Jump to content

Eliminating Net Neutrality Rules Will Favor Carriers Over Internet Content Providers


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

Wireless is where all this is going. Trust me, telecom is dying to get away from physical connectivity in first/last mile delivery.

 

That'd be great and all, but the technology isn't there. Same as fiber, the infrastructure couldn't handle the surge in usage. Hell, even now, if you live in a populated enough area, the towers can become overwhelmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

The FCC has proposed that the FCC should not regulate the internet? Or are you saying the new rules?

Either way the government should not be involved in regulating the internet. It's the one bastion of freedom of speech. It's the same reason other countries keep a tight grip on it.

The proposed rulemaking will eliminate ancient Title 2 governance of the Internet that was put in place by Obama.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

That'd be great and all, but the technology isn't there. Same as fiber, the infrastructure couldn't handle the surge in usage. Hell, even now, if you live in a populated enough area, the towers can become overwhelmed.

 

But that's good, for ISPs, content providers, online commerce, and subscribers. The technology will always lag demand, and ISPs are constantly upgrading to try to meet that ever-increasing demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If proponents are against net neutrality, and their argument is mainly surrounded by the idea that in a year or two an isp will provide everything, then why didn't cable television become an instrument where everyone could have a show and market whatever they wanted??

 

Why would the isp allow it's grip on power to be diminished ?

I'm for a two year trial, I'm always for trying less government

 

But I guarantee a merger will occur in at least two years....

An example is why would a record company allow for its extinction.

 

If I can just go on a free site, sing a hit song.

 

Why do I need the record company...?

 

This is obviously already happening and it just seems like an ideological pov is blinding the righties towards tech changing the environment of commerce.

 

If green energy crerates all this free energy, the answer is not to outlaw green tech, and force fuel consumption.

Will utility companies now lobby the govt to outlaw solar panels on my roof??

 

That's asinine 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2017 at 7:52 PM, GG said:

 

Plenty of discussion on this in the past.  Do a search.

 

But basically by reclassifying the ISPs as common carriers meant that they had to treat everyone the same and not prioritize services by fee or content.   Sounds great to liberals, but breaks down in practice, because Netflix demands are much greater than Mario's corner pizza shop.  So ISPs must upgrade their networks to transmit Netflix traffic, but can't charge Netflix more money for the transit.  So if the ISPs can't charge Netflix for the usage, guess who gets to pay the bill at the end of the day?

       So if it was the other way around, guess who pays the bill at the end of the day.  The same people.  The only difference in either situation when it comes to financial issues is who is doing the charging and how much.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2017 at 3:32 AM, Ol Dirty B said:

 

 

Damn, I almost got one...

 

EDIT:

 

And, hey westernpissant: posting is an act. It is also a choice. Criticizing someone's actions, is the opposite of criticizing their person. QED, stop with all this "fallacy of the week" crap, and accept that others are criticizing what you do, not who you are. Nobody is making up a narrative, and, that's not even how a strawman argument works, so go back to wiki and try again.

 

If who you are means you can't help but make the same schitty choices over and over? Then, your actions do more to prove you're an unmitigated moron,  than any words others might chose.

 

You don't have to post garbage, yet you chose to. You don't have to put people on ignore, which 99/100 is a stupid choice, because the ignoree is then free to hilariously crush your posts, and you, and you are none the wiser. But you've made that choice too.

 

We are our choices. And yeah, criticizing someone's choices is: judgment. :o But, judgment is what separates us from the animals. 

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 9:42 AM, Greybeard said:

       So if it was the other way around, guess who pays the bill at the end of the day.  The same people.  The only difference in either situation when it comes to financial issues is who is doing the charging and how much.  

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill.  In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

In a world with no net neutrality, the people who are consumers of Netflix will foot the bill.  In a world with net neutrality everyone will carry the freight for the people actually doing the consuming.

 

you have such a naive and tender heart, bless you...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

you have such a naive and tender heart, bless you...

 

Why is it naive to believe that Netflix and Google, who brazenly tried to make a business conflict into a political morality play, are not helpless victims in all of this?

 

For the 50th time, this is about hardware vs. software. Software almost always wins. Why? Because people use software, and it's infinitely more tangible to them. Studies: 3 months after purchase people stop giving a F about their hardware, while their attachment to their software only rises(see: mass refusal to migrate from Windows XP). Thus, hardware companies try to lock you into their hardware, by controlling the software that it runs/making things exclusive, etc. Phone manufacturers are losing this battle as we speak, as HTML 5 makes a roaring comeback. In 3 years, there's a 80% chance "the App store" is gone, never to return. In 5 years that number approaches 100%. Sure, there may be some thin client/hybrid holdovers, but they will all be written in web, not native(phone company hardware) technologies and architecture. All new enterprise apps already are.

 

My analysis above(which usually costs $450/hr), is merely one example in a long-standing pattern: Software always finds a way around whatever hardware does. Why? Because software can move a lot faster than hardware. Once one overcomes hardware roadblocks, they usually stay overcome: because they can't rewire 1+ million deployed devices.

 

This is the general history of IT, from Microsoft DOS being run on non-IBM PCs( :o the horror), to things like React Native(facebook stack that lets you write 1 set of code for both IPhone and Android, but with a crap license == don't use it, use its competition, like Vue), so, WHY do software companies need special government protection, when they historically have a 80-90% chance of beating whatever the hardware people do?

Edited by OCinBuffalo
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Why is it naive to believe that Netflix and Google, who brazenly tried to make a business conflict into a political morality play, are not helpless victims in all of this?

 

For the 50th time, this is about hardware vs. software. Software almost always wins. Why? Because people use software, and it's infinitely more tangible to them. Studies: 3 months after purchase people stop giving a F about their hardware, while their attachment to their software only rises(see: mass refusal to migrate from Windows XP). Thus, hardware companies try to lock you into their hardware, by controlling the software that it runs/making things exclusive, etc. Phone manufacturers are losing this battle as we speak, as HTML 5 makes a roaring comeback. In 3 years, there's a 80% chance "the App store" is gone, never to return. In 5 years that number approaches 100%. Sure, there may be some thin client/hybrid holdovers, but they will all be written in web, not native(phone company hardware) technologies and architecture. All new enterprise apps already are.

 

My analysis above(which usually costs $450/hr), is merely one example in a long-standing pattern: Software always finds a way around whatever hardware does. Why? Because software can move a lot faster than hardware. Once one overcomes hardware roadblocks, they usually stay overcome: because they can't rewire 1+ million deployed devices.

 

This is the general history of IT, from Microsoft DOS being run on non-IBM PCs( :o the horror), to things like React Native(facebook stack that lets you write 1 set of code for both IPhone and Android, but with a crap license == don't use it, use its competition, like Vue), so, WHY do software companies need special government protection, when they historically have a 80-90% chance of beating whatever the hardware people do?

Duh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2017 at 8:51 PM, DC Tom said:

Oh, this is great.  My favorite narcissist and my new favorite dolt arguing, and all I see is a string of "You've chosen to ignore..."

Tom, by definition? Your favorite narcissist is: you.

 

Or, are you going to hide behind your "I've gone and got the right prescriptions, so, I'm above all criticism thing, again"? You're on medication for bipolar disorder ...yet you feel it's responsible for you to diagnose others? You are living in a crabpot. You want to drag every other crab who might get out(or only belongs there by your preening), back down into it, so they stay with you. It's like South Buffalo. Or, pretty much South Everycity. But that's the thing: I've been to almost every South/East/West Everycity, and I've seen you coming, ever since Highgate Street in Buffalo...a mile away.

On 12/5/2017 at 9:03 PM, westerndecline said:

Congratulations dick face

:lol:

 

When faced with improper use of logical fallacy...you respond with ad hominem? 

 

:lol: God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better. DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Tom, by definition? You're favorite narcissist is: you.

 

Or, are you going to hide behind your "I've gone and got the right prescriptions, so, I'm above all criticism thing again"?

:lol:

 

When faced with improper use of logical fallacy...you respond with ad hominem? 

 

:lol: God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better. DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

Lol can you show the logical fallacy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

 

 

:lol: God, if only I was still running book: I'd make a killing on this board as to who is going to define themselves, inadvertently, better.

 

DC_Tom doing his projection vs. westerndecline ironically talking himself out of his own arguments.

 

3 minutes ago, westerndecline said:

Lol can you show the logical fallacy ?

 

 

 

 

aw-hellthis-is-like-a-bad-dream.jpg

 

 

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...