- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Net neutrality is good for capitalism
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Net neutrality is communism for the internet
1
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:59 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
one option for high speed internet and in many places in the USA there is only one option.
Name one major city where there is only one option.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:00 pm to constant cough
quote:
Net neutrality is communism for the internet
you people i swear to god
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
ISP's are essentially another utility. In many places there are only 1 (maybe 2) options. I know where I live in Austin I have just 1 internet option.
We place restrictions on what the electric or water companies can or can't do. Why not ISP's?
Why do you think in most places there is just one option when it comes power, water, and other utilities? The government has removed any incentive competing utility companies might have of moving into that area by regulating the industry. I assume you're smart enough to know that competition among ISPs would eliminate the issues you depicted, but you don't seem to understand how there would be more competition if the government wasn't currently so heavily involved.
It is safe to assume that most people would prefer an ISP that didn't " censor, slow down, block, or privilege certain content on the web." Now lets say the ISP in Austin that you have began to block or limit your internet connection and they are the only ISP available in the area. The moment they reduce the quality of service their customers are receiving, it becomes more profitable for a competing ISP to offer their services to the Austin area. The more dissatisfaction Austin customers have with the ISP, the sooner a competing ISP will be moving in. It's in the best interest of the current lone ISP in Austin to keep the potential for profit low for rival ISPs considering moving into the Austin area. That means the likelihood of the ISP in Austin censoring you internet is low.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:08 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
quote:
Now lets say the ISP in Austin that you have began to block or limit your internet connection and they are the only ISP available in the area. The moment they reduce the quality of service their customers are receiving, it becomes more profitable for a competing ISP to offer their service to the Austin area.
this assumes that for whatever reason their aren't other barriers to market entry (either put up by the ISP or through other, unrelated factors).
ETA; it also assumes that ISP's won't collude to maximize profits at the expense of the free internet
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:14 pm to ironsides
quote:
Name one major city where there is only one option.
Hundreds of millions of Americans don't live in major cities. And even when there are two or three options, they're just as likely to collude as to compete. Because of the huge infrastructure costs, it's nearly impossible for startups to get into the ISP business. So you're unlikely to have someone jump in to compete with the status quo.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:15 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Still though, with U-Verse, Time Warner, DirecTV, 4G hotspots with unlimited data, and Eagle Creek why do you only have 1 provider in your area? Did Time Warner collude with your neighborhood to exclude at least U-Verse or something?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:16 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Draconian Sanctions
So are you for or against the decision that came out this week?
Because this week was very very bad for people with only 1 internet option..
Also, as a stock holder for Netflix I'm pretty pissed
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:17 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
I don't know why you keep asking this question when it's already been answered twice in this thread but here goes again. Your hypothetical only holds in places where people have more than one option for high speed internet and in many places in the USA there is only one option.
That does not answer the question...you're just telling me that currently some areas lack competition....do you expect that to remain so forever?
So answer this:
1. Where there is competition who will have more customers the net neutral ISP or the ISP that limits access in some manner?
2. Where there is a lack of competition and the only ISP limits service would it be a good idea for a competing ISP to extend service to that are on a net neutral basis?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:17 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
this assumes that for whatever reason their aren't other barriers to market entry (either put up by the ISP or through other, unrelated factors).
be more specific. What barriers to entry are you referring to?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:17 pm to BaddestAndvari
quote:
Because this week was very very bad for people with only 1 internet option..
According to some on this board, this is only a select few. (it's not.)
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:19 pm to BaddestAndvari
quote:
Because this week was very very bad for people with only 1 internet option..
In the long run it will benefit you.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:19 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
this assumes that for whatever reason their aren't other barriers to market entry (either put up by the ISP or through other, unrelated factors).
There is really only one ISP in Austin???
And now you have identified real crony capitalism where gov't has restricted competition by prventing other ISPs from entering your market...that's a gov problem.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:20 pm to cwill
quote:
So answer this:
1. Where there is competition who will have more customers the net neutral ISP or the ISP that limits access in some manner?
Depends on the speeds and price offered by the ISPs, but assuming everything else is equal I concede that the net neutral ISP will most likely have more business.
quote:
2. Where there is a lack of competition and the only ISP limits service would it be a good idea for a competing ISP to extend service to that are on a net neutral basis?
Often the ISPs collude, for example, Company A approaches company B and says if you don't compete with us in Area A then we won't compete with you in Area B.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:21 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
According to some on this board, this is only a select few. (it's not.)
it really really isn't.. and it's very scary. I will just have to be optimistic though, while I have options, I know people that don't. Also, as a Netflix person, I really hope this thing doesn't eat them alive, but I'm afraid it will.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:21 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
the public airwaves and/or public right of ways for their infrastructure. And pay little or nothing for the priviledge.
You want to tax the air now? Good God. You liberals hate the idea of earning your own money, and being able to keep it.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:22 pm to BugAC
quote:
You want to tax the air now? Good God. You liberals hate the idea of earning your own money, and being able to keep it.
Pretty sure no one said anything about taxing the air, but brilliant strawman.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:22 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
quote:
What barriers to entry are you referring to?
I am with him on this one. I did some financial work for a major ISP. It costs them like $800 just to make the connection between the utility line and the house. On top of that, you've got to roll wires through every neighborhood. This is even before you set up the technical infrastructure the physical infrastructure is rediculously expensive.
That being said, I wonder if people know that 4G nationwide coverage is getting better, that Satellite also providers for internet, etc;.
I am also aware that a lot of cable providers make deals with gated communities but I didn't think that was common, and didn't think it was exclusive.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:23 pm to cwill
quote:
Why shouldn't ISP's be able to auction off or limit access to their network? What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
Each ISP would find a balance between lost customers and increased revenue from selling faster throughput to individual sites, but you are missing the point. Here is the situation Net Neutrality is trying to avoid, using a simplified example:
ISPs
Cox
Uverse
Sites
Netflix
Youtube
Cox makes a deal with Netflix, and Uverse makes a deal with Youtube. As a customer, I have to choose which website is more important to me (and understand that the decision won't be this simple considering the sheer number of sites out there), and make a decision on which ISP I want based not on price and service, but on their negotiating power with a third party.
Now consider a site like Tigerdroppings, which relies on ads served by a third party (probably Google) to survive. ISPs could now throttle Google's ads, which wouldn't just hurt Google, but it would hurt millions of sites and small business owners around the world.
The reason ISPs want this is because they offer their own on-demand video services (and regular TV services) that compete with services like Netflix. They can't really compete on content or quality of service, so they want to just cut them off. Imagine if the power company could decide which of your appliances could run, or which brand you had to buy!
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:24 pm to Tech Support Grunt
Just as an example on barriers to entry, the cost of one core router can be anywhere from 25k-40k depending on the brand name. You will need more than one of these along with a whole slew of other switches/routers that can easily run 10k+ a pop.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News