Net Neutrality and Sling TV

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Allow competition and prices will go down.

And innovation will go up.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Was this at Law School after you "attended Duke"?

Yes. But I don't care to prove anything to you guys.

 

[tumscalcium]

Yes. But I don't care to prove anything to you guys.

That’s for the best as no one will believe you anyway.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

repubs received a lot more campaign contributions than the dems so now they are paying the piper. The "prez" is obsessed with obama,cable news, and the russian investigation. :yes: Not to mention Diet Coke.

Both parties are equally corrupt. And I say this as someone with left leaning politics in general.

I hate the democrats more than the republicans because of their hypocrisy. The dems pretend to be for the middle class when in reality they are in bed with corporate interests as much as the republicans.

Both parties are a joke. And anyone who votes for either one is a fool.

 

[Grand Vol]

I coined the phrase "NegaVol"

And I'm not willing to provide proof.

 

[tumscalcium]

I coined the phrase "NegaVol"

And I'm not willing to provide proof.

I was there

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

And you trust the bloated fed gov???What will the gov do when Google offers millions to a few senators to tweet the law to give them faster speeds. What's the difference.

No. Net neutrality isn't about letting the government control the internet. Its about keeping internet free of any interference. Keep bandwith speeds equal for every website.

My professor used this analogy. He said the internet right now is a highway where everyone is allowed to drive at the same speed because there is one uniform speed limit. What the telecoms against net neutrality want to do is create special lanes where some people can drive faster if they choose to pay more while everyone else has to now drive at slower speeds in the other lanes. Its not that the new lanes get faster speeds because of new technology. Its taking away from everyone else so that a few get preferred benefits.

That's not the internet we want. We don't need telecom companies deciding which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't. Net neutrality doesn't give the government this authority. It simply the government saying no one has this authority and every site on the internet should be treated equally.

As a consumer this is what you should want. Both the government and private enterprise can't be trusted. Private enterprise because they are only self interested in making more money rather than doing what is best for consumers. And the government because it is totally corrupt. Net neutrality is about keeping both groups out of the internet and letting people decide which sites become the next YouTube and Twitter and which become irrelevant.

 

[BearCat204]

Yes. But I don't care to prove anything to you guys.

Lol

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I never used "wanting for free".

I've suggested that there's nothing wrong with the heaviest consumers of bandwidth paying for what they use, whether that's directly to the ISPs or with a fee or a higher fee to the content owners and/or rights holders. It shouldn't be a government mandated pricing model that mirrors an all-you-can-eat buffet.

The scare tactic of NN supporters that Google searches will cost $1 or Tweets will be billed at $0.10 per is pure nonsense. If the existing ISPs are abusive in their pricing then competition will keep them in check. If the existing ISPs are predatory in their pricing then existing anti-trust legislation will direct their punishment.

You must be one of those silly libertarians than believe in the mythical free market.

Theoretically that would be great. But we don't live in a free market economy where we have true competition where consumers have true choice. Most areas in this country have one or two telecommunication companies that basically have monopolies on the market and screw over consumers.

I would love if the mythical free market libertarians worship existed but it simply doesn't.

Stop being a silly kid arguing theoretically and come down to the real world where monopolistic telecom companies are screwing over consumers everyday.

 

[Lankykong]

I never used "wanting for free".

I've suggested that there's nothing wrong with the heaviest consumers of bandwidth paying for what they use, whether that's directly to the ISPs or with a fee or a higher fee to the content owners and/or rights holders. It shouldn't be a government mandated pricing model that mirrors an all-you-can-eat buffet.

The scare tactic of NN supporters that Google searches will cost $1 or Tweets will be billed at $0.10 per is pure nonsense. If the existing ISPs are abusive in their pricing then competition will keep them in check. If the existing ISPs are predatory in their pricing then existing anti-trust legislation will direct their punishment.

If these companies are never going to abuse their power, why are they so against net neutrality? The whole reason net neutrality started was because of a company prohibiting VoIP service to promote adoption of their phone services, aka abusing their power.

Also, some very rural areas only have one internet provider. What are people supposed to do with them if they decide to be corrupt?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

If these companies are never going to abuse their power, why are they so against net neutrality?

This reminds me of the whole banks need to be deregulated so they can do their job (aka start packaging bad mortgages again and selling them to create another recession) argument. Sometimes consumers need protection because no one reads legal documents.

The people against logical regulations like net neutrality or keeping the banks in check are ideologues who argue more based on ideology than the real world.

It's sad average Americans can't come together for simple no-brainer issues like this which is in our best interest rather than supporting the ruling class which is intent on screwing us.

 

[Lankykong]

The people against logical regulations like net neutrality or keeping the banks in check are ideologues who argue more based on ideology than the real world.

It's sad average Americans can't come together for simple no-brainer issues like this which is in our best interest rather than supporting the ruling class which is intent on screwing us.

I changed my post to make it less obviously political, but I agree. I hope everyone is ready to switch to their internet provider’s on demand services if they (namely am worried about Verizon since they have been pushing this) find it profitable to limit Netflix.

Maybe on the pro side some of these IPs will slow down KKK rallying websites, etc. enough to where they basically don’t work. Yeah, that’s all I got.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

If these companies are never going to abuse their power, why are they so against net neutrality? The whole reason net neutrality started was because of a company prohibiting VoIP service to promote adoption of their phone services, aka abusing their power.

Also, some very rural areas only have one internet provider. What are people supposed to do with them if they decide to be corrupt?

How many of those rural areas with only one internet provider are getting it through NCTC and/or a public utility? Those organizations aren't affected by NN.

 

[Visiting Dawg]

I'm not ideologue. I don't care about market theories. I care about practical things. I want an internet that doesnt favor one site over another. Net neutrality is a prophylactic measure to keep the internet the way it's always been. That is every website should get the same band with share.

So yes I love the internet of 2014 and 2010. The 2015 legislation was about making sure we keep the internet that way. By repealing those protections, the telecom companies can know decide which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't.

Maybe you trust corporations to do what is right and in the best interest of us all. I don't. I expect them to do what is best for their bottom line. And I don't want that to come to the internet. So that is why I support the net neutrality legislation. Keep the internet the way it's been. Period.

And you trust the GOVERNMENT to do the right thing? If you think there are angels running the government that aren't bought and paid for everyday on both sides of the aisle you are out of your mind.

If you love the internet, want to be able to access whatever you want at whatever speeds you are willing to pay for, then you don't need the government's nose slipping into the tent. There is this wonderful thing called the market that will keep the ISPs under control. If they start screwing customers, they will lose those customers and as long as the government doesn't protect the current ISPs new providers will emerge if companies are gouging or refusing to provide what the consumer demands.

Iows, if you love Netflix but they start charging 50 bucks a month for access, you'll likely find another service if it isn't worth 50 bucks to you. If enough people drop their bad ISPs or premium sites, they will provide the best service they can for the price. The internet is not some magical product that is immune from true market forces.

 

[Mick]

How many of those rural areas with only one internet provider are getting it through NCTC and/or a public utility? Those organizations aren't affected by NN.

NCTC is doing this through a government grant. You see we are paying for this. Why you might ask? Because the free market wouldn't.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

And you trust the GOVERNMENT to do the right thing? If you think there are angels running the government that aren't bought and paid for everyday on both sides of the aisle you are out of your mind.

No I don't trust the government. I've said it many times already that our goverment is totally corrupt and only a fool would vote for a democrat or republican. I think you are just confused about exactly what net neutrality is. It's not the government deciding which websites derserve faster speeds. I said it before in this thread. Net neutrality is basically a prophylactic measure. Its the government saying NOBODY gets to decide which part of the internet gets faster speeds than others. Net neutrality is basically a negative piece of legislation. Its like banning something. Its not the government saying we'll decide how the internet should operate rather than the telcom companies. Obviously if that was the case I would be against government control of the internet just as much as I am against the telecom companies deciding which sites warrant faster connection speeds.

If you love the internet, want to be able to access whatever you want at whatever speeds you are willing to pay for, then you don't need the government's nose slipping into the tent. There is this wonderful thing called the market that will keep the ISPs under control. If they start screwing customers, they will lose those customers and as long as the government does protect the current ISPs new providers will emerge if companies are gouging or refusing to provide what the consumer demands.

Once again stop being a silly college kid arguing hypotheticals and welcome to the real world. There is no free market in this country. Especially when it comes to telecom companies. You sound like an ideologue who is simply making arguments based on some belief in the free market rather than being a pragmatist dealing with real world issues and just trying to do what's best for the common man.

Iows, if you love Netflix but they start charging 50 bucks a month for access, you'll likely find another service if it isn't worth 50 bucks to you. If enough people drop their bad ISPs or premium sites, they will provide the best service they can for the price. The internet is not some magical product that is immune from true market forces.

As I suspected. You're probably some kid that's never had to pay a bill or move to a new neighborhood and try to get internet service. This idea of a free market where consumers have all this choice of where to take their money if they are being screwed by one company is a FANTASY. In most cities one or two telecom companies control the entire market and keep true competition out. These monopolies basically screw the consumers by raising prices on the same or worse service.

The fact you keep making silly arguments like this lets me know you have no real world experience dealing with these companies.

 

[midnight orange]

No. Net neutrality isn't about letting the government control the internet. Its about keeping internet free of any interference. Keep bandwith speeds equal for every website.

My professor used this analogy. He said the internet right now is a highway where everyone is allowed to drive at the same speed because there is one uniform speed limit. What the telecoms against net neutrality want to do is create special lanes where some people can drive faster if they choose to pay more while everyone else has to now drive at slower speeds in the other lanes. Its not that the new lanes get faster speeds because of new technology. Its taking away from everyone else so that a few get preferred benefits.

That's not the internet we want. We don't need telecom companies deciding which sites warrant faster connection speeds and which don't. Net neutrality doesn't give the government this authority. It simply the government saying no one has this authority and every site on the internet should be treated equally.

As a consumer this is what you should want. Both the government and private enterprise can't be trusted. Private enterprise because they are only self interested in making more money rather than doing what is best for consumers. And the government because it is totally corrupt. Net neutrality is about keeping both groups out of the internet and letting people decide which sites become the next YouTube and Twitter and which become irrelevant.

I would gladly pay extra for a high-speed lane without a speed limit depending on where I was going. I probably wouldn't need it most of the time but I would be glad to have it.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I would gladly pay extra for a high-speed lane without a speed limit depending on where I was going. I probably wouldn't need it most of the time but I would be glad to have it.

You didn't follow the analogy closely. It isn't just that there is now a new lane with faster speeds. It's that the speeds for everyone else in the old highway will get slower so that a few with the money to pay more get faster speeds.

And even more obstructive, you won't even get the choice to get on the faster lane. The telecom company decides which cars can get on the fast lane. Because the issue here isn't faster connection speeds to the individual. It's certain websites that get faster speeds and certain websites won't. So unless the websites you are interested in are favored by the telecom companies, you won't get the benefit of the faster speeds.

This is about controlling content. No matter how much money you have, if the telecom company decides your favorite website isn't worth of faster speeds then you'll have a slower connection.

The issue here isn't price it's choice. Who gets to choose which website are the most successful on the internet. Us the consumer or the telecom companies. With net neutrality, we get to decide which sites become the next YouTube and Twitter. Without net neutrality, the telecom companies decide which sites get faster connection speeds and thus more eye balls.

 

[midnight orange]

You must be one of those silly libertarians than believe in the mythical free market.

Theoretically that would be great. But we don't live in a free market economy where we have true competition where consumers have true choice. Most areas in this country have one or two telecommunication companies that basically have monopolies on the market and screw over consumers.

I would love if the mythical free market libertarians worship existed but it simply doesn't.

Stop being a silly kid arguing theoretically and come down to the real world where monopolistic telecom companies are screwing over consumers everyday.

The free market works where it is allowed too as in industries with less government interference. What keeps the price down (and many times decreasing) with increasing quality on flat screen tv's, toothpaste, soup cans, clothing, airline tickets (still heavily regulated but less than in the 70's), tennis shoes, razor blades, cell phones, information, computers, tools, watches, shipping, fast food, music, refrigerators, etc. Why are prices increasing and quality decreasing in healthcare, education, student loans, new housing construction, rental construction especially in areas with rent control, automobiles (quality increasing but costs skyrocketing),etc.

 

[TnAngler]

The uninformed mob acting out of fear is a powerful thing.

We're going back to 2015 rules you ****ing wimps.

Internet service got substantially better consistently for 20+ years. Is that not good enough? Did we really need more regulation? It's so irrational.

Calling people you know names “****ing wimps” is really big of you. You would have the guts to call half these guys out if their names if face to face.

 

[midnight orange]

You didn't follow the analogy closely. It isn't just that there is now a new lane with faster speeds. It's that the speeds for everyone else in the old highway will get slower so that a few with the money to pay more get faster speeds.

And even more obstructive, you won't even get the choice to get on the faster lane. The telecom company decides which cars can get on the fast lane. Because the issue here isn't faster connection speeds to the individual. It's certain websites that get faster speeds and certain websites won't. So unless the websites you are interested in are favored by the telecom companies, you won't get the benefit of the faster speeds.

This is about controlling content. No matter how much money you have, if the telecom company decides your favorite website isn't worth of faster speeds then you'll have a slower connection.

The issue here isn't price it's choice. Who gets to choose which website are the most successful on the internet. Us the consumer or the telecom companies. With net neutrality, we get to decide which sites become the next YouTube and Twitter. Without net neutrality, the telecom companies decide which sites get faster connection speeds and thus more eye balls.

Are there websites that you're unable to access? I personally have not had that problem.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

NCTC is doing this through a government grant. You see we are paying for this. Why you might ask? Because the free market wouldn't.

NCTC isn't funded primarily through a government grant. They're funded by their members. If government funds are being utilized, it's as an incentive to string wires in areas that aren't served or are under served. It's two completely different scenarios whether the government steps in to establish internet access in lesser populated areas with incentives versus the government placing restrictions on business practices of established ISPs. Municipalities allowed exclusivity to cable TV companies in exchange for establishing service. The arrangements with those initial monopolies weren't perpetual and there were restrictions in the contracts to prevent gouging. NN is the government placing restrictions on free enterprise. Government grants to a cooperative in a rural area are intended to establish a service.

The point is that rural customers are not at significant risk of being gouged minus NN rules simply because they have a single source, terrestrial ISP. NN has no effect on those consumers that get their access through a publicly owned utility. Those being served through an independent, for-profit, small, NCTC member company aren't going to subscribe if the fee is unreasonable. There's a cost for electing to live in the middle of nowhere... you're internet just might suck. If that's a problem, those people have the freedom to live in a better served area.

 

[rocytop2624]

Lol. This is 100% false. EPB ran all of their own lines because they were given a grant from the government. They aren't using anything from AT&T.

EPB runs in to the At&t head end how you think they little epb gets across the nation? The Government made at&t give them access to there internet.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Are there websites that you're unable to access?

No. But if Volnation.com (for example) isn't favored by Comcast once they get the right to determine which sites get faster internet speeds and which don't, then I probably won't be visiting this site very often if the connection speeds are similar to the dial-up era.

The issue here is that the telecom companies will decide the winners and losers when it comes to which internet sites get fast connection speeds and which get slowed down. And yes, without net neutrality, some sites will end up becoming slower than they are right now.

Like I said earlier, the analogy my professor used is the best way to think about it. This new preferred fast lane isn't just gonna be allowed to go faster, they're gonna have to make the other lanes slower. Because remember the issue here isn't new technology making speeds faster. Its the telecom companies basically deciding to redistribute the internet. Instead of every site being the same speed, the telecom company will decide which sites they'll make faster and which they'll make slower.

 

[Visiting Dawg]

No I don't trust the government. I've said it many times already that our goverment is totally corrupt and only a fool would vote for a democrat or republican. I think you are just confused about exactly what net neutrality is. It's not the government deciding which websites derserve faster speeds. I said it before in this thread. Net neutrality is basically a prophylactic measure. Its the government saying NOBODY gets to decide which part of the internet gets faster speeds than others. Net neutrality is basically a negative piece of legislation. Its like banning something. Its not the government saying we'll decide how the internet should operate rather than the telcom companies. Obviously if that was the case I would be against government control of the internet just as much as I am against the telecom companies deciding which sites warrant faster connection speeds.



Once again stop being a silly college kid arguing hypotheticals and welcome to the real world. There is no free market in this country. Especially when it comes to telecom companies. You sound like an ideologue who is simply making arguments based on some belief in the free market rather than being a pragmatist dealing with real world issues and just trying to do what's best for the common man.



As I suspected. You're probably some kid that's never had to pay a bill or move to a new neighborhood and try to get internet service. This idea of a free market where consumers have all this choice of where to take their money if they are being screwed by one company is a FANTASY. In most cities one or two telecom companies control the entire market and keep true competition out. These monopolies basically screw the consumers by raising prices on the same or worse service.

The fact you keep making silly arguments like this lets me know you have no real world experience dealing with these companies.

LMAO. Nope, I didn't present the moronic argument that my professor said the internet was like some fantasy highway where nobody gets to pay more to move at faster speeds. I have actually ran businesses in the "fantasy" free market for the last 30 plus yrs and lead one thru a deregulation phase. Trust me, the consumers got way more options and at 50 and 60% discounts over the regulated rates.

Let me put it to you like this. Local phone service providers invested millions of dollars installing cable to their customers. Vonnage comes along and offers these same customers service using this infrastructure at deeply discounted rates because they INVESTED nothing. Folks like you seem to think the local phone company should provide this infrastructure for free so you can make cheap calls. I otoh understand somebody is going to pay for that infrastructure and I would rather not be forced to subsidize your desire to stream porn with unfettered access.

You see, there are all kinds of websites out there and a small business that publishes a weekly newsletter may not put a burden on an ISP like a mega site that streams video to millions. Each party should pay for the access they demand.

Additionally, if you pay for a gig speed and your ISP arbitrarily reduces your speed, you and the other customers have a claim. ISPs aren't going to cut their own throat.