Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Don't Let Fafnir Pay to be the Best/Protect Net Neutrality

  1. #31
    Junior Member Senior Cupidhead Carbon124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    4
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 540
    Achievements:
    1 year registered 1000 Experience Points
    Rep Power
    0
    Playing Devils advocate here:
    Assuming a company decides to start making these packages everyone talks about, would they not be committing industrial/economic suicide? Nobody would pay for them and not to mention the PR disaster that would ensue. Stock would fall along with other sources of income. The 1% that could afford it would be drastically outweighed by the 99% that would cancel the service.

    I agree the internet should be open to all as should all the information it contains. However, mandating people who live in the country (such as myself) get the same exact connection speed as people who live in the city is not realistic. It forces the company into a corner and as a result, everyone gets terrible connection speeds because the company can't for whatever reason provide someone who lives in the Rocky Mountains the same quality Internet as someone who lives in NYC. (Which is what part of NN does I think. I could be wrong but from what I read the government regulates the industry to prevent monopolization of it. I have done limited research which is why I'm here trying to find out more.)

    I'm still somewhat undecided on the topic, but the "outrage engine" turns away moderates who could be persuaded.

  2. #32
    A Tragic Product of Swedish Advertising Demigod SirKeksalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Bro-Koro
    Posts
    13,070
    29
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 16
    Achievements:
    Tagger Third Class Reputation Distributor 1 year registered 25000 Experience Points Repped! First Class
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon124 View Post
    Playing Devils advocate here:
    Assuming a company decides to start making these packages everyone talks about, would they not be committing industrial/economic suicide? Nobody would pay for them and not to mention the PR disaster that would ensue. Stock would fall along with other sources of income. The 1% that could afford it would be drastically outweighed by the 99% that would cancel the service.
    So...where would everyone get their internet, then? And that's not the only scummy thing they can do without NN; remember, they can affect your e-mail.
    I tell people I'm bi, but what I really mean is [B] I O N I C L E



    Muh Concepts


  3. #33
    Senior Member Honoured LittlePebble02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    816
    5
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 791
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points Repped! Second Class 1 year registered
    Rep Power
    3
    And even if enough of the public tries to abandon the internet it just makes it easier to funnel certain news to the people which is a big part in why they are doing this. And other companies will still work with online services so the stock wont suffer enough for it to mean anything. The companies are practically so large they can't fail in this senario. All that's left is to see if Congress got their hands greased enough with the ips money to move with the repeal.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Chosen RonanTheGreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    "I have trodden the path of sanctity, and all that happened was I lost a shoe"
    Posts
    1,727
    8
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 856
    Achievements:
    Full Profile! Repped! First Class 1 year registered 5000 Experience Points
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbon124 View Post
    Playing Devils advocate here:
    Assuming a company decides to start making these packages everyone talks about, would they not be committing industrial/economic suicide? Nobody would pay for them and not to mention the PR disaster that would ensue. Stock would fall along with other sources of income. The 1% that could afford it would be drastically outweighed by the 99% that would cancel the service.

    I agree the internet should be open to all as should all the information it contains. However, mandating people who live in the country (such as myself) get the same exact connection speed as people who live in the city is not realistic. It forces the company into a corner and as a result, everyone gets terrible connection speeds because the company can't for whatever reason provide someone who lives in the Rocky Mountains the same quality Internet as someone who lives in NYC. (Which is what part of NN does I think. I could be wrong but from what I read the government regulates the industry to prevent monopolization of it. I have done limited research which is why I'm here trying to find out more.)

    I'm still somewhat undecided on the topic, but the "outrage engine" turns away moderates who could be persuaded.
    The reason why internet speeds vary has a lot to do with the oligopoly system that exists, as in perfect competition amongst the few. While on paper this may seem reasonable, you then have to factor in that in oligopolistic systems, there is collusion and price fixing and a lack of competition, meaning, for example, Commcast could say to Verizon "hey, we'll not compete with you in Wisconsin if you don't compete with us in Colorado" meaning Commcast is your sole provider in that area and if you want to use the internet you have to pay their price, which they can set at whatever they want, as they have no competitors, and consumers have no choice.

    I must say though I do find it fascinating that so many people seem to think equality of service to be a bad thing. If you're paying the same money, then why would you not expect the same service? The only answer there is viability of service, which, I'm sorry to say, is whatever they want to provide if they have no competitors.

    Oddly enough though, what I described is the system that you currently have WITH net neutrality. How anyone could possibly expect this to improve with NN being abolished and the ISP's being able to further strangle any online competitors they have(Netflix etc) is frankly baffling to me.
    'Two guys walk into a bar, you'd think the second guy would have ducked'
    YOU ARE OWED NOTHING

  5. #35
    Senior Member Prestigious GongsunYiru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    4,620
    26
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 102
    Achievements:
    Repped! First Class Repped! Second Class Reputation Distributor Repped! Third Class Discussion Ender
    Awards:
    Guru
    Rep Power
    19
    The internet is an important source of cultural capital (e.g. knowledge, news, etc). It has ramifications on the latter's reproduction, certainly on a societal level. Its usage contributes significantly to the academic chances and success of the future generation, and with it innovation. Educational outcomes do not need to be hampered by another hurdle based on people's socioeconomic background (e.g. not being able to afford the right access) and companies' vile gatekeeper practices.

  6. #36
    Junior Member Senior Cupidhead Carbon124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    4
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 540
    Achievements:
    1 year registered 1000 Experience Points
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SirKeksalot View Post
    So...where would everyone get their internet, then?
    Ideally, alternative sources. Assuming a company develops these packages, I would imagine the window for competition would fly open among all the outrage. I do see the problem with one area already being near monopolized though.

    One could maybe argue though by deregulating it, it at least opens this very window to spark competition instead of continuing the path we are on. The monopolies were complying with government regulation, but nothing proactive was being done to curb them.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Honoured LittlePebble02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    816
    5
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 791
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points Repped! Second Class 1 year registered
    Rep Power
    3
    But if competition outside their circles come up they will be immediately squashed with proccessing problems and connection rates that would make 80's dial up look like hi speed satellite internet.

  8. #38
    Junior Member Senior Cupidhead Carbon124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    4
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 540
    Achievements:
    1 year registered 1000 Experience Points
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RonanTheGreat View Post

    I must say though I do find it fascinating that so many people seem to think equality of service to be a bad thing. If you're paying the same money, then why would you not expect the same service? The only answer there is viability of service, which, I'm sorry to say, is whatever they want to provide if they have no competitors.
    Thanks for the oligopoly info. And I'm writing on my phone and I can't multiquote properly so pardon the multi post.

    I don't think it's so much as not wanting equality as it wasn't encouraging growth.

    If I was understanding correctly, AT&T back in the 80's agreed to be a government regulated monopoly essentially. They were going to be broken up but agreed to offer equal service to all, and in exchange maintained their status. In order to keep equality across all regions, they were forced to offer the worst quality service to all to be able to keep being cost effective and avoid government penalty.

    After removing the restrictions, it allowed the company to offer better service to those willing to pay. Which consequently means developing better and more efficent technology to satisfy the higher paying customers. Initially the 1% benefit , but the rest of society receives it eventually.(So goes the argument I read.)

    I don't like the P2W aspect it introduces or the idea that the 1% will constantly be ahead in terms of technology. I do see some merit though in the idea companies can reinvest to develop new tech.

  9. #39
    Junior Member Senior Cupidhead Carbon124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    91
    4
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 540
    Achievements:
    1 year registered 1000 Experience Points
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LittlePebble02 View Post
    But if competition outside their circles come up they will be immediately squashed with proccessing problems and connection rates that would make 80's dial up look like hi speed satellite internet.
    But with enough support they could potentially grow to rival them. I'm not saying it's a perfect idea by any means. I do think it's a potential step in the right direction though. The old system did nothing to address monopolies. They simply agreed to the terms the government laid down and continued to remain monopolies. Or so it seemed to me.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Honoured LittlePebble02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    816
    5
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 791
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points Repped! Second Class 1 year registered
    Rep Power
    3
    Yes they could grow to their size with enough support but they will never have their power. Picture it like this two care factories are in one town and theirs only one metal mine. The mine is used by both factories but the mine is owned by factory A. Factory A makes it so factory B only gets the slag metal from the mine the near useless garbage ore from the mine. Makeing factory B's cars very bad almost not suit for street use. While letting factory A's cars great and for near triple the price. This is a medium on what might happen with no net neutrality. Worst case is they outright outlaw developing new ISP's. Your not wrong though in a perfect world with morally good people you are right.

    But with how the FCC has handled the press on this and with the videos we have for this incident I doubt they have the best intention for the public.

Posting Permissions

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