Net Neutrality Discussion (Moved from Politics thread. Please minimize overtly political commentary).
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 29993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:08 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.


No it's not. That may be why they use ancient technology in very specific applications, but that is not why they spend $60 BILLION per year on aging technology that largely doesn't even work.

Veterans Affairs payroll system, SSA, and DOJ run on COBOL.

What is the critical system there that requires .... COBOL?!

Anyway, there is quote in the article I pasted above about how the federal government is DECADES behind the private sector.

That's why I don't want grandpa overseeing the next smartphone build.


Heres an example of something the government uses the the private sector doesn't use....the ADA programming language. Last I knew they use ADA because even though the industry doesn't use it there is a lot less potential for bugs which could have heavy consequences....nobody wants a BSOD in the middle of air traffic control functions.
BTW, the private sector can get away with a lot of stuff that they couldn't do in government since they have much more rigorous and documented procedures....anybody who works in the defense industry can tell you the same thing. And last I knew the defense industry works with a lot of top secret technology they doesn't get out to the general public or private industry years later....so your grandpa analogy is heavily flawed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:10 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


tlim wrote:
The end customer will get negatively impacted where it counts: the pocketbook. It's the same issue we have had with bundling. Can't have cable unless you get these other channels (for free). It's 100% analogous and it will continue to happen.


If your #1 concern is the pocketbook of the end customer, shouldn't you be against NN? I'm thinking my cable bill, which is still high in a non-neutral cable world, is not going down if I'm given access to EVERY single network. If anything it will go up.

Cable is the last mile. It's a legal monopoly in most cases. It's been asked by the cable companies that they are monopolies to "justify the expenditure to go in".

Quote:

At the end of the day, I'm not overly concerned with the pocketbook of the end customer. I'm not concerned with zero rating. I'm concerned only with content blocking of lawful content but then, I'm not even concerned about that since the apocalyptic Internet world people have been painting has never actually existed even pre 2015 OIO.

Pretty much everything else, for now, I'm prepared to leave to market forces. And if the market shows a consistent and collective inability to behave, then I'm definitely open to the next step being heavier regulation.


The market and corporations listen solely to their investors and profits talks the loudest. With last mile technology, the market doesn't exist. Only content providers truly compete. Now, whoever owns the last mile, technically, is king.

It should be used as a pipe, period. Otherwise, the king can do whatever the heck they want, and there really isn't much of any other choice, even if it's a few people, which could then still be a duopoly or oligopoly.

So again, the market just doesn't work in those instances, and should be fully regulated. I don't take that bet that you do, to think that a monopoly would be the best for consumers. Do you like your gas and power company? Or your electric company? Except that you have no control of when the cable company jacks up the costs of your cable bill?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:23 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.


No it's not. That may be why they use ancient technology in very specific applications, but that is not why they spend $60 BILLION per year on aging technology that largely doesn't even work.

Veterans Affairs payroll system, SSA, and DOJ run on COBOL.

What is the critical system there that requires .... COBOL?!

Anyway, there is quote in the article I pasted above about how the federal government is DECADES behind the private sector.

That's why I don't want grandpa overseeing the next smartphone build.


Heres an example of something the government uses the the private sector doesn't use....the ADA programming language. Last I knew they use ADA because even though the industry doesn't use it there is a lot less potential for bugs which could have heavy consequences....nobody wants a BSOD in the middle of air traffic control functions.
BTW, the private sector can get away with a lot of stuff that they couldn't do in government since they have much more rigorous and documented procedures....anybody who works in the defense industry can tell you the same thing. And last I knew the defense industry works with a lot of top secret technology they doesn't get out to the general public or private industry years later....so your grandpa analogy is heavily flawed.


The grandpa analogy, by admission from multiple government officials, isn't flawed at all. If you have done any research, you'd know that antiquated systems run rampant within the government. Sure, not entirely, but as you note from the article I posted, 75 percent of the $80 billion earmarked for IT expenditures is spent on maintenance of legacy systems.

Is there a private sector firm that gets anywhere near close to this?

Look, the point in all of this, is that I highly doubt that the government is concerned with the next big Netflix. Or the next Facebook. They have other things they are concerned with, and rightfully so, and so everything else, to the tune of 75 percent, is left to stagnate.

Why hasn't the government ever come up with things like streaming video? Augmented reality? Virtual? That stuff, which does not control air traffic, is all coming out of investment from the private sector.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
The market and corporations listen solely to their investors and profits talks the loudest. With last mile technology, the market doesn't exist. Only content providers truly compete. Now, whoever owns the last mile, technically, is king.

It should be used as a pipe, period. Otherwise, the king can do whatever the heck they want, and there really isn't much of any other choice, even if it's a few people, which could then still be a duopoly or oligopoly.

So again, the market just doesn't work in those instances, and should be fully regulated. I don't take that bet that you do, to think that a monopoly would be the best for consumers. Do you like your gas and power company? Or your electric company? Except that you have no control of when the cable company jacks up the costs of your cable bill?


Look, if you want to meet halfway, and mandate through legislation that ISPs offer a minimally viable product, I'm fine with that. There are just other shades of gray I don't agree with. I don't like the idea of the government, for instance, having control over what the ISPs can charge. At least not until they have shown to be behaving badly in a broad and consistent manner.

Thing is, we're never going to see eye to eye on this because my position is just that strict regulation is an option but only as a last or near last resort. The problem I have with strict regulation is that you can't know what it prevented from occurring in the first place.

Let me give you an example. If strict regulation does NOT stifle innovation, why didn't the taxicab authorities come up with ride-sharing like Uber and Lyft? Because they had no incentive to spend the time, energy, or money, right? They rested on their laurels. And secondly, why aren't they doing it now? They can't. Because ... regulations.

I'm glad you asked about the energy company. Good analogy since it is considered a public utility. Which utility company was behind the push for rooftop solar? I'm going out on a limb to say none.

Instead, what are the utilities doing? Fighting solar instead of innovating and finding new, affordable ways to deliver power to customers.

Here's a Powerpoint presentation shared at an Edison sponsored meeting. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1374670-2012-eei-board-and-chief-executives-meeting.html#document/p48/a191712

Somewhere in that deck is a slide about how one of the things they need to do is invest to compete. This is in 2012.

The solar boom began 5 years prior.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 29993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:13 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.


No it's not. That may be why they use ancient technology in very specific applications, but that is not why they spend $60 BILLION per year on aging technology that largely doesn't even work.

Veterans Affairs payroll system, SSA, and DOJ run on COBOL.

What is the critical system there that requires .... COBOL?!

Anyway, there is quote in the article I pasted above about how the federal government is DECADES behind the private sector.

That's why I don't want grandpa overseeing the next smartphone build.


Heres an example of something the government uses the the private sector doesn't use....the ADA programming language. Last I knew they use ADA because even though the industry doesn't use it there is a lot less potential for bugs which could have heavy consequences....nobody wants a BSOD in the middle of air traffic control functions.
BTW, the private sector can get away with a lot of stuff that they couldn't do in government since they have much more rigorous and documented procedures....anybody who works in the defense industry can tell you the same thing. And last I knew the defense industry works with a lot of top secret technology they doesn't get out to the general public or private industry years later....so your grandpa analogy is heavily flawed.


The grandpa analogy, by admission from multiple government officials, isn't flawed at all. If you have done any research, you'd know that antiquated systems run rampant within the government. Sure, not entirely, but as you note from the article I posted, 75 percent of the $80 billion earmarked for IT expenditures is spent on maintenance of legacy systems.

Is there a private sector firm that gets anywhere near close to this?

Look, the point in all of this, is that I highly doubt that the government is concerned with the next big Netflix. Or the next Facebook. They have other things they are concerned with, and rightfully so, and so everything else, to the tune of 75 percent, is left to stagnate.

Why hasn't the government ever come up with things like streaming video? Augmented reality? Virtual? That stuff, which does not control air traffic, is all coming out of investment from the private sector.


The last two were created by the government. Augmented reality and virtual reality were created by USAF Armstrong Labs back in 1992....
My bet is you have no idea what the government is developing, one would actually have to possess a security clearance to access some of the projects that are being developed......
Seeing how most of the stuff you talked about were probably googled, I doubt you have any in depth knowledge about the technical know how about what goes into the development of these systems.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:53 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Floppy disks can't be hacked.....
Theres a reason why they used ancient technology in certain critical systems applications. Heck NASA can probably use the latest microchips in their spacecraft, but they need it to be reliable and functioning in the deep vacuum of space. This is the reason why they use ancient technology because they know its reliable and can be counted on to function correctly.


No it's not. That may be why they use ancient technology in very specific applications, but that is not why they spend $60 BILLION per year on aging technology that largely doesn't even work.

Veterans Affairs payroll system, SSA, and DOJ run on COBOL.

What is the critical system there that requires .... COBOL?!

Anyway, there is quote in the article I pasted above about how the federal government is DECADES behind the private sector.

That's why I don't want grandpa overseeing the next smartphone build.


Heres an example of something the government uses the the private sector doesn't use....the ADA programming language. Last I knew they use ADA because even though the industry doesn't use it there is a lot less potential for bugs which could have heavy consequences....nobody wants a BSOD in the middle of air traffic control functions.
BTW, the private sector can get away with a lot of stuff that they couldn't do in government since they have much more rigorous and documented procedures....anybody who works in the defense industry can tell you the same thing. And last I knew the defense industry works with a lot of top secret technology they doesn't get out to the general public or private industry years later....so your grandpa analogy is heavily flawed.


The grandpa analogy, by admission from multiple government officials, isn't flawed at all. If you have done any research, you'd know that antiquated systems run rampant within the government. Sure, not entirely, but as you note from the article I posted, 75 percent of the $80 billion earmarked for IT expenditures is spent on maintenance of legacy systems.

Is there a private sector firm that gets anywhere near close to this?

Look, the point in all of this, is that I highly doubt that the government is concerned with the next big Netflix. Or the next Facebook. They have other things they are concerned with, and rightfully so, and so everything else, to the tune of 75 percent, is left to stagnate.

Why hasn't the government ever come up with things like streaming video? Augmented reality? Virtual? That stuff, which does not control air traffic, is all coming out of investment from the private sector.


The last two were created by the government. Augmented reality and virtual reality were created by USAF Armstrong Labs back in 1992....
My bet is you have no idea what the government is developing, one would actually have to possess a security clearance to access some of the projects that are being developed......
Seeing how most of the stuff you talked about were probably googled, I doubt you have any in depth knowledge about the technical know how about what goes into the development of these systems.


1992? I think you have your timelines messed up. Thatís around when the term was coined by a Boeing employee. AR goes way back before then. There were wearbles with graphical overlays in the 70s/80s. People toying with it in the 50s/60s.

I think youíre missing the point. Itís not about who was first. Itís about who is bringing these innovations to the masses.

Who or what branch of government is responsible for that? No one, right?

Just think about this for a moment. The government had total control over telephone under Title II and there were virtually no real innovations in its history. And You said the government invented the internet right? So they had control over telephone industry AND invented the internet and still couldnít get the internet to the masses?

Which government agency brought broadband to the table?

And mobile broadband?

ISPs brought those. Yes, fueled by profits and arguably greed, but thatís whst got it here. There is no way the US Gov is spending money to build the infrastructure needed so you can watch Housewives on Hulu. Only way that is happening, is when someone sees a reward for doing so.

I prefer to let them keep doing that ... UNTIL they behave badly. Then its time for grandpa to step in with a little tough love.


Last edited by ringfinger on Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 29993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:04 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.


Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


You are the one that made that claim....Not about bring it to the masses.
You just contradicted yourself. There are plenty of government branches and R&D labs that have been responsible for technologies that the private sector haven't developed. Ever heard of DARPA? NASA JPL? And that is only in the field of aerospace....there are plenty more in other areas of science that somebody in those fields would be familiar with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:16 pm    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.


Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


You are the one that made that claim....Not about bring it to the masses.
You just contradicted yourself. There are plenty of government branches and R&D labs that have been responsible for technologies that the private sector haven't developed. Ever heard of DARPA? NASA JPL? And that is only in the field of aerospace....there are plenty more in other areas of science that somebody in those fields would be familiar with.


Why would any reasonable person bring up JPL in a discussion about the internet?

Everything you are bringing up is off limits to the public.

Any chance I can reel you back in from missile defense systems back to smartphones, internet, streaming video, VR, AR, etc?

Find me a product along those lines that the government has made readily available and we can talk or pivot if you donít have one. It is pointless if we are going down the rathole of discussing nuclear weaponry on a NN discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 29993

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:43 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:


There is a reason the government always contracts to the private sector on anything that is cutting edge.


Why do you think that is if the government is where innovation is at?

I have more faith in market forces than I do those things. If market forces fail, then we look to the next thing but we're not there yet and never have been.


You are the one that made that claim....Not about bring it to the masses.
You just contradicted yourself. There are plenty of government branches and R&D labs that have been responsible for technologies that the private sector haven't developed. Ever heard of DARPA? NASA JPL? And that is only in the field of aerospace....there are plenty more in other areas of science that somebody in those fields would be familiar with.


Why would any reasonable person bring up JPL in a discussion about the internet?

Everything you are bringing up is off limits to the public.

Any chance I can reel you back in from missile defense systems back to smartphones, internet, streaming video, VR, AR, etc?

Find me a product along those lines that the government has made readily available and we can talk or pivot if you donít have one. It is pointless if we are going down the rathole of discussing nuclear weaponry on a NN discussion.


Because some technologies have dual use.
Your claim was that the government doesn't develop anything cutting edge.
Well theres plenty of technologies that were developed originally for the military that are in widespread civilian use.
You do not get to dictate the arguments on your terms.
Its funny how you keep going back to civilian developments such as Hulu and Facebook when the government has no use for those other than to gather surveillance on the populace in the case of facebook.
My guess is you have no idea what JPL does....they do large amounts of cutting edge research and developments on technologies such as robotics, space exploration, etc....many of which will end up benefiting the civilian side......
Its funny how you are selective on how far behind you claim certain branches of the government on technology but when I bring up that there are other branches of the government that are on the bleeding edge of technology that is off limits because its top secret and not accessible to the public.....
BTW, it was you that went down that rathole by claiming the government couldn't come up with anything cutting edge unless they contracted with the private sector...I just gave you examples of how wrong you are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:40 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
tlim wrote:
The market and corporations listen solely to their investors and profits talks the loudest. With last mile technology, the market doesn't exist. Only content providers truly compete. Now, whoever owns the last mile, technically, is king.

It should be used as a pipe, period. Otherwise, the king can do whatever the heck they want, and there really isn't much of any other choice, even if it's a few people, which could then still be a duopoly or oligopoly.

So again, the market just doesn't work in those instances, and should be fully regulated. I don't take that bet that you do, to think that a monopoly would be the best for consumers. Do you like your gas and power company? Or your electric company? Except that you have no control of when the cable company jacks up the costs of your cable bill?


Look, if you want to meet halfway, and mandate through legislation that ISPs offer a minimally viable product, I'm fine with that. There are just other shades of gray I don't agree with. I don't like the idea of the government, for instance, having control over what the ISPs can charge. At least not until they have shown to be behaving badly in a broad and consistent manner.

Thing is, we're never going to see eye to eye on this because my position is just that strict regulation is an option but only as a last or near last resort. The problem I have with strict regulation is that you can't know what it prevented from occurring in the first place.

The cable company is equal to Ma Bell. It's the _only_ viable option for most people. And again, cable is a defacto monopoly in almost all cities. Again, it's also the cable companies who said NO, unless they were granted monopolies for X years or they won't invest in the city. Most cities were under the gun to say yes or be left behind.

Quote:

Let me give you an example. If strict regulation does NOT stifle innovation, why didn't the taxicab authorities come up with ride-sharing like Uber and Lyft? Because they had no incentive to spend the time, energy, or money, right? They rested on their laurels. And secondly, why aren't they doing it now? They can't. Because ... regulations.

There is *zero* chance that a last mile provider can be switched out like an Uber or an Lyft can in anything. Unless you want hundreds of cable lines running around your city for each provider, it's not going to happen. The ISP should have been kept and rated as a common carrier.

Quote:

I'm glad you asked about the energy company. Good analogy since it is considered a public utility. Which utility company was behind the push for rooftop solar? I'm going out on a limb to say none.

Instead, what are the utilities doing? Fighting solar instead of innovating and finding new, affordable ways to deliver power to customers.

Here's a Powerpoint presentation shared at an Edison sponsored meeting. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1374670-2012-eei-board-and-chief-executives-meeting.html#document/p48/a191712

Somewhere in that deck is a slide about how one of the things they need to do is invest to compete. This is in 2012.

The solar boom began 5 years prior.

[/quote]
And again, it's a monopoly. Exactly like the cable providers. They have zero incentive to improve their product, and have high incentives for the consumer to pay more, with little to no downside.

You want a light touch, but with monopolies, you're still saying a light touch, even though that has made our broadband more expensive for no real particular reason?

So I don't get it. Are you for or against monopolies? How can a market deal monopolies? That's fundamentally my issue. A light touch can _never_ prevent the monopoly from pushing its muscle around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:14 am    Post subject:

It's funny to me that people will say there is no incentive to improve the product, yet, here we sit, exchanging thoughts on a fixed broadband network and checking out replies on an LTE network. Is LTE not an improvement over 3G? They're already working on 5G -- so if there is no incentive to do that, we must assume they are ... philanthropists?

We had Title II carrier designation over the past 2 years and my Jan internet bill was $72.53 while my December bill is $75.96, a 5% increase. And my speed (up to 50 Mbps) has remain unchanged since as far as I can see my online bills which is 18 months. Whether we regulate or not, I would expect that the cost for internet access will always increase over time, as infrastructure costs will likely increase and the general demand for content and data in general also increases.

Regarding monopolies, I'll admit it is hard for me to answer this one. In theory, you're right, I'm generally not in favor of monopolies as I tend to be more of a free market type. But so long as the monopoly behaves nicely, I think there can be benefits to them under some conditions. Particularly in cases when the barrier to entry is very, very high as is the case with ISPs.

While I don't disagree with the concept that in a monopoly situation, a company can just choose not to innovate (I just disagree this has happened in regards to how we access the internet). But I can also see the other side where, in a strict regulatory situation, a company can just choose not to innovate until the government mandates them to. And the government isn't going to prioritize making sure we can access the next Netflix. They're going to say, ok, can people do the baseline stuff like access news and information, and email? Then that's good enough. After all, the reason to make the internet a utility is primarily for informational access and not watching episodes of HIMYM on Hulu. I don't think the government cares at all if you can watch Game of Thrones on HBO Now while sitting in your car on your lunch break. They will only care about your ability to access baseline level information and news.

So am I 100% opposed to strict governmental oversight? No. I'm not. It's an option on the table for sure. But there is going to be a potential price to pay on either side of the coin. If we heavily regulate, we might decide then that the risk of slowed technological innovation is worth ensuring a baseline level of access to all. If we do not, then we might have to make the tough decision that the risk of ISPs playing badly is worth keeping the innovations we have seen over the past 15-20 years (Dial Up, DSL, Cable, Mobile, 3G, LTE, 5G) going.

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5239

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:02 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
LakersRGolden
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 6457
Location: Lake Forest

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:23 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
It's funny to me that people will say there is no incentive to improve the product, yet, here we sit, exchanging thoughts on a fixed broadband network and checking out replies on an LTE network. Is LTE not an improvement over 3G? They're already working on 5G -- so if there is no incentive to do that, we must assume they are ... philanthropists?

We had Title II carrier designation over the past 2 years and my Jan internet bill was $72.53 while my December bill is $75.96, a 5% increase. And my speed (up to 50 Mbps) has remain unchanged since as far as I can see my online bills which is 18 months. Whether we regulate or not, I would expect that the cost for internet access will always increase over time, as infrastructure costs will likely increase and the general demand for content and data in general also increases.

Regarding monopolies, I'll admit it is hard for me to answer this one. In theory, you're right, I'm generally not in favor of monopolies as I tend to be more of a free market type. But so long as the monopoly behaves nicely, I think there can be benefits to them under some conditions. Particularly in cases when the barrier to entry is very, very high as is the case with ISPs.

While I don't disagree with the concept that in a monopoly situation, a company can just choose not to innovate (I just disagree this has happened in regards to how we access the internet). But I can also see the other side where, in a strict regulatory situation, a company can just choose not to innovate until the government mandates them to. And the government isn't going to prioritize making sure we can access the next Netflix. They're going to say, ok, can people do the baseline stuff like access news and information, and email? Then that's good enough. After all, the reason to make the internet a utility is primarily for informational access and not watching episodes of HIMYM on Hulu. I don't think the government cares at all if you can watch Game of Thrones on HBO Now while sitting in your car on your lunch break. They will only care about your ability to access baseline level information and news.

So am I 100% opposed to strict governmental oversight? No. I'm not. It's an option on the table for sure. But there is going to be a potential price to pay on either side of the coin. If we heavily regulate, we might decide then that the risk of slowed technological innovation is worth ensuring a baseline level of access to all. If we do not, then we might have to make the tough decision that the risk of ISPs playing badly is worth keeping the innovations we have seen over the past 15-20 years (Dial Up, DSL, Cable, Mobile, 3G, LTE, 5G) going.

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


3G->4G->5G is a cost savings for the carrier. The improved data rates and efficiency mean that the extremely limited resource (spectrum) that they licensed can service more paying customers($) with fewer towers(-$). It also keeps the customer experience better so they don't go to a competing carrier.

I just wish there was a google fiber or even Fios in my neighborhood to break that monopoly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject:

LakersRGolden wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
It's funny to me that people will say there is no incentive to improve the product, yet, here we sit, exchanging thoughts on a fixed broadband network and checking out replies on an LTE network. Is LTE not an improvement over 3G? They're already working on 5G -- so if there is no incentive to do that, we must assume they are ... philanthropists?

We had Title II carrier designation over the past 2 years and my Jan internet bill was $72.53 while my December bill is $75.96, a 5% increase. And my speed (up to 50 Mbps) has remain unchanged since as far as I can see my online bills which is 18 months. Whether we regulate or not, I would expect that the cost for internet access will always increase over time, as infrastructure costs will likely increase and the general demand for content and data in general also increases.

Regarding monopolies, I'll admit it is hard for me to answer this one. In theory, you're right, I'm generally not in favor of monopolies as I tend to be more of a free market type. But so long as the monopoly behaves nicely, I think there can be benefits to them under some conditions. Particularly in cases when the barrier to entry is very, very high as is the case with ISPs.

While I don't disagree with the concept that in a monopoly situation, a company can just choose not to innovate (I just disagree this has happened in regards to how we access the internet). But I can also see the other side where, in a strict regulatory situation, a company can just choose not to innovate until the government mandates them to. And the government isn't going to prioritize making sure we can access the next Netflix. They're going to say, ok, can people do the baseline stuff like access news and information, and email? Then that's good enough. After all, the reason to make the internet a utility is primarily for informational access and not watching episodes of HIMYM on Hulu. I don't think the government cares at all if you can watch Game of Thrones on HBO Now while sitting in your car on your lunch break. They will only care about your ability to access baseline level information and news.

So am I 100% opposed to strict governmental oversight? No. I'm not. It's an option on the table for sure. But there is going to be a potential price to pay on either side of the coin. If we heavily regulate, we might decide then that the risk of slowed technological innovation is worth ensuring a baseline level of access to all. If we do not, then we might have to make the tough decision that the risk of ISPs playing badly is worth keeping the innovations we have seen over the past 15-20 years (Dial Up, DSL, Cable, Mobile, 3G, LTE, 5G) going.

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


3G->4G->5G is a cost savings for the carrier. The improved data rates and efficiency mean that the extremely limited resource (spectrum) that they licensed can service more paying customers($) with fewer towers(-$). It also keeps the customer experience better so they don't go to a competing carrier.

I just wish there was a google fiber or even Fios in my neighborhood to break that monopoly.


Itís still a quarter of a trillion dollar investment they are collectively making. So Iím just not sure where the idea they donít/wonít innovate and improve comes from.

Agreed on Fiber. Iíd pay significantly for it. Isnít Fios dead?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject:

lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?


In approximately 20 years since the Internet has been enjoyed by the masses there have been what, like 5 incidents? And I think exactly zero involved blocking a website. They had about 20 years to block 1 website between them and didnít yet somehow after 2015 rules are repealed they suddenly will en masse?

I donít have the concern that the ISPs wont innovate since they have already shown a propensity to innovate and have collectively spent around $2 trillion on broadband infrastructure.

The ISPs wonít be entirely unregulated. There are still regulations they have to follow. And if they show a consistent inability to behave, then grandpa sam will rightfully have to get involved at the expense of innovation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5239

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:19 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?


In approximately 20 years since the Internet has been enjoyed by the masses there have been what, like 5 incidents? And I think exactly zero involved blocking a website. They had about 20 years to block 1 website between them and didnít yet somehow after 2015 rules are repealed they suddenly will en masse?

I donít have the concern that the ISPs wont innovate since they have already shown a propensity to innovate and have collectively spent around $2 trillion on broadband infrastructure.

The ISPs wonít be entirely unregulated. There are still regulations they have to follow. And if they show a consistent inability to behave, then grandpa sam will rightfully have to get involved at the expense of innovation.


My problem is you have yet to demonstrate they are unable to innovate because of the title ii classification. I even quoted one of the execs saying it wasn't a factor.

There are far more than 5 incidents, and you'll also note these incidents raise major backlash which govt eventually involved itself with. That goes away if we have a Corp friendly FCC. Which then allows the floodgates for such changes to open. The few incidents become commonplace and the new norm with no entity stepping in to protect consumers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:58 pm    Post subject:

lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?


In approximately 20 years since the Internet has been enjoyed by the masses there have been what, like 5 incidents? And I think exactly zero involved blocking a website. They had about 20 years to block 1 website between them and didnít yet somehow after 2015 rules are repealed they suddenly will en masse?

I donít have the concern that the ISPs wont innovate since they have already shown a propensity to innovate and have collectively spent around $2 trillion on broadband infrastructure.

The ISPs wonít be entirely unregulated. There are still regulations they have to follow. And if they show a consistent inability to behave, then grandpa sam will rightfully have to get involved at the expense of innovation.


My problem is you have yet to demonstrate they are unable to innovate because of the title ii classification. I even quoted one of the execs saying it wasn't a factor.

There are far more than 5 incidents, and you'll also note these incidents raise major backlash which govt eventually involved itself with. That goes away if we have a Corp friendly FCC. Which then allows the floodgates for such changes to open. The few incidents become commonplace and the new norm with no entity stepping in to protect consumers.


Well, I canít prove they would be unable to innovate under Title II since they werenít really under it for very long. And the only way to prove that would be to wait 50 years while weíre still on some antiquated system and say see, told ya! (To which the response will be pointing to some other reason).

The only thing I can point to is the telephone industry which was classified under Title II over 100 years ago. We have seen significantly more innovation in broadband over the past 15 years. Way more innovation in 1/7th the time frame. We can also look at other regulated industries like taxi cabs. No innovation whatsoever hindered by cumbersome rules and rate regulation. What are they doing now? Begging for less regulation so they can compete with ride sharing services. Wait, shouldnt they be on their knees for more and stricter rules? You know, for innovation? Power utilities? Strategizing on how to COMBAT solar and alternative energy instead of investing in it. Regulation inhibits innovation and that is by design because to innovate is to occassionally fail and regulation eliminates that risk for the sake of consistent accessibility.

Why do you feel you have to argue that regulation is great for innovation? Why not just own the position that youíre just not willing to risk hurting consumers even if that means we slow innovation? Iím just willing to take the risk the other way. I wonít pretend there is no risk in declassification. There is risk in any route you take ó its more a matter of what you can stomach.

If you really think the FCC is capable of managing this, I donít know what to tell you. There is only one formal complaint of NN violation since the 2015 OIO and there is still no ruling on it as of today. Itís taken them longer to address one formal complaint than it took Youtube to launch and get sold to Google for $1 billion. Talk about a slow lane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakez34
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 5239

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:11 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?


In approximately 20 years since the Internet has been enjoyed by the masses there have been what, like 5 incidents? And I think exactly zero involved blocking a website. They had about 20 years to block 1 website between them and didnít yet somehow after 2015 rules are repealed they suddenly will en masse?

I donít have the concern that the ISPs wont innovate since they have already shown a propensity to innovate and have collectively spent around $2 trillion on broadband infrastructure.

The ISPs wonít be entirely unregulated. There are still regulations they have to follow. And if they show a consistent inability to behave, then grandpa sam will rightfully have to get involved at the expense of innovation.


My problem is you have yet to demonstrate they are unable to innovate because of the title ii classification. I even quoted one of the execs saying it wasn't a factor.

There are far more than 5 incidents, and you'll also note these incidents raise major backlash which govt eventually involved itself with. That goes away if we have a Corp friendly FCC. Which then allows the floodgates for such changes to open. The few incidents become commonplace and the new norm with no entity stepping in to protect consumers.


Well, I canít prove they would be unable to innovate under Title II since they werenít really under it for very long. And the only way to prove that would be to wait 50 years while weíre still on some antiquated system and say see, told ya! (To which the response will be pointing to some other reason).

The only thing I can point to is the telephone industry which was classified under Title II over 100 years ago. We have seen significantly more innovation in broadband over the past 15 years. Way more innovation in 1/7th the time frame. We can also look at other regulated industries like taxi cabs. No innovation whatsoever hindered by cumbersome rules and rate regulation. What are they doing now? Begging for less regulation so they can compete with ride sharing services. Wait, shouldnt they be on their knees for more and stricter rules? You know, for innovation? Power utilities? Strategizing on how to COMBAT solar and alternative energy instead of investing in it. Regulation inhibits innovation and that is by design because to innovate is to occassionally fail and regulation eliminates that risk for the sake of consistent accessibility.

Why do you feel you have to argue that regulation is great for innovation? Why not just own the position that youíre just not willing to risk hurting consumers even if that means we slow innovation? Iím just willing to take the risk the other way. I wonít pretend there is no risk in declassification. There is risk in any route you take ó its more a matter of what you can stomach.

If you really think the FCC is capable of managing this, I donít know what to tell you. There is only one formal complaint of NN violation since the 2015 OIO and there is still no ruling on it as of today. Itís taken them longer to address one formal complaint than it took Youtube to launch and get sold to Google for $1 billion. Talk about a slow lane.


To clarify my stance, were there any real competition available, absolutely agreed that regulation would be the wrong approach. But with no competition, innovation isn't happening anyway, and regulation at least helps protect the consumer. Which to me is better than leaving it unregulated and having these ISPs manipulate the access and pricing purely in their favor.

To me, this is also similar to the mostly unregulated mobile broadband space, which does have competition, in which it's simply become acceptable to have speed throttles, capping and prioritized services. So yes, while mobile carriers have innovated (mostly because consumers could speak with their wallet and jump carrier to carrier), they've also listed investment leading to different priorities of access. I don't want to see wired internet access go the same route.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject:

lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
lakez34 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

Me? I want this crazy thing we have built over the past 15-20 years to keep going the way it has. It is, to me, worth the possibility the ISPs will start to behave really badly. And if they do, then, we're going to have to risk forgoing the great innovations we've seen. (Plus, I'm a pretty firm believer that at some point in the not too distant future, the mobile broadband providers are going to figure out how to eliminate the need for fixed broadband altogether).


Agreed that I want the Internet and access to it to continue to remain flexible, convenient and evolutionary for all those who want to utilize it as it has been for the past 20 years or so.

However, there is a risk, a very likely one given their past behavior, that ISPs will behave poorly in an unregulated world. There is also the risk that these same providers will choose not to innovate at a breakneck pace to help eliminate fixed broadband so as not to cannibalize one of their parent companies' revenue streams and/or to charge in a way where they can innovate, improve services, but only offer such services at prices unattainable for the "masses." The question I have is in an unregulated marketplace, what do we do at that point. Regulate them again then?


In approximately 20 years since the Internet has been enjoyed by the masses there have been what, like 5 incidents? And I think exactly zero involved blocking a website. They had about 20 years to block 1 website between them and didnít yet somehow after 2015 rules are repealed they suddenly will en masse?

I donít have the concern that the ISPs wont innovate since they have already shown a propensity to innovate and have collectively spent around $2 trillion on broadband infrastructure.

The ISPs wonít be entirely unregulated. There are still regulations they have to follow. And if they show a consistent inability to behave, then grandpa sam will rightfully have to get involved at the expense of innovation.


My problem is you have yet to demonstrate they are unable to innovate because of the title ii classification. I even quoted one of the execs saying it wasn't a factor.

There are far more than 5 incidents, and you'll also note these incidents raise major backlash which govt eventually involved itself with. That goes away if we have a Corp friendly FCC. Which then allows the floodgates for such changes to open. The few incidents become commonplace and the new norm with no entity stepping in to protect consumers.


Well, I canít prove they would be unable to innovate under Title II since they werenít really under it for very long. And the only way to prove that would be to wait 50 years while weíre still on some antiquated system and say see, told ya! (To which the response will be pointing to some other reason).

The only thing I can point to is the telephone industry which was classified under Title II over 100 years ago. We have seen significantly more innovation in broadband over the past 15 years. Way more innovation in 1/7th the time frame. We can also look at other regulated industries like taxi cabs. No innovation whatsoever hindered by cumbersome rules and rate regulation. What are they doing now? Begging for less regulation so they can compete with ride sharing services. Wait, shouldnt they be on their knees for more and stricter rules? You know, for innovation? Power utilities? Strategizing on how to COMBAT solar and alternative energy instead of investing in it. Regulation inhibits innovation and that is by design because to innovate is to occassionally fail and regulation eliminates that risk for the sake of consistent accessibility.

Why do you feel you have to argue that regulation is great for innovation? Why not just own the position that youíre just not willing to risk hurting consumers even if that means we slow innovation? Iím just willing to take the risk the other way. I wonít pretend there is no risk in declassification. There is risk in any route you take ó its more a matter of what you can stomach.

If you really think the FCC is capable of managing this, I donít know what to tell you. There is only one formal complaint of NN violation since the 2015 OIO and there is still no ruling on it as of today. Itís taken them longer to address one formal complaint than it took Youtube to launch and get sold to Google for $1 billion. Talk about a slow lane.


To clarify my stance, were there any real competition available, absolutely agreed that regulation would be the wrong approach. But with no competition, innovation isn't happening anyway, and regulation at least helps protect the consumer. Which to me is better than leaving it unregulated and having these ISPs manipulate the access and pricing purely in their favor.

To me, this is also similar to the mostly unregulated mobile broadband space, which does have competition, in which it's simply become acceptable to have speed throttles, capping and prioritized services. So yes, while mobile carriers have innovated (mostly because consumers could speak with their wallet and jump carrier to carrier), they've also listed investment leading to different priorities of access. I don't want to see wired internet access go the same route.


I disagree that innovation isnít happening anyway. Broadband speeds increased 5x over the past 10 years with infrastructure improvements.

And they do have an incentive to innovate because of edge providers who build platforms that people want that also require more data (i.e. Netflix). If some company comes out with something people want that requires more data, the ISPs will invest in infrastructure to support it and increase pricing to profit from it. As they have done so far (my bill is higher than it was 10 yrs ago but so is my data usage).

The only way they wouldnít invest, is if there was a risk that they could not be allowed to recoup and profit from those investments. And thats where Title II comes in which gives the FCC the power to regulate pricing. Thats when an ISP says wait, I have to spend X billion to support this new Netflix people want but I might not be able to make money off it? This, in reverse, is why taxi cab authorities canít innovate because their pricing is regulated. Thats why they are asking for LESS regulation, not more.

It is the potential prize of profit which drives the majority of innovation. The exceptions are innovations from academia and other innovations not generally available to the public like military technologies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:20 pm    Post subject:

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82035
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:56 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


I disagree ...


I condensed all if your posts in this thread down to the most relevant material I could glean from them. Maybe we've trolled this subject enough? I mean, I get that you think defending a (bleep) argument to the death is some kind of achievement, but it's really not dude...
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 12:57 pm    Post subject:

And the thought that the actors and last mile ISPs will act poorly coming into reality:

https://www.inverse.com/article/39671-in-the-wake-of-net-neutrality-prepare-for-internet-fast-lanes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tlim
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:13 pm    Post subject:

Sorry ringfinger, but I've never known monopolies and oligopolies to act in the best interests of the consumer. It will act and make 'improvements' but almost never in the best interests of the consumer in terms of performance or price.

All the theory will become reality as time goes on in terms of what the last mile monopoly is doing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 21257

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:56 am    Post subject:

tlim wrote:
Sorry ringfinger, but I've never known monopolies and oligopolies to act in the best interests of the consumer. It will act and make 'improvements' but almost never in the best interests of the consumer in terms of performance or price.

All the theory will become reality as time goes on in terms of what the last mile monopoly is doing.


I wouldn't disagree with your point there. All companies, whether they are oligopolies or otherwise, will be motivated by the allure of profit rather than philanthropic desire. Let's not pretend like Apple is charging $1,000 for iPhone X as a goodwill gesture because they are not a monopoly.

But at the same time, I've never known governments (anywhere to be fair) that spend a whole lot of time concerned about what's the next cool, but entirely unnecessary, thing in technology that people might be willing to pay a pretty penny for? I'm also not sure that I agree that our government is working towards what is in our collective best interests in general.

So I'd like to find the middle ground. Determine what is the minimum level that satisfies that NEED, but allow for sufficient flexibility to allow them to pursue the WANT.

So that's why I don't get why it has to be Title II or bust? For instance, why couldn't we pass a bill requiring ISPs to offer a minimally viable product at a reasonable price. Why do we have to go all the way over and say, you may not get to decide what you charge for anything that you do? I just don't feel like we need to go that far. Yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 4422

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:01 am    Post subject:

https://kotaku.com/the-makers-of-leeroy-jenkins-didnt-think-anyone-would-b-1821570730

Creators of one of first ever video memes putting their hat in the game to support a free internet

Quote:

Shortly after they published the video, Vinson recalls it exploding. ďWe woke up the next morning and our friend had a nasty email from his ISP about having to shut down his server due to too much bandwidth usage, and at that point the video was already everywhere, it was out of our hands,Ē he said.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB