E90Post
 


The Tire Rack
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion > FCC Plans to Repeal Net Neutrality



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-28-2017, 06:31 PM   #67
pasghetti
Somebody Toucha My Spaghet
pasghetti's Avatar
1969
Rep
364
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Your link discusses telcos. I'm not discussing telcos. From this point forward I'm certain how to handle your commentary.
Did you only read the first couple sentences of his link or something?

Because this is you:


Quote:
By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up. And though it varies by state, counting the taxes, fees and surcharges that you have paid every month (many of these fees are actually revenues to the company or taxes on the company that you paid), it comes to about $4000-$5000.00 per household from 1992-2014, and that’s the low number.

You were also charged about nine times to wire the schools and libraries via state and federal plans designed to help the phone and cable companies.

And if that doesn’t bother you, by year-end of 2010, and based on the commitments made by the phone companies in their press statements, filings on the state and federal level, and the state-based ‘alternative regulation’ plans that were put in place to charge you for broadband upgrades of the telephone company wire in your home, business, as well as the schools and libraries — America, should have been the world’s first fully fibered, leading edge broadband nation.

In fact, in 1992, the speed of broadband, as detailed in state laws, was 45 Mbps in both directions — by 2014, all of us should have been enjoying gigabit speeds (1000 Mbps).

Instead, America is not number 1 or 2 or 5 or even 10th in the world in broadband. As of Monday, September 15th, 2014, one of the standard testing companies of the speed of broadband, worldwide, Net Index by Ookla, pegged America at 25th in the world in download speeds and 40th in upload speeds. Though this accounting varies daily, America’s download speeds are never in the top 20 countries.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axius View Post
The only thing he caught last week was the clap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
Yeah, I get that a lot. Women always ask me how I manage to hide my penis so well.

Last edited by pasghetti; 11-28-2017 at 06:46 PM.
Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 06:33 AM   #68
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
I still don't understand why the ISPs can't offer priority bandwidth for a fee to content providers. Just revoke their monopoly status. .
Because there's no practical way to, as a consumer, choose to have Netflix through your Cox connection and Hulu through your Comcast one. That's the fundamental problem. As a consumer, you can choose your service provider but without net neutrality protection your service provider then decides what you can or can't enjoy based on the agreements they negotiate or their self-interest in the content they own.

The carriage disputes you see between cable providers/satellite distros and content owners is what the world looks like without net neutrality. So, you choose DirectTV and suddenly the network you want to watch is unavailable because of a dispute between DirectTV and Comcast (who own the content). Comcast is provoking the dispute by jacking carriage rates to the point where DirectTV will have to either walk away or increase your subscription fees such that Comcast's competing cable service looks more attractive.

What the FCC did is highly anti-consumer because it's taking the broadcast TV model and applying it to the internet. So now, in addition to paying your ISP for bandwidth and consumption, you are now going to pay them for access to content too on top of your subscription fees to the service itself. Or, if they have competing content, they can disadvantage your access to Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/HBO Now/etc to promote NBC Universal content that they own (using Comcast as the example).

The broken, anti-consumer, cable TV model was created at a time when the service providers didn't own content and it wasn't foreseeable that they would. Having seen how all players behave in the broadcast TV realm, why would you want to duplicate the same stupidity with the internet? Net neutrality is the protection against that.
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 08:41 AM   #69
zx10guy
Lieutenant Colonel
1345
Rep
1,621
Posts

Drives: 2013 135i
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
You're a perky fellow aren't you. Okay. I'm Netflix, and I have a server farm that generates the data streams for my customers. It's capable of generating 100K data streams at full HD. Great, except my customers are calling for 150K data streams. Now I, Netflix, have to either reduce video quality to handle the extra load, or I have to tell 1/3 of my customers "sorry no can do, come back tomorrow". Of course I, Netflix, am going to do the former.

Or, I have 100K titles, and only keep the 10K hot sellers on my fast new hardware. My older hardware is what feeds demand for the rest. So if my customer requests, for example, "1966 Formula 1 Season Highlights", guess where it comes from.

Note that the data hasn't even left Netflix yet. Not one iota of what is happening above has one micron to do with the size of the pipe connecting the customer to the data stream. It's all inside the Netflix data center.

Now change Netflix to Amazon in the above scenario, because I don't have streaming issues with Netflix. Never have, for many years. I've been streaming content from them since well before the supposed ransom paid by Netflix to Comcast and other backbone operators. (I'm sure you knew that Comcast operates its own backbone, and Netflix paid fees to other backbones besides Comcast to get their onramps upgraded.)

In short, my pipe is fine. Netflix knows how to scale their plant to handle demand. Amazon does not. Or, cheapskate outfit they have always been, chooses not to.

Now it's your turn. Please tell me again how stupid I am and how my issue with Amazon is definitely a case of my big bad cable provider purposely throttling poor little Amazon.
Amazon is not as incompetent as you make them out to be. Amazon has this thing called AWS (Amazon Web Services). I would find it highly stupid and beyond belief if Amazon doesn't leverage their own AWS infrastructure to do their streaming services. AWS which runs many large corporations and ecommerce sites.

And your example of Netflix....well...they're running on AWS.

https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
We might not be in an agreement on Trump, but I'll be the first penis chaser here to say I'll rather take it up in the ass than to argue with you on this.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer7350.00
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 08:46 AM   #70
zx10guy
Lieutenant Colonel
1345
Rep
1,621
Posts

Drives: 2013 135i
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
I still don't understand why the ISPs can't offer priority bandwidth for a fee to content providers. Just revoke their monopoly status. .
They already do have a policy in place which addresses high consumption users. It's called data quotas. I have both Comcast and Mediacrap...I mean Mediacom. The plan I have with Comcast has no per month data cap at this time. They've always mentioned they have the right to institute one but haven't for a few years now on the particular data plan I have. The lower tiers do have per month data caps. My Mediacrap service at my vacation property does have a spelled out monthly data cap.

So what happens when you hit that monthly data cap? Well, you pay a higher rate per GB you download. So what the cable companies are doing is capturing any excess usage you are doing if you are buying a lower tier service and incentivizing customers to pay for the higher tier/higher speed services to have larger monthly data caps or unlimited data.

I agree that these companies should have the government controls locking them in as the only game in town removed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
We might not be in an agreement on Trump, but I'll be the first penis chaser here to say I'll rather take it up in the ass than to argue with you on this.

Last edited by zx10guy; 11-29-2017 at 08:54 AM.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer7350.00
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 08:53 AM   #71
zx10guy
Lieutenant Colonel
1345
Rep
1,621
Posts

Drives: 2013 135i
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: DC

iTrader: (0)

Oh and by the way, I suffer directly from Mediacrap doing selective traffic shaping on the service I purchase from them. When ever I stream video content via my Slingbox or Plex server, I get all sorts of choppy unstable streams. But when I do anything else while these streams are going, it's fine for anything else such as Youtube.

For anyone that doesn't know, Slingbox is a streaming box that you physically connect a source (in my case it's one of my DirecTV HD DVRs) to view content from the connected source over the Internet. Plex is a media streaming server where you can provide access to pictures, music, and movies over the Internet. In my case, I'm my own streaming service and Mediacrap is choosing to degrade my experience.

How I know it's not Comcast is because, the streams from the above sources work fine over other Internet connections such as the free WiFi at hotels and coffee shops.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
We might not be in an agreement on Trump, but I'll be the first penis chaser here to say I'll rather take it up in the ass than to argue with you on this.
Appreciate 3
MKSixer7350.00
Taskmaster2080.50
wdb811.00

      11-29-2017, 11:26 AM   #72
Uber Commuter
First Lieutenant
Uber Commuter's Avatar
338
Rep
382
Posts

Drives: 2014 328D xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.

How exactly do you think "competition" is going to fix ISP issues? When the cost to enter the game is in the billions; there are no alternative companies trying to step in and being held back... More than 60% of the US still has access to only 1 ISP provider, and more than 90% only has access to 1 at "acceptable" speeds, ie 10mb or better download speeds.

The thought that revoking net neutrality will somehow create competition is naive at best; all it will create is higher costs on consumers when ISPs start deciding what they want to allow or make money on.
Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 11:36 AM   #73
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.

How exactly do you think "competition" is going to fix ISP issues? When the cost to enter the game is in the billions; there are no alternative companies trying to step in and being held back... More than 60% of the US still has access to only 1 ISP provider, and more than 90% only has access to 1 at "acceptable" speeds, ie 10mb or better download speeds.

The thought that revoking net neutrality will somehow create competition is naive at best; all it will create is higher costs on consumers when ISPs start deciding what they want to allow or make money on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.

How exactly do you think "competition" is going to fix ISP issues? When the cost to enter the game is in the billions; there are no alternative companies trying to step in and being held back... More than 60% of the US still has access to only 1 ISP provider, and more than 90% only has access to 1 at "acceptable" speeds, ie 10mb or better download speeds.

The thought that revoking net neutrality will somehow create competition is naive at best; all it will create is higher costs on consumers when ISPs start deciding what they want to allow or make money on.
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 11:39 AM   #74
Uber Commuter
First Lieutenant
Uber Commuter's Avatar
338
Rep
382
Posts

Drives: 2014 328D xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Completely false. Again. I swear it's like you live in some corporate dream world...?

Everything you just posted is wrong, please just stop already.

There are at least 2 dozen posts in this thread that explain the actual issue; and you still don't get it. At this point, you just sound like a Comcast or Verizon mouthpiece trying to change public perception and failing miserably at it...

Last edited by Uber Commuter; 11-29-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Appreciate 2
MKSixer7350.00
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 11:52 AM   #75
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Completely false. Again. I swear it's like you live in some corporate dream world...?

Everything you just posted is wrong, please just stop already.

There are at least 2 dozen posts in this thread that explain the actual issue; and you still don't get it. At this point, you just sound like a Comcast or Verizon mouthpiece trying to change public perception and failing miserably at it...
Really? What did I say that was false?
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 11:53 AM   #76
MKSixer
Brigadier General
7350
Rep
4,460
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Completely false. Again. I swear it's like you live in some corporate dream world...?

Everything you just posted is wrong, please just stop already.

There are at least 2 dozen posts in this thread that explain the actual issue; and you still don't get it. At this point, you just sound like a Comcast or Verizon mouthpiece trying to change public perception and failing miserably at it...
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1271...mcast-att.html

Parallel universes. Mergers are blocked all of the time. Here are a few in the Telecom industry.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

@[Nyet. Not Russian Hacker](contact:368080)
Ask me hacker question. Hacker question I get answer.
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 11:59 AM   #77
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Completely false. Again. I swear it's like you live in some corporate dream world...?

Everything you just posted is wrong, please just stop already.

There are at least 2 dozen posts in this thread that explain the actual issue; and you still don't get it. At this point, you just sound like a Comcast or Verizon mouthpiece trying to change public perception and failing miserably at it...
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1271...mcast-att.html

Parallel universes. Mergers are blocked all of the time. Here are a few in the Telecom industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Completely false. Again. I swear it's like you live in some corporate dream world...?

Everything you just posted is wrong, please just stop already.

There are at least 2 dozen posts in this thread that explain the actual issue; and you still don't get it. At this point, you just sound like a Comcast or Verizon mouthpiece trying to change public perception and failing miserably at it...
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1271...mcast-att.html

Parallel universes. Mergers are blocked all of the time. Here are a few in the Telecom industry.
Yes, but they're horizontal mergers (ex, ATT w/ T-Mobile). For contrast Comcast and GE (NBC Universal) weren't.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 12:05 PM   #78
MKSixer
Brigadier General
7350
Rep
4,460
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Yes, but they're horizontal mergers (ex, ATT w/ T-Mobile). For contrast Comcast and GE (NBC Universal) weren't.
Some fear that vertical integrations can be used as a back-door into a horizontal merger as well as the potential for collusion with regard to shared systems and price fixing. It's a bad idea and anti-competitive.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

@[Nyet. Not Russian Hacker](contact:368080)
Ask me hacker question. Hacker question I get answer.
Appreciate 1
      11-29-2017, 02:26 PM   #79
Uber Commuter
First Lieutenant
Uber Commuter's Avatar
338
Rep
382
Posts

Drives: 2014 328D xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Really? What did I say that was false?
Here's half a dozen just off the top of my head...
  1. The government did not "give" monopolies to ISPs
  2. There is not limited demand for high speed internet anywhere in the country...
  3. Cost to build out is totally relevant, and the single largest roadblock to becoming an ISP for a new company
  4. Net Neutrality isn't even about monopolies at all
  5. NN is about content freedom, not about bandwidth control or monopolies. Even if all the monopolies were broken up, ISPs could still filter or block your content without NN; that's the point.
  6. Vertical integrations have been blocked in the past; it is more rare but not unheard of.

Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

      11-29-2017, 02:29 PM   #80
Taskmaster
Major General
Taskmaster's Avatar
Japan
2081
Rep
8,282
Posts

Drives: E92 LCI Msport 6 Speed
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Really? What did I say that was false?
Literally everything you have posted is not based in fact, or hell- reality.
__________________
Axiom - E92 Msport 6MT: Bolt ons - MILV - BPC tune.
Appreciate 2
      11-29-2017, 03:08 PM   #81
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Really? What did I say that was false?
Here's half a dozen just off the top of my head...
  1. The government did not "give" monopolies to ISPs
  2. There is not limited demand for high speed internet anywhere in the country...
  3. Cost to build out is totally relevant, and the single largest roadblock to becoming an ISP for a new company
  4. Net Neutrality isn't even about monopolies at all
  5. NN is about content freedom, not about bandwidth control or monopolies. Even if all the monopolies were broken up, ISPs could still filter or block your content without NN; that's the point.
  6. Vertical integrations have been blocked in the past; it is more rare but not unheard of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uber Commuter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
There are a limited number of providers in some areas because either the govt gave them monopoly status or there's limited demand. Cost to build out isn't really relevant. The root cause behind NN is ISP monopolies. Ban the govt sanctioned monopoly and there's no need for NN.

Less govt intrusion in the market the better. For example the DOJ has sued to block the vertical integration of Time Warner and ATT. Never in history has that sort of integration been blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Really? What did I say that was false?
Here's half a dozen just off the top of my head...
  1. The government did not "give" monopolies to ISPs
  2. There is not limited demand for high speed internet anywhere in the country...
  3. Cost to build out is totally relevant, and the single largest roadblock to becoming an ISP for a new company
  4. Net Neutrality isn't even about monopolies at all
  5. NN is about content freedom, not about bandwidth control or monopolies. Even if all the monopolies were broken up, ISPs could still filter or block your content without NN; that's the point.
  6. Vertical integrations have been blocked in the past; it is more rare but not unheard of.

You're mistaken, ISPs have been known to get the govt to discourage or outright prevent competition from entering a market. That's how monopolies operate and part of the quid pro quo.

NN is about monopolies, because the assumption is that the ISPs control access between a site/service and the customer. NN is an attempt to address that access with regulation in order to short circuit donor influence from the ISPs. Never mind that those who "benefit" from NN also spent lots of $ to "kiss the ring" in DC for all this to happen.

Building of networks doesn't have to be expensive if govt got out of the way in terms of licensing, ROW, easements, and the obligatory campaign contribution. Established ISPs don't mind this expense because it limits competition.
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 0
      11-29-2017, 04:01 PM   #82
Taskmaster
Major General
Taskmaster's Avatar
Japan
2081
Rep
8,282
Posts

Drives: E92 LCI Msport 6 Speed
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (5)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
You're mistaken, ISPs have been known to get the govt to discourage or outright prevent competition from entering a market. That's how monopolies operate and part of the quid pro quo.

NN is about monopolies, (False) because the assumption is that the ISPs control access between a site/service and the customer. (not an assumption) NN is an attempt to address that access with regulation in order to short circuit donor influence from the ISPs. Never mind that those who "benefit" from NN also spent lots of $ to "kiss the ring" in DC for all this to happen. ( yes, it's a shit idea that Netflix should pay more to push the same 1s and 0s through a pipeline than the ISP's own proprietary content. Regardless, the internet is literally a necessity to almost all businesses these days, removing these rules would only benefit the ISPs over literally EVERYONE ELSE)

Building of networks doesn't have to be expensive if govt got out of the way in terms of licensing, ROW, easements, and the obligatory campaign contribution. (Big if true...but no proof. And what government? City/municipal, County, State? Federal?) Established ISPs don't mind this expense because it limits competition. (that won't change with,
or without NN)
Please see the above post.
__________________
Axiom - E92 Msport 6MT: Bolt ons - MILV - BPC tune.
Appreciate 1
      11-30-2017, 09:12 AM   #83
Uber Commuter
First Lieutenant
Uber Commuter's Avatar
338
Rep
382
Posts

Drives: 2014 328D xDrive
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
You're mistaken,
Someone is mistaken for sure, but it ain't me bud...

Oh, and please, for the love of god, learn how to quote once instead of twice
Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

      12-14-2017, 01:39 PM   #84
Sassicaia
Lieutenant Colonel
Sassicaia's Avatar
Canada
1874
Rep
1,942
Posts

Drives: SMB F80 6MT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Vancouver, Canada

iTrader: (0)

Today is the day the Republicans are about to make this happen which is ultimately going to mean EVERYONE here is going to pay more. This is simply a shift of finances from all of us to big corporations. Isnt it amazing its not mentioned anywhere on fox news? Surprise surprise.

All you supporters of republicans just got shafted by your party today (along with the rest of us).
Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

      12-14-2017, 01:51 PM   #85
Questofthetune
Lieutenant
Questofthetune's Avatar
260
Rep
569
Posts

Drives: 14 AW M235i
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: SFL

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2014 BMW 235i  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.
No they won’t. Because they will all do the same thing. They know we need the internet and they see the giant cash cow we just handed them of being able to sell what we see to any person for a large sum. They’re all going to control us and it will divide an already divided country. Mark my words there will be republican internet and dem internet with blown up sensationalized Bullshit on each while the guys at the top laugh and drink Champaign.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2017, 02:00 PM   #86
F32Fleet
Major General
F32Fleet's Avatar
United_States
845
Rep
6,880
Posts

Drives: 2015 435i
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Southeastern US

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Questofthetune View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
Clearly the solution is to encourage competition in the market. As I said earlier, revoking the govt granted monopoly status of the ISPs will allow the consumer to shop for the service they want. ISP's which try to steer customers to their own content or block sites will lose customers and go out of business. That's how it works. The solution isn't more govt interference in the market place. There's no need for some bureaucrat in DC making decisions because he think he's smarter than the market.
No they won’t. Because they will all do the same thing. They know we need the internet and they see the giant cash cow we just handed them of being able to sell what we see to any person for a large sum. They’re all going to control us and it will divide an already divided country. Mark my words there will be republican internet and dem internet with blown up sensationalized Bullshit on each while the guys at the top laugh and drink Champaign.
It's not a zero-sum game as long as the government doesn't play favorites (which it loves to do.)

If the market demands it there's nothing stopping a "free zone" ISP from delivering service. Hell, satellite technology will get to the point that wired connection is no longer a necessity. Imagine that!
__________________
"Drive more, worry less. "

435i, MPPK, MPE, M-Sport Line
Appreciate 1
wdb811.00

      12-15-2017, 10:20 AM   #87
Taskmaster
Major General
Taskmaster's Avatar
Japan
2081
Rep
8,282
Posts

Drives: E92 LCI Msport 6 Speed
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Florida

iTrader: (5)

NN Existed PRIOR to 2015 - people who say otherwise are just flat out miss informed.

The biggest issue here was George W Bush's appointee to head the FCC was lazy and incompetent, and placed broadband carriers under "information services" instead of "telecommunication"

While the FCC attempted to uphold the NN rules, Verizon (If I remember correctly) challenged the FCC's authority in court and won. The decision indirectly stated that the FCC would have authority to regulate ISPs if they were reclassified.

Then, in 2015 FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Obama, changed the classification of ISPs under title II and officially had authority to enforce NN rules again.

The Internet has been operating under this ruleset forever - it's the ISPs who want to (and have attempted to) undermine it. The only reason Trump, and the liked minded conservatives are for the repeal is because "Obama" and bullshit hyperbole like "free markets"


Quote:
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Also, links for everything just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agre...ng-voip-calls/

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/library/det...e-53a598c3ac10 (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/tech...llet/index.htm

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/verizon-tethering-fcc/

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/tech...ime/index.html

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the company’s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog...break-internet
__________________
Axiom - E92 Msport 6MT: Bolt ons - MILV - BPC tune.
Appreciate 0
      12-15-2017, 11:29 AM   #88
pasghetti
Somebody Toucha My Spaghet
pasghetti's Avatar
1969
Rep
364
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Los Angeles

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F32Fleet View Post
It's not a zero-sum game as long as the government doesn't play favorites (which it loves to do.)

If the market demands it there's nothing stopping a "free zone" ISP from delivering service. Hell, satellite technology will get to the point that wired connection is no longer a necessity. Imagine that!
That's the problem. The demand is there but the majority of the people do not have the option to chose their ISP. Even here in California, there are major cities which only have one option. Hell, I'm in Los Angeles and I'm "fortunate" enough to be allowed to choose between 2 while others 10 minutes away from me are forced to chose Time Warner. You think ISPs in these areas gonna let someone else butt in on their monopoly?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axius View Post
The only thing he caught last week was the clap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
Yeah, I get that a lot. Women always ask me how I manage to hide my penis so well.
Appreciate 1
Taskmaster2080.50

Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST