Net Neutrality.

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Plow » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:36 pm

You mean the voices that told me Obama was a phony and obamacare a disaster. The voices in your head only screams more and more government!

Your little scenario really points out that the left only has chicken little arguments (with pictures) and the only solution is more fucking government. Just maybe Netflix should pay more for shoving all that data down the pipes because after all, they didn't build it.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
Woolybug25
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: The Mitt

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Woolybug25 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:21 am

Plow wrote:You mean the voices that told me Obama was a phony and obamacare a disaster. The voices in your head only screams more and more government!

Your little scenario really points out that the left only has chicken little arguments (with pictures) and the only solution is more fucking government. Just maybe Netflix should pay more for shoving all that data down the pipes because after all, they didn't build it.
Plow... you are a walking cliche'. I'm not sure if there is a single person that takes your opinion seriously. Not because you are a conservative, but rather because your comments are a running bag of worn out cliches. Typically ones that aren't even on topic (see above).
"All mountain hippies are as young as they day they were born, smarter than Einstein, better looking than Tom Selleck and could outfish an army of pinners." - foureyedgeek

www.hiptothesip.blogspot.com

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by BigCliff » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:25 am

Plow wrote:Just maybe Netflix should pay more for shoving all that data down the pipes because after all, they didn't build it.
Please explain to us how Netflix pushes data down the pipes that isn't requested by an end user. Also, please explain to us how said end user isn't entitled to the data flow they're paying for.

If the ISPs want to jack up their rates to cover the system load caused by streaming video, they can just raise rates for end users based on aggregate data flow.

On the other hand, if you're just trying to keep a competitor from stealing market share from your cable TV service, maybe you do it via extorting them directly instead of raising your prices for end users. THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Plow » Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:50 am

Thanks wolly,

Always know my post hit home when you respond.
Yes, it is cliche to keep reminding cliff how wrong he's been in the past.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
canook
Posts: 954
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:14 pm
Location: Further

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by canook » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:22 pm


User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Plow » Wed Mar 04, 2015 2:34 pm

BigCliff wrote:
Plow wrote:Just maybe Netflix should pay more for shoving all that data down the pipes because after all, they didn't build it.
Please explain to us how Netflix pushes data down the pipes that isn't requested by an end user. Also, please explain to us how said end user isn't entitled to the data flow they're paying for.
Never said it wasn’t requested.
Never said user isn’t entitled to everything they’re paying for.
If the ISPs want to jack up their rates to cover the system load caused by streaming video, they can just raise rates for end users based on aggregate data flow.
That’s a possibility and one we’ll likely see IMO (much like cell phone plans). I could use a cut in my rate.

A better way is to have Netflix pay the cost and pass the cost on to the bandwidth users. Maybe tack a surcharge for heavy users.
On the other hand, if you're just trying to keep a competitor from stealing market share from your cable TV service, maybe you do it via extorting them directly instead of raising your prices for end users. THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

Might very well be the case BUT Netflix was using “30” of their bandwidth. I don’t see any reason why a company should subsidies their competitor. Netscape paid it so they must agree.

Apparently Comcast is the asshole of the corporate world but that’s no reason to ignore facts and reality.

Canook,
Had not heard about gig-city before, great story. Since the fiber was/is paid for by tax dollars it should be open to any business that wants to offer internet services, for a fee of course.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by BigCliff » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:44 pm

Plow wrote:
BigCliff wrote:
Plow wrote:Just maybe Netflix should pay more for shoving all that data down the pipes because after all, they didn't build it.
Please explain to us how Netflix pushes data down the pipes that isn't requested by an end user. Also, please explain to us how said end user isn't entitled to the data flow they're paying for.
Never said it wasn’t requested.
Never said user isn’t entitled to everything they’re paying for.
If the ISPs want to jack up their rates to cover the system load caused by streaming video, they can just raise rates for end users based on aggregate data flow.
That’s a possibility and one we’ll likely see IMO (much like cell phone plans). I could use a cut in my rate.

A better way is to have Netflix pay the cost and pass the cost on to the bandwidth users. Maybe tack a surcharge for heavy users.
On the other hand, if you're just trying to keep a competitor from stealing market share from your cable TV service, maybe you do it via extorting them directly instead of raising your prices for end users. THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

Might very well be the case BUT Netflix was using “30” of their bandwidth. I don’t see any reason why a company should subsidies their competitor. Netscape paid it so they must agree.

Apparently Comcast is the asshole of the corporate world but that’s no reason to ignore facts and reality.

Canook,
Had not heard about gig-city before, great story. Since the fiber was/is paid for by tax dollars it should be open to any business that wants to offer internet services, for a fee of course.
Plow you claim that the user is entitled to everything they're paying for, and then outline a number of ways in which the end user should begin double paying for the same service they're already paying for. I understand defending oligopolistic extortion is hard, but at least try to be coherent.

But still, to my knowledge, nothing about net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging end users more based on total data usage, speed or connection count. The point is to make sure they're doing it based on aggregate usage, not which source the data is coming from.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Plow » Wed Mar 04, 2015 5:46 pm

BigCliff wrote: Plow you claim that the user is entitled to everything they're paying for, and then outline a number of ways in which the end user should begin double paying for the same service they're already paying for. I understand defending oligopolistic extortion is hard, but at least try to be coherent.

But still, to my knowledge, nothing about net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging end users more based on total data usage, speed or connection count. The point is to make sure they're doing it based on aggregate usage, not which source the data is coming from.
Paying double, thats your number not mine. Not defending any corporation, just pointing out facts.

Customers not getting their movies quick enough because Netflix won't pay their fair share, boohoo, cry a river. Hardly seems grounds to let the FCC pass hundreds of pages of regs in secret for something as important to all of us.

It all boils down to this, administration needed some corporation to demonize so they can shoved internet control up our asses. Comcast is just the libs demon de jour. Might be netscape next week.

Anyone seen the new FCC regs yet? Odd for such a transparent government.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by BigCliff » Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:03 pm

Plow wrote:
BigCliff wrote: Plow you claim that the user is entitled to everything they're paying for, and then outline a number of ways in which the end user should begin double paying for the same service they're already paying for. I understand defending oligopolistic extortion is hard, but at least try to be coherent.

But still, to my knowledge, nothing about net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging end users more based on total data usage, speed or connection count. The point is to make sure they're doing it based on aggregate usage, not which source the data is coming from.
Paying double, thats your number not mine. Not defending any corporation, just pointing out facts.

Customers not getting their movies quick enough because Netflix won't pay their fair share, boohoo, cry a river. Hardly seems grounds to let the FCC pass hundreds of pages of regs in secret for something as important to all of us.

It all boils down to this, administration needed some corporation to demonize so they can shoved internet control up our asses. Comcast is just the libs demon de jour. Might be netscape next week.

Anyone seen the new FCC regs yet? Odd for such a transparent government.
If Netflix isn't paying their fair share, that's because their hosting provider isn't charging them enough for bandwidth. That seems quite unlikely, considering that their host AWS also is one of their largest competitors in the streaming video realm.

Net neutrality has been favored by the tech community for years, LOOOOOONG before Obama became president. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/40 ... ty-debate/ Comcast is just the best example of why its necessary.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

User avatar
Plow
Posts: 5058
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:01 am
Location: Deep South Port Isabel to the Keys

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Plow » Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:32 pm

BigCliff wrote:
If Netflix isn't paying their fair share, that's because their hosting provider isn't charging them enough for bandwidth. That seems quite unlikely, considering that their host AWS also is one of their largest competitors in the streaming video realm.
It's not about their host, which they pay a pretty penny. Its about local ISPs and if they can afford to carry the load without additional investement in "wire".
Net neutrality has been favored by the tech community for years, LOOOOOONG before Obama became president. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/40 ... ty-debate/ Comcast is just the best example of why its necessary.
Smart tech knows net neutrality only makes sense IF you have the bandwidth. Otherwise you'll have to ration (at every bottleneck) and the first guy to get rationed is the guy using the most bandwidth. Otherwise everyone gets slowed. Reality is the pimpled faced tech flake downloading the world's collection of porn should be paying more.

Found this on a quick google, Mark Cuban lays out why net neutrality is so terrible. Yeah, its Beck but some good other-side-of-the-coin points are made.
Better Reds than dead...

User avatar
Woolybug25
Posts: 7691
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: The Mitt

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by Woolybug25 » Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:37 am

Plow wrote:
BigCliff wrote: Hardly seems grounds to let the FCC pass hundreds of pages of regs in secret for something as important to all of us.

It all boils down to this, administration needed some corporation to demonize so they can shoved internet control up our asses. Comcast is just the libs demon de jour. Might be netscape next week.

Anyone seen the new FCC regs yet? Odd for such a transparent government.
You do realize that this is regulation, not a bill or legislature? The FCC doesn't need to permission or public opinion to offer regulation, that is their job function. If the government doesn't like a certain regulation, then they put legislature on the table to change it. See: EPA. The regulations have been up for public viewing since May. Right here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launche ... n-internet

You should probably learn a little bit about how government works if you are going to have such a staunch opinion of it...
"All mountain hippies are as young as they day they were born, smarter than Einstein, better looking than Tom Selleck and could outfish an army of pinners." - foureyedgeek

www.hiptothesip.blogspot.com

User avatar
BigCliff
Posts: 5925
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:59 am
Location: SanAntonyo

Re: Net Neutrality.

Post by BigCliff » Thu Mar 05, 2015 9:49 am

Woolybug25 wrote:
Plow wrote:
BigCliff wrote: Hardly seems grounds to let the FCC pass hundreds of pages of regs in secret for something as important to all of us.

It all boils down to this, administration needed some corporation to demonize so they can shoved internet control up our asses. Comcast is just the libs demon de jour. Might be netscape next week.

Anyone seen the new FCC regs yet? Odd for such a transparent government.
You do realize that this is regulation, not a bill or legislature? The FCC doesn't need to permission or public opinion to offer regulation, that is their job function. If the government doesn't like a certain regulation, then they put legislature on the table to change it. See: EPA. The regulations have been up for public viewing since May. Right here:

http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-launche ... n-internet

You should probably learn a little bit about how government works if you are going to have such a staunch opinion of it...

But of course when it was Bush's FCC commisioner passing unviewed reg's without public review, it was ok.
Buy better hooks and bourbon.

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests