Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 149
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Good points. Never thought about it working the other way, where companies could pay to have their competition throttled, but that would definitely be possible.
    Yeah, any overtly competitive industry (rideshare, finance / high-freq trading, insurance, blah blah blah) would now introduce another "competitive" mechanism but an underhanded, hidden-from-consumers one that would almost inevitably drive up costs, reduce product quality, and so on.

    A proponent of this current nonsense could I guess say, "make this practice illegal," but the retort would just be "keep net neutrality in the first place then."

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    below the Broads Fork Twins
    Posts
    5,772
    Will TRCO benefit from this nonsense? I figger the respances here might be better.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by mbillie1 View Post
    It wouldn't work, is my point, because only those content providers already wealthy/influential enough to damage ISP revenue through blocking their services would be able to have any impact. Instead of eg Comcast deciding what you saw, you'd have eg Comcast + Amazon. It goes from monopolistic control-of-access to oligopolistic control-of-access, which is not really better and in any event FAR, FAR worse than egalitarian access like we (more-or-less kinda-sorta) have now.
    We're speaking to two different issues: the possible and the probable. I don't disagree that it's a dangerous negotiation, that's actually what I meant in my first post when I said it's a moment of truth for Google and those who say they want net neutrality. They have the power to enforce it if they band together on the issue, and actions speak louder than words. Heck, they could make it downright difficult for anyone to oppose them by getting some EU legislation that penalizes international companies who don't sign on to a neutrality pledge (which would have teeth under this proposal because non-neutral activities would have to be disclosed). Your prediction that they won't do this is certainly as valid as any other prediction. Just the difference between can't and won't. There's no reason for the industry at large to let it just be Amazon or Google on the other side of the table, they should be united on this. If they do nothing I'm inclined to take that to mean Google is lying when they say they support net neutrality because they can't be too dumb to think of this option.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    I feel like your argument is a bit like saying "if someone cuts off your hand, you get a hook, which you can also use to grab stuff." That is true and I don't disagree, but it's still worse than having a hand even in the best case scenario.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by mbillie1 View Post
    I feel like your argument is a bit like saying "if someone cuts off your hand, you get a hook, which you can also use to grab stuff." That is true and I don't disagree, but it's still worse than having a hand even in the best case scenario.
    We do not disagree. But I think you miss my actual point, which is perhaps even more cynical: there are a lot of web companies opposing the change publicly but who might just decide to take advantage of the change if it happens instead of doing something to negate it, which I believe is within their power. What are these companies saying privately? You know, in that room where the bribes get handed over?

    If they surprise everyone and do the right thing (the change looks inevitable, but forewarned is forearmed) then I think the analogy of losing a hand would be outlandish hyperbole, but I won't bet on them doing the right thing.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    We do not disagree. But I think you miss my actual point, which is perhaps even more cynical: there are a lot of web companies opposing the change publicly but who might just decide to take advantage of the change if it happens instead of doing something to negate it, which I believe is within their power.
    Ah - yes we are in full agreement here then. Hoping Google or Amazon will save us is desperately naive. I am every bit as cynical as you here.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,501
    the sky is falling !
    -chicken little

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HR9vqx9oTQ
    Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste goood.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    If we're lucky this move will destroy the entire internet and skynet will be averted.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    If we're lucky this move will destroy the entire internet and skynet will be averted.
    at least there'd be no more twitter

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Everyone on tgr would have to be in the same place so we could pass notes around.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    I laughed. Then I realized TGR would be the least of it: what happens to all the Fuckerbergers if that sweet, sweet juice goes missing? TEOTWAWKI

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Granite State
    Posts
    3,764
    It just shouldn't happen. Any other argument is stupid. Fucking stupid. You wanna pay cable type shit categories for your internet?

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846
    Quote Originally Posted by twodogs View Post
    It just shouldn't happen. Any other argument is stupid. Fucking stupid. You wanna pay cable type shit categories for your internet?
    I don’t often qft twodogs but qft

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    We're speaking to two different issues: the possible and the probable. I don't disagree that it's a dangerous negotiation, that's actually what I meant in my first post when I said it's a moment of truth for Google and those who say they want net neutrality. They have the power to enforce it if they band together on the issue, and actions speak louder than words. Heck, they could make it downright difficult for anyone to oppose them by getting some EU legislation that penalizes international companies who don't sign on to a neutrality pledge (which would have teeth under this proposal because non-neutral activities would have to be disclosed). Your prediction that they won't do this is certainly as valid as any other prediction. Just the difference between can't and won't. There's no reason for the industry at large to let it just be Amazon or Google on the other side of the table, they should be united on this. If they do nothing I'm inclined to take that to mean Google is lying when they say they support net neutrality because they can't be too dumb to think of this option.
    Content providers banding together to force the ISP's to practice net neutrality would be a clear anti-trust violation. Even if they wanted to do it, it would clearly be illegal.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Content providers banding together to force the ISP's to practice net neutrality would be a clear anti-trust violation. Even if they wanted to do it, it would clearly be illegal.
    Only if they did it as a negotiation tactic. If it's an industry standard that says "if you want to make money online you have to be neutral or accept throttling/blocking from those who are (otherwise) neutral" then it's just an industry standard. Mix it in with a few others: measures against spam, for example. Happens all the time; see United Laboratories, ISO 9000 etc.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    35,361
    Interesting points on the inevitable lawsuits.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/o...pgtype=article
    Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    Everyone on tgr would have to be in the same place so we could pass notes around.
    notes, drugs, and hooks

    i think this poses huge downside risk to our current economy. i might buy some volatility

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    It's Full of Stars....
    Posts
    4,850
    Quote Originally Posted by mbillie1 View Post
    I don’t often qft twodogs but qft
    X2. Oh, and motherfucking fuck fucking Comcast.........

    What we have here is an intelligence failure. You may be familiar with staring directly at that when shaving. .
    -Ottime
    One man can only push so many boulders up hills at one time.
    -BMillsSkier

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,919
    I find it interesting that for years everyone has bitched that cable doesn't offer a la carte options, but it is somehow a travesty here.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by AdironRider View Post
    I find it interesting that for years everyone has bitched that cable doesn't offer a la carte options, but it is somehow a travesty here.
    What a nutty argument. You don’t really understand how the internet works at all. Comcast doesn’t pay google for the right to “carry google.” Comparisons to cable companies show an incredible misunderstanding of the issue.

    Internet access is the sale of bandwidth, not content. Cable companies are fighting to make internet access the same as cable as their existing monopolies crumble under consumer choice.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    mmmbbbboulder
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    What a nutty argument. You don’t really understand how the internet works at all. Comcast doesn’t pay google for the right to “carry google.” Comparisons to cable companies show an incredible misunderstanding of the issue.

    Internet access is the sale of bandwidth, not content. Cable companies are fighting to make internet access the same as cable as their existing monopolies crumble under consumer choice.
    Don't forget, this is the same guy who said NN is going to help people like his parents who watch Simpson's VHS tapes. He apparently has absolutely no idea about the interwebs or the implications of NN.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    5,846

    Net Neutrality Repeal Looks Likely

    Quote Originally Posted by AdironRider View Post
    I find it interesting that for years everyone has bitched that cable doesn't offer a la carte options, but it is somehow a travesty here.
    great comparison, you must be a philosopher or something

    when was the last time your bank access happened through tbs?

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    23,120
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Only if they did it as a negotiation tactic. If it's an industry standard that says "if you want to make money online you have to be neutral or accept throttling/blocking from those who are (otherwise) neutral" then it's just an industry standard. Mix it in with a few others: measures against spam, for example. Happens all the time; see United Laboratories, ISO 9000 etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Only if they did it as a negotiation tactic. If it's an industry standard that says "if you want to make money online you have to be neutral or accept throttling/blocking from those who are (otherwise) neutral" then it's just an industry standard. Mix it in with a few others: measures against spam, for example. Happens all the time; see United Laboratories, ISO 9000 etc.
    would you care to explain--because what I could find about ISO 9000 seems to have nothing to do with the issue at hand. In any case, an industry standard--like everybody's VHS tapes being compatible with everyone's VHS players (may the RIP) is one thing. Banding together to enforce a standard that affects how much money other companies can make is about as obvious a case of anti-competitive collusion as you can get. An individual provider can negotiate with an ISP. For example--Google could tell Comcast that if Comcast doesn't provide net neutrality no Google content, including searches, Chrome, Gmail, etc--would run on that ISP. But Google and Amazon and Netflix couldn't get together and make the demand as a group.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    5,378

    "Some folks may have the luxury to hold out for “the perfect.” But a lot of Americans are hurting right now and they can’t wait for that." - Hillary Clinton

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,919
    Quote Originally Posted by mbillie1 View Post
    great comparison, you must be a philosopher or something

    when was the last time your bank access happened through tbs?
    Think about what you are saying. You really believe you won't have access to your bank account? Please.

Posting Permissions

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