Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 552
  1. #26
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    5,348
    Corporations erecting barriers to entry is the is fundamental issue here. So what's the free market solution Yoni/angydude?

  2. #27
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,032
    I just think more compe ion would work just as well here. Unfortunately, as Google Fiber is finding out, barrier to entry in that market has it's own limitations.
    More compe ion is a fairy tale with the legislators Time-Warner owns tbh, at least in Texas.

  3. #28
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,659
    More compe ion is a fairy tale with the legislators Time-Warner owns tbh, at least in Texas.
    Well, yeah, as I said earlier, I'm pretty sure we're gonna get some turd implemented that basically s the consumer. Pretty typical stuff these days.

  4. #29
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    5,348
    These free marketeers sure do shut down when they can't blame the federal government.

  5. #30
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    32,028
    There are other economic factors at play which I'll never expect net neutrality supporters to understand.
    Try us.

  6. #31
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    Changing How the Internet Is Regulated Probably Won't Kill It

    One of the main arguments against reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service is that companies facing stronger regulations will stop making capital investments in broadband. After President Obama said he supported le II reclassification as the basis for net neutrality rules on Monday, the telecommunications industry issued a round of dire warnings to that effect.

    But when asked to provide evidence backing up those claims, Comcast (CMCSA)said that it couldn’t because cable networks have never been regulated under le II. Verizon (VZ) declined to discuss the matter, saying that there is no data. Scott Belcher, the chief executive officer of the Telecommunications Industry Association, issued a statement saying that “we saw a significant negative impact on investment the last time restrictive le II regulation was in place, and no one will benefit from returning to that failed policy.”

    So while it’s clear that le II legal reclassification will trigger all kinds of political and legal challenges, it’s less clear that it will cause big changes to the economics of the Internet. Opponents of the change say it would give the FCC too much power to do such things as regulate prices and content companies like Netflix (NFLX), but the FCC has not shown any appe e for doing so. Instead, the new rules could pretty much maintain the status quo—which has worked out well for companies such as

    Verizon ($54 billion in profit from 2010 to 2013),

    AT&T (T) ($50 billion over that period), and

    Comcast ($24 billion.)


    From 1998 to 2006, le II applied to DSL, the version of Internet that travels over telephone networks. Those years saw a e in investment, as the chart below shows.


    The capital investment argument is a red herring, and the cable and telecom industry don’t point to data because they can’t back up their long-running claims, says Turner.

    “It’s just ignorant to assume that the word ‘regulation’ always has an impact one way or another on capital investment,” he says.


    http://nybw.businessweek.com/article...vestment#r=rss

    red herring? it's called a LIE. BigCorps screaming disaster, using extortion, if anybody touches their cheese.


    Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-11-2014 at 11:40 AM.

  7. #32
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    Dark fibre


    Rate of expansion[edit]



    According to Gerry Butters,[7] [8] [9] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, Moore's law holds true with fibre optics.[10]

    The amount of data coming out of an optical fibre is doubling every nine months.

    Thus, excluding the transmission equipment upgrades, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months.[dubiousdiscuss]

    The availability of dense wavelength-division multiplexing DWDM and coarse wavelength division multiplexing CWDM is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre

    so network capacity isn't the problem, since there is LOTS of unused dark fiber already laid across the nation, and planet, while lit fiber is increasing in capacity.




  8. #33
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    Conservatives Overwhelmingly Back Net Neutrality, Poll Finds


    https://time.com/3578255/conservativ...utrality-poll/


  9. #34
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    he's lying, but it's BigCorp, so lies, FUD are expected

    AT&T chief says Net neutrality qualms could crimp fiber plans


    http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-ne...tag=CAD1acfa04

    net neutrality as a regulated system in NOTHING NEW, only maintains the status quo of the past 20 years, from which the BigCorps have pocketed $100Bs in profits for mostly ty, overpriced service (TV, phone, internet)

  10. #35
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100...26520651390190

    An interesting 1968 study by the late cognitive scientist Jerome Lettvin calls attention to the intellectual limitations of the frog, who attends only to small, moving objects in his field of vision. He does not understand much else about his environment. "He will starve to death surrounded by food if it is not moving."

    The frog is much like the net-neutrality obsessive, who understands less and less about the broadband world that actually exists and yet ferociously insists on the importance of reinstating the Federal Communications Commission broadband antidiscrimination rules that a federal court just threw out this week.

    Net neutrality is the principle that network operators must treat all data crossing their networks the same. Take the latest palpitation of the net-neut crowd: AT&T's introduction last month of "sponsored data" on its wireless network, which the company likens to the "1-800" service it offers over its increasingly obsolete long-distance voice network. Businesses would be invited to pick up the tab for wireless data they send to their customers so it wouldn't count against the customer's wireless data cap.

    What the net-neut obsessives refuse to recognize is that anticompe ive intent isn't worth worrying about if an anticompe ive result isn't possible. AT&T's proposal comes at a time when the wireless world is more compe ive than ever, thanks to a rejuvenated Sprint and T-Mobile. If AT&T were "double-dipping," or charging sender and recipient for the same data, its rivals would quickly copy its innovation and compete away any excess revenues. If AT&T were to degrade websites that don't pay up, its rivals would pounce and steal AT&T's dissatisfied customers.

    And so it has been for all the net-neut boogeymen flogged over the years. The fear that Internet providers would censor bandwidth-hogging, file-sharing sites? That concern has faded as the video deluge has swamped all other traffic sources. The fear that cable operators would block Netflix to prop up their own TV businesses? That fear has leached away along with the profits that cable operators once earned on their TV efforts. Now their profits come from broadband, which Netflix helps them sell.

    Their biggest blind spot, though, concerns data caps, which the net-neut amphibians insist on seeing as nefarious attempts to undermine net neutrality. In fact, data caps are good old-fashioned exercises in price discrimination. Just as airlines bring more people into the air by not charging every passenger the same, so broadband operators are adopting convoluted pricing schemes. These aim to segregate customers according to how much bandwidth they are willing to pay for. As happens in the air, the result is an opportunity to create more customers and more traffic.

    AT&T's "sponsored data" simply is an extension of this principle: By seeking to stimulate wireless traffic that wouldn't take place if the recipient were paying, AT&T is making the metered Web safe for advertising-supported business models.

    But here's where the net-neut froggie's world is really about to get turned upside-down. Broadband suppliers aren't the only ones who've long noodled about doing what AT&T just did. So have content providers, including that famous net-neutrality hypocrite, Google, which already is paying certain overseas operators to deliver Google services to users without triggering the user's data limits.

    And this door will continue to open. The advantages to network operators, content suppliers and end users of finding more efficient ways to pay for the video deluge are too irresistible to pass up. Even the FCC, under its outgoing chief economist Steven Wildman, has begun to understand this. And the net-neut hysterics will continue to be infuriated, for reasons more related to maintaining influence in Washington than any public-interest purpose.

    The net-neut obsessive, like the frog, may have many blindspots, but he is superbly adapted to his environment. He even benefits from the fact that the FCC rules were thrown out. Had the rules been left in effect, everyone gradually would have noticed how irrelevant they are, and he would have fewer takers for the hysteria he peddles.
    This is a start.

  11. #36
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,143
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...eutrality.html

    This is some more.

    Again, I don't expect you to agree.

    Have a nice day.

  12. #37
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,659
    Thanks ad, but, IMO, the article fails to address three critical issues:

    1) it assumes there's lots of compe ion, and while that might be true in the wireless world, we know that's largely not the case in the wired world

    2) it fails to address why this is good for consumers.

    3) it says nothing about the negatives of non-net neutrality (how does this affect the barrier to entry, etc)

    The conclusions he reaches are: "the result is an opportunity to create more customers and more traffic." and "that famous net-neutrality hypocrite, Google, which already is paying certain overseas operators to deliver Google services to users without triggering the user's data limits".

    I mean, we know it's good for ISPs. That's why they're aggressively lobbying against it. Some content providers might be already bending over. Okay. Airline pricing? Do you really like the current airline pricing, where you get nickel and dimed to death for a seat 10 rows in front of you? That's a positive for the consumer?

  13. #38
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,659
    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...eutrality.html

    This is some more.

    Again, I don't expect you to agree.

    Have a nice day.
    Thanks for sharing, again. This is actually a little better. The problem here is that ISPs have no interest in letting go of their monopolies, that's not even on the table of the net neutrality debate. As a matter of fact, they keep consolidating to create larger monopoly power.

    But there's a reason why they were handed that kind of power. It's obvious there's a state interest in having internet access (just like phone access in the past), and obviously there's an important amount of investment that needs to be done for that to happen, especially on areas that might not be as profitable as major urban centers.

    So you have two colliding interests here: the state interest in providing greater access, and the company interest in recouping their investment and making money. That's how these government monopolies came to be, as a solution to that dilemma.

    Now you could remove some of those monopolies, but then access could suffer. That said, I think with the advent of wireless tech at a respectable price, there's a lot less need these days for some of those monopolies. That's something that should be part of the conversation, IMO, but it isn't right now.

  14. #39
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    one must assume that unregulated monopolies are ALWAYS abusive, extractive.

    we have Grande and TWC in SA, with no effective difference in pkgs, prices, no real compe ion.

    the big network operators are so big now, based on the massive fiber investments they made 10+ years ago, that they buy politicians with chump change. and they do buy, eg, states blocking cities from using their municipal fiber networks for residential/business Internet. aka, the states, esp RED states, REGULATING markets so the well-paying in bents are protected.

    the big networks ARE common carriers, le II all they way, and should be regulated as such, so that the STATUS QUO of the last 15 -20 years of OPEN Internet is maintained indefinitely.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-12-2014 at 09:59 PM.

  15. #40
    Rum and Coke SupremeGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    10,466
    The internet without net neutrality tbh

    LMAO no one actually believes this right?

  16. #41
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,110
    LMAO no one actually believes this right?
    Only those who believe anything they read on the internet.

  17. #42
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370

  18. #43
    sick demented ring****** ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    101,807

  19. #44
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    125,659
    Thanks for sharing that video... goes to show politicos should really refrain from talking about subjects they know very little about. Reminds me of Ted Stevens and his "series of tubes" or Barry trying to explain metadata collection.

    ISPs has been regulated by the FCC practically from the get go. The 1996 Federal Communications Act set forth those regulations. There hasn't been an 'era' where the internet was not regulated. Politicos always had a say on it.

    The Net Neutrality debate in front of us hinges on whether to re-classify ISPs under a different le of the law or not, and it's a direct and natural reaction to a power play by ISPs. Whether it's a good idea, bad idea, the correct way to combat the problem at hand... well, that's certainly up for debate.

    It's just disheartening to listen to these kind of videos, since these are the kind of guys that really don't understand what they're doing, but get to have a say on the eventual outcome.

  20. #45
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    32,028
    I watched a two minute video promising to expose negative consequences and it offered zero negative consequences specific to net neutrality. How disappointing.

    Also, comparing cell phones to land lines is a lot like comparing public health care to witchcraft practiced in the 16th century and suggesting this proves public health care is the way to move forward. The smartphone was an innovation that improved upon the physical telephone. Nobody's suggesting a ban on innovation. Private enterprise helped create the smartphone but smartphones aren't beloved because of cellular service providers. Lest we forget that Americans pay the highest cell phone rates in the world and most people hate their wireless carriers. What an altogether brain-dead comparison and what a complete shill you'd have to be to make it.

    Innovation will still happen regardless of who regulates the Internet. Net Neutrality makes it easier for that innovation to come from anywhere.
    Last edited by Spurminator; 11-18-2014 at 03:17 PM.

  21. #46
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    77,137
    net neutrality only protects the STATUS QUO, from which the big ISP/network operations have pocketed many $10Bs.

    As always BigCorp, 1% shills, Repugs LIE about the world-ending disasters, FUD, if they they don't get their way and/or if somebody else tries to get their way.

    Soc Sec, hyperinflation, national debt, debt ceiling, debt/out-of-control-spending (on the 99%, not on the 1%), etc, etc DISASTERS, ALL right wing lies.

    net neutrality? "fool me once..." GFY

  22. #47
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    32,028
    Better response, in hindsight...

    LMAO no one actually believes this right?

  23. #48
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370
    Better response, in hindsight...
    The general point of Senator Cruz's message was that federal regulation (of the type found in le II) will ultimately lead to a stagnant technology with bersome rules to navigate where costs are escalated by hidden fees and lack of compe ion.

    With that point, I agree. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea either stands to make money from the regulatory protection or just doesn't realize what a oppressive weight federal regulation brings to just about every enterprise it touches.

    I'm fine with the internet just the way it is -- why mess with it?

  24. #49
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,370

    We're from the Government and
    we're here to fix your internet.

  25. #50
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    73,032
    The general point of Senator Cruz's message was that federal regulation (of the type found in le II) will ultimately lead to a stagnant technology with bersome rules to navigate where costs are escalated by hidden fees and lack of compe ion.
    The costs are already escalated by lack of compe ion.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •