|

Net neutrality

What’s the consensus view here? Good that it’s going bye bye or bad?

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

bad - but im of the opinion that the internet is at this point as much a utility as electricity. Cable lobby is stifling innovation and using the regulatory system to dig itself in an keep competition out. Time for some trust busting if you ask me.

'A flute with no holes, is not a flute. And a donut with no hole, is a danish'

im not sure. i think bad, broadband companies just hating on tech success. it can be argued that it will stifle progress as tech companies typically invest in progress so tech companies should have all the money imo.

i think its more like a road though. should people pay depending on the amount they drive? or should it be free for all.

basically do you believe in toll roads? (also these toll roads would not cause traffic)

the pro is hopefully the broadband companies will build out infrstracture to allow more data.

the con is. expect tech companies to charge higher rates.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

^ i agree partially, but NN is larger than just bandwidth. Its about allowing ISPs the ability to determine winners & losers and treat different content differently. 

It would be like allowing the electric company to charge different rates or put through different levels of power depending on what you had plugged in based on what they determine. I also would like them to crack down on the marketing of speeds… this “up to 100mb/s” stuff is a joke… i dont think ive ever gotten more than 20mb/s and my equipment is able to handle way more.

'A flute with no holes, is not a flute. And a donut with no hole, is a danish'

I’m not certain. In theory, net neutrality seems different than in legislative practice. I think it is notable that Mark Cuban thinks it is a good thing it is going away. I find his points persuasive and, as a result, really am not sure anymore about this issue. But I’m not sure about most issues, so I guess I should have known I didn’t understand it well enough when I had a definitive view lol 

good for ISPs bad for consumers

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

Bad. I’m not about to pay to use individual websites. We’ll probably be asked to pay a fixed price (say $5) to use social media, $5 to use emails, $5 to use gaming sites, and etc…

I’m not sure if it is good or bad, assuming there will be reasonable fair practice laws in place. If Comcast sabotages its competitors by say by restricting bandwidth for competing services, then that’s obviously bad. However, if a system is implemented that non discriminately penalizes bandwidth hogs, maybe that’s not bad.

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

"A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good."
- Ernest Rutherford

Nerdyblop wrote:

the pro is hopefully the broadband companies will build out infrstracture to allow more data.

I’m not really sure they would even do that. They’ve gotten a lot of money to do that for years but they just ended up sitting on it. 

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

i wouldnt trip. pretty sure we gonna get  69g soon. giggity

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

ohai wrote:

I’m not sure if it is good or bad, assuming there will be reasonable fair practice laws in place.

We’re talking about corporations. There’s 100% chance you are gonna get (more) screwed.

purealpha wrote:

ohai wrote:

I’m not sure if it is good or bad, assuming there will be reasonable fair practice laws in place.

We’re talking about corporations. There’s 100% chance you are gonna get (more) screwed.

There are corporations on each side, though. Their interests aren’t all aligned 

rawraw wrote:

purealpha wrote:

ohai wrote:

I’m not sure if it is good or bad, assuming there will be reasonable fair practice laws in place.

We’re talking about corporations. There’s 100% chance you are gonna get (more) screwed.

There are corporations on each side, though. Their interests aren’t all aligned 

Their interests are aligned in that they are all on the side of cannibalizing humanity for increased profit. They will compete with each other, for who gets to screw you over the most.

^see that’s the cold hard truth but look at amazon. such an amazing company.

1. profitless. subsidizes customer needs. main focus is customer satisfaction.

2. appreciating investment. despite having no profits. stock price keeps going ip.

3. heavily invests and kills other companies.

its like a charitable organization designed to kill all other companies for the benefit of the customer. its amazing

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

So how is it the truth when competition encourages people like Amazon and Walmart before them? Surely since we are analysts, we shouldn’t just assume corporation is bad. Alfie I thought you were better than this! 

Yayyywork wrote:

marketing of speeds… this “up to 100mb/s” stuff is a joke… i dont think ive ever gotten more than 20mb/s and my equipment is able to handle way more.

This is being marketed as intended. You have to be careful with the difference between megabytes and megabits.

1 Megabyte = 8 Megabits

Telecoms are advertising in megabits and they will never change it to megabyte because most consumers won’t know the difference. So if one company advertises 10 megabytes and another says 80 megabits, consumers will think that the 80 is faster even though they are the same.

This is what internet looks like in Portugal without . If this isn’t appealing, speak up:

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

igor555 wrote:

This is what internet looks like in Portugal without . If this isn’t appealing, speak up:

SAD

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

I don’t find these points to be very convincing. 

1. My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers. 

2. The us govt invested billions in the telecom carriers over the years to upgrade large swathes of the country, and they didnt follow through on it, so this isnt a very convincing argument just based off of the past actions of the carriers.

3. Its already essentially an oligopoly with the companies acting like a cartel. I don’t find this convincing. 

4. Transparency is good. 

5. There are multiple logical inconsistencies in this paragraph including an appeal to authority and the guys attempting to make it out like his views are the most widely accepted ones. 

Overall I find this to seem more like propaganda.

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

Overall I find this to seem more like propaganda.

Well it came from AEI, another Koch think tank, so you’re spot on.

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

I don’t find these points to be very convincing. 

1. My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers.

I think you are wrong. How do you expect medical applications, self driving cars, etc to function if they are subject to the same lanes as others? Eventually we will need to differentiate based on the importance of things executing unless something changes with current technology 

rawraw wrote:

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

I don’t find these points to be very convincing. 

1. My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers.

I think you are wrong. How do you expect medical applications, self driving cars, etc to function if they are subject to the same lanes as others? Eventually we will need to differentiate based on the importance of things executing unless something changes with current technology 

GPS already exists for one. And we seem to get by as it is now re medicine. I know you mean that in the future there will be a higher demand but I don’t see evidence of the benefits being likely to materialize. This seems like this would be missing the real issue which is the high barriers to entry, oligopoly nature, the poor overall service from isps and the lack of reason for them to really get better from a marker perspective. 

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

I don’t find these points to be very convincing. 

1. My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers.

I think you are wrong. How do you expect medical applications, self driving cars, etc to function if they are subject to the same lanes as others? Eventually we will need to differentiate based on the importance of things executing unless something changes with current technology 

GPS already exists for one. And we seem to get by as it is now re medicine. I know you mean that in the future there will be a higher demand but I don’t see evidence of the benefits being likely to materialize. This seems like this would be missing the real issue which is the high barriers to entry, oligopoly nature, the poor overall service from isps and the lack of reason for them to really get better from a marker perspective. 

What do you mean? GPS isn’t carried over the internet.

rawraw wrote:

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

birdman12345 wrote:

rawraw wrote:

http://aei.org/publication/five-reasons-to-be-thankful-the-fcc-is-re...

I don’t find these points to be very convincing. 

1. My impression is that there won’t be much innovation but I may be wrong. I’d think the innovation would be mostly around how to bilk more out of the consumers.

I think you are wrong. How do you expect medical applications, self driving cars, etc to function if they are subject to the same lanes as others? Eventually we will need to differentiate based on the importance of things executing unless something changes with current technology 

GPS already exists for one. And we seem to get by as it is now re medicine. I know you mean that in the future there will be a higher demand but I don’t see evidence of the benefits being likely to materialize. This seems like this would be missing the real issue which is the high barriers to entry, oligopoly nature, the poor overall service from isps and the lack of reason for them to really get better from a marker perspective. 

What do you mean? GPS isn’t carried over the internet.

I dont know how its worked but I’d imagine that self driving cars would use GPS to navigate. Were you referring to something else?

I gender Identify as a Chair. People say to me that I’m ****ing retarded but I don’t care, I’m beautiful. If you can’t accept me you’re a Furniturephobe and need to check your furniture privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.

Self driving cars need internet to stream maps. The GPS system tells the car where it is on the map. On top of that, they need sensors to detect lane markers and avoid other cars. I’m not sure how net neutrality hurts self driving cars though. There does not seem to be a cost or bandwidth constraint for these sorts of services.

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

ohai wrote:

Self driving cars need internet to stream maps. The GPS system tells the car where it is on the map. On top of that, they need sensors to detect lane markers and avoid other cars. I’m not sure how net neutrality hurts self driving cars though. There does not seem to be a cost or bandwidth constraint for these sorts of services.

It’s not necessarily an argument that it will hurt cars, but I think it’s a good example. There  are obvious ways we can imagine the need for priority lanes. And this is also being aware the vast majority of the innovations we won’t be able to see in advance, but cars seem on track. As more and more services are on the internet, we can’t just assume there is always enough bandwidth at all times for all services. If we have critical services, like lots of cars relying on map, traffic, etc data it’s not hard to imagine a situation where Netflix priority is reduced to ensure the road system continues to work. So we have an idea we may need different lanes in the future and we also know  the consumer experience didn’t change pre and post regulation of the internet under Obama. So why potentially hinder the system to continue to grow in complexity and diversity prematurely when it is just the possibility people are worried about. 

Here was an interesting reply on change my view, the place I tend to go first to find arguments against what I believed.  It’s a current example of how fast lanes would work with current uses. But you can see this below becoming more and more important as very consequential things, like cars driving humans around, are running through the same tube as my cat videos. 

Cmv:

Here’s the thing. The Internet works as a dumb packet routing engine. It couldn’t care less what the packets contain. Net Neutrality insures that all packets are treated equally. However, IMO, not all packets are the same. Let’s say a website requires 1.5 MB of data to download and display on your computer. Let’s say you’re also downloading a movie from iTunes or Amazon Prime in the background. A typical movie download these days is 1.5GB or so for standard definition content. That’s 1000 times more data than the website. Under Net Neutrality, the network doesn’t really care about these requests. The data are placed in same type of packets and sent to your computer with no preference to the actual content you’ve requested.

Without Net Neutrality, the hope would be that the Internet could be made to discern the type of data and fast lane certain data while slowing down others. I know, it sounds bad at first, but think about it. If the website above is downloaded at 1.5MB/sec, it’s loaded in 1 second. If it’s downloaded at 300k/sec, it’s loaded in 5 seconds. Do you really notice a difference? With a big download like the movie, if you download at 1.5MB/sec, it’s completed in 1000 seconds (16:40). If it’s downloaded at 300k/sec, it’s loaded in 1:23:20. That’s a huge difference. You’ll notice that and pull your hair out in the process. By eliminating Net Neutrality, the Internet could theoretically throttle up large downloads so they complete faster while slowing down small requests so they run negligibly slower.

It’s good for people who voted for GOP.

rentech invested 1% of portfolio into comcast. comcast is the largest broadband company in us. so just a heads up on where he is betting. lol

makes sense cuz trump hates the techies and almsot everything he does has a hint if not a blatant conflict of interest as he is very vindictive. lol

also as a heads up. comcast removed their pledge of net neutrality as soon as it was repealed by pai. hilarious.

i think now i am for net neutrality. just cuz i feel its like a road and should be a government good so no one should profit from that ****. lol. also i feel that the infrastructure is waste of money as more and more people are choosing to go mobile route. none of that fixed line bs.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

I was just walking by the Comcast Center in Philly thinking about NN. I’m all for net neutrality as of right now. I believe the internet has become a utility, much like landline phones are considered today. We are currently almost in the Bell System age of telephone providers in terms of duopoly/monopoly of internet providers. We all saw (or read) how Bell Systems ended.

I actually think that if Comcast starts to screw with people more after repeal of NN, then it will lead to the company’s eventual demise.

It’s whatever, just make it count.

- kDot