I’ve got for now.  Hope we are just over reacting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearrock

bearrock

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

As has been pointed out, if the ISP's aren't going to take advantage of this and nothing is going to change, why undo the net neutrality rules?

They aren't going to start blocking sites right away.  They'll offer premium speed to paying sites in the future and leave non premium sites stuck on obsolete speed and say we are not blocking any content, just offering perk to premium content providers.  And certain segment of the population will buy it cause, you know, party before country or logic or sanity, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

Fergasun, you're essentially arguing for toll roads over public roads.  Only in this instance toll roads can also decide which cars they'll allow, what music they can listen to, and what stores they're allowed to visit.  That doesn't benefit the public at all.  If everyone's prices have to go up, which ISPs are entirely free to do now, in order to let everyone go where they want the general public is better off.  Granting ISPs the right to charge more, indirectly, while providing exactly nothing and also gaining control over their customers activity?  That's bull****.  

 

We're better off with ISPs having a very strong motivation to increase capacity and speed.  We're worse if we give them more control of bandwidth so that they can push back upgrades and charge more at the same time.  Especially when you consider that compared to other nations we're not leading in low cost and internet speeds.  

 

Ending net nuetrality is a giant step backwards

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted

Resident libertarian here.  Net Neutrality was essential.  The cornerstone of the libertarian ideal is a free market controlled by the laws of supply and demand.  There is no free market for Internet in this country; ISPs have natural (and government-mandated) monopolies which means there is little to no competition and thus regulation is a necessary evil to prevent the corporations from running free.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

You won't see anything directly for a while.

 

They'll be busy hitting up Netflix, Amazon, Disney (new streaming platform coming, they just bought fox 21) etc.

 

Some will be able to bargain by offering reduced content fees (for on demand) others wont.

 

Then new technology startup ideas will be stifled so isp's can offer competing profits. Look to lots of 'innovations' coming from isp's over the next 10 years. You know, the people who havent produced any of these the last 10 years.

 

The whole pay for tiered packages may never happen.

 

You're more likely to see your netflix/hulu/etc subscriptions go up.

 

The ISPs also are TV service providers. They're going to fight to the death over the "cord cutting"

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Resident libertarian here.  Net Neutrality was essential.  The cornerstone of the libertarian ideal is a free market controlled by the laws of supply and demand.  There is no free market for Internet in this country; ISPs have natural (and government-mandated) monopolies which means there is little to no competition and thus regulation is a necessary evil to prevent the corporations from running free.

 

That was sort of what I was thinking, that if Net Neutrality was going to be killed then it would be absolutely essential to break up the ISP monopoly and go back to the days where you could choose between a minimum of 20 ISPs in your local area who would be constantly competing with each other for customers.  Without that 2nd move....killing net neutrality seems like purely a cash grab by ISPs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, twa said:

anyone else think wifi is gonna win over fiber and cable?

Umm, WiFi for the last mile might. But guess what is sitting behind the WiFi connection? An ISP’s network consisting of fiber and ether. 

 

5G is the next wave in population centers, with LTE fall back.  Won’t work in the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Springfield

Springfield

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 minutes ago, twa said:

country folk don't get fiber or even cable in many areas

MMW tech is advancing 

 

This is on the telecom companies.  They were given non-compete agreements on the basis that they were to meet these needs.  Decades ago.  They are the ones who have promised an infrastructure progression but failed to deliver.

 

Same ones who needed so deeply to repeal NN so that they could progress infrastructure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...