- 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 3:39 pm to Tech Support Grunt
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:39 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
Pretty sure no one said anything about taxing the air, but brilliant strawman.
Poster said
quote:
These companies aren't truly private. They use, and benefit from, the public airwaves and/or public right of ways for their infrastructure. And pay little or nothing for the priviledge.
Which would lead one to believe that he thinks the use of the airwaves should be charged a fee, correct? If it is the poster's contention, that the government should own/control the airwaves, then the only way to charge for these airwaves is a tax.
I would say it's a fairly logical deduction, not a strawman.
1
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:40 pm to GumboPot
I already am paying for my baud rate and 150Gb of data per month. What they are asking is for me to pay an extra X amount per month so that Netflix doesn't buffer.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:40 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Imagine if the power company could decide which of your appliances could run, or which brand you had to buy!
Not a good analogy...I view the ISPs more like the owner of the mall...they have a limited amount of space that they rent out to various merchants. Now imagine if the gov passed a law requiring malls to rent space to every single merchant at a set price.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:41 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
quote:
Then I doubt that power company would last very long
Obama's wet dream
Seriously though, a lot of utilities already give you a monthly bonus of some sort for the ability to control your thermostat during peak consumption periods. LG is also thinking about building smart fridges that allow the utility to control the defrost cycle....
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:42 pm to BugAC
quote:
Which would lead one to believe that he thinks the use of the airwaves should be charged a fee, correct? If it is the poster's contention, that the government should own/control the airwaves, then the only way to charge for these airwaves is a tax.
They are charged for the use of airwaves. Have you never heard of bandwidth auctions? They're just not charged very much for it. And they're charged for the use of public right of ways, but again, not very much.
If corporations use public property-and the bandwidth spectrum is, in fact, public property-they should pay for it. Your kneejerk reaction against any and all "taxes," notwithstanding.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:43 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
I already am paying for my baud rate and 150Gb of data per month. What they are asking is for me to pay an extra X amount per month so that Netflix doesn't buffer.
I sympathize with ya, but the FCC is not your savior. Negotiating with your ISP is, which may or may not work in your favor.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 3:58 pm to cwill
quote:
Not a good analogy...I view the ISPs more like the owner of the mall...they have a limited amount of space that they rent out to various merchants. Now imagine if the gov passed a law requiring malls to rent space to every single merchant at a set price.
The "mall" is already renting out "larger" spaces in the form of increased bandwidth.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:04 pm to Tech Support Grunt
quote:
Satellite internet is not a serious alternative to a wired high speed connection. Latency will be 300ms+ easily.
It's actually closer to 500ms, minimum. Geostationary orbit is 22,000 miles high, and a round trip requires a total of 88,000 miles (up and down, twice). 88,000/186,000 = 473ms, plus whatever latency across the ground to the destination.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:08 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
quote:How could they not? Everybody needs electricity. Would you want a dozen competing utility companies, each with their own poles and lines?
Then I doubt that power company would last very long
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:09 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Would you want a dozen competing utility companies, each with their own poles and lines?
That's not quite how it works...
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:17 pm to cwill
quote:
Not a good analogy...I view the ISPs more like the owner of the mall...they have a limited amount of space that they rent out to various merchants. Now imagine if the gov passed a law requiring malls to rent space to every single merchant at a set price.
You think this is a good analogy? Let's finish it out, then. What if each store was exclusive to that mall, and a competing mall had their own exclusive stores. You like stores at both malls, but you can only choose one mall to visit. Or, worse, you only have access to one mall. Now imagine a standalone store across town that is supplied by one of Mall A's stores. Mall A sends a security team out to the independent store's location and stops people who shop at Mall B from patronizing this independent store that they should have no control over.
That's the problem.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
a very small price to pay
So its not really net neutral?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:20 pm to Powerman
quote:It would for ISPs. They would each need their own lines. Would they share poles or be forced to share poles if some small competitor springs up? I don't know.
That's not quite how it works...
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:21 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It would for ISPs.
I'm just saying that's not how it works for energy companies
You can have multiple companies using the same lines
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:26 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Net Neutrality is the principle that no corporation or state authority can censor, slow down, block, or privilege certain content on the web. It's the basis for what has made the Internet a place for creativity, free speech, and innovation.
it is funny how many "free market" people seem to be freaking out over this
however, the one issues is the underlying government-backed monopolies/oligarchies in terms of high-speed internet. that's the issue. due to government interference/regulation of the telecommunications industry, it's not exactly a free market of competing choices
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:27 pm to Korkstand
quote:
You think this is a good analogy? Let's finish it out, then. What if each store was exclusive to that mall, and a competing mall had their own exclusive stores. You like stores at both malls, but you can only choose one mall to visit. Or, worse, you only have access to one mall. Now imagine a standalone store across town that is supplied by one of Mall A's stores. Mall A sends a security team out to the independent store's location and stops people who shop at Mall B from patronizing this independent store that they should have no control over.
That's the problem.
Everyone who's against net neutrality should read this and absorb it.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
e one issues is the underlying government-backed monopolies/oligarchies in terms of high-speed internet. that's the issue. due to government interference/regulation of the telecommunications industry, it's not exactly a free market of competing choices
Yes, but it's not exactly a state-run enterprise either.
Also - I think multiple utilities can use the same pole, that said, the issue is more about laying copper (Expensive) or fiber (not cheap) and paying someone to line those roads, then somehow pay all that shite back on a competitive ISP price (~$35/mo). You need cable modems, HFR's, etc; It's a capital intensive operation.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 4:44 pm to Powerman
quote:
I'm just saying that's not how it works for energy companies
You can have multiple companies using the same lines
Yeah, there's a grid that anyone can tap into. The internet should be the same, like a utility.
As it stands, running multiple ISP service lines is wasteful and a bit idiotic. It seems like the only chance for smaller competitors to spring up would be with wireless services, but that is still quite expensive.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 5:31 pm to Korkstand
I have two ISP options, ATT and Suddenlink. I expect both to start throwing up roadblocks to online viewing in order to protect their oudated TV product. Choice? Free market? It is to laugh.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 5:46 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
I expect both to start throwing up roadblocks to online viewing in order to protect their oudated TV product. Choice? Free market? It is to laugh.
Meh, at the end of the day, people will still buy the TV services. Over-the-Top television isn't there yet and with the current protocols don't look very awesome on a 55" 1080p screen. They will make deals with the content providers so that you need to still utilize them. That being said price for internet services will go up and TV service will go down accordingly due to the cost of keeping both up. There's so much network congestion these days that they need to continually make investments to maintain a strong quality of service.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News