Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These radical socialists just won't give up, will they? The government does not need to intrude on internet.
Cruz:
Exactly right.
The sheer ignorance of what this is about, and the cheering for Ted Cruz's twitter statement.....this is why I have less and less respect for conservatives these days.
So taking a premium from netflix for better speeds and then taking a premium from Amazon to degrade netfix's speeds it not fraud? If I understand greywar correctly, that is the problem.
Even taking a payment from one company to slow down their competitor's traffic is likely illegal already. This is an age old problem in other industries.
Government cronyism at the federal, state and municipal level is why you have any of the current issues with ISPs. They are PROTECTED monopolies. Guess who provides the protection? That would be the same group of folks the net-neutrality zealots want to give more power.
I am not saying some of the larger telecomms are not playing these reindeer games to double dip on fees under the guise of "optimizing" delivery, but they have these remarkable barriers to competitors showing a better way BECAUSE OF REGAULTION AND CRONYSIM. The "last mile" of copper/fiber and all the corporatist monopoly collusion between fed.gov and your phone/cable company ARE WHY some of the ISPs are being this vulgar with certain content.
Net Neutrality does nothing but expand the FCC ability to play favorites in favor of the already protected monopolies of existing telecomm. The FCC is more respnsible for lack of bandwidth than every other actor in this drama put together, and giving them more power to regulate bandwidth does not fix anything. The government set up the "last mile" monopoly over a 100 years ago, and we are still clinging to it thanks to that same government so "dedicated to fairness" and all.
The FCC trails only the telecomm giants themselves as far as who is the worst possible solution to the "packet neutrality" issue. Net neutrality not only allows this dinosaur to continue existing, but requests we increase its size and appetite.
From that article, here is the big point about the real neutrality of fungible connectivity - "it undermines the whole scarcity-based regiment of the FCC." Essentially, the FCC and the telecomm giants exist to protect each other's existence, and they both tell us it's for our own good. It isn't. Net Neutrality as in "make my Internet more free and equal" has a wonderful idea, but as currently offered by Leviathan, it isn't anything remotely resembling free or equal.
So taking a premium from netflix for better speeds and then taking a premium from Amazon to degrade netfix's speeds it not fraud? If I understand greywar correctly, that is the problem.
Even taking a payment from one company to slow down their competitor's traffic is likely illegal already. This is an age old problem in other industries.
I did not discuss taking a premium from amazon to degrade netflix.
My point was that you could get exclusives for speeds.
It creates tiered systems, and a barrier for entry to competitors. It also creates chaos in the marketplace as the various companies execute thigns like this, and degrade the performance of network traffic in order to "encourage" the negotiations for faster traffic.
And lets be honest, the free market only works if theres real competition in the marketplace, the majority have very little choice between providers, nor insight as to why a service sucks. Is it the service, or the bandwidth for the service?
I agree but the problem is that Obama has lied so often he's burned any creditability and trust.
If the man had a 100% guaranteed solution to world peace, no one would believe him.
He created the problem with his lies in the past.
You've just admitted you are against it because Obama is for it. The limited level of thought the right puts into its positions is astounding. Do some basic research and make up your own mind. This issue had been around longer than Obama.
I did not discuss taking a premium from amazon to degrade netflix.
Ok, noted. I must have mistook your meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
My point was that you could get exclusives for speeds.
It creates tiered systems, and a barrier for entry to competitors. It also creates chaos in the marketplace as the various companies execute thigns like this, and degrade the performance of network traffic in order to "encourage" the negotiations for faster traffic.
How is the tiered system any different than my opting for the cheapest connection vs. my neighbor desiring more speed and paying for it? If it's me or him, or netflix or amazon, what is the difference?
The degradation of service to encourage higher payments for improved service is better addressed through market competition than regulation. Break the monopoly, or if the tools to do so aren't there, work on providing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And lets be honest, the free market only works if theres real competition in the marketplace, the majority have very little choice between providers, nor insight as to why a service sucks. Is it the service, or the bandwidth for the service?
I agree with you there. Consumers should have several choices as well as content providers having several choices. I don't see that FCC regulation will actually do that - instead it will legitimize the monopolistic business plan of the ISP's in exchange for keeping their abuses down to a dull roar. The loser will be the consumer, as usual when business and government get together.
How is the tiered system any different than my opting for the cheapest connection vs. my neighbor desiring more speed and paying for it? If it's me or him, or netflix or amazon, what is the difference?
Because its not up to you.
Quote:
The degradation of service to encourage higher payments for improved service is better addressed through market competition than regulation. Break the monopoly, or if the tools to do so aren't there, work on providing them.
market competition is effectively not there as you admit by your statement I believe. net neutraility deals with reality.
Lets say you watch netflix, and comcasts video service. The quality of netflix sucks, so you tend to use comcasts video service.
Does netflix actually suck? Or is it the underlying bandwidth prioritization? You don't know, you do not have sufficient information to judge it. Free markets work when the underlying information about them exists as well.
These are just some examples of the issues that make net neutrality important.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The limited level of thought the right puts into its positions is astounding. Do some basic research and make up your own mind. This issue had been around longer than Obama.
