Time Warner Cable vs. Direct TV, AT&T

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229585
[/quote]

I don’t follow the logic of the scenario discussed in the link.

With Net Neutrality, if someone were to start as streaming service (porn or whatever), he would still need to pay for an ultra fast Internet connection (the total capacity of that service would be limited by the connection). And he would also have to pay third parties to localize the content closer to his consumers. So it’s not like he would have unlimited bandwidth at everybody else’s expense.

Also, the claim that Obama’s statement was a lie is itself inaccurate. Yes, there were interconnect fees between carriers. But those fees were borne by the carriers. The consumer, as long as he didn’t call outside the local zone, would play a flat fee.

Theoretically, at one point, the grandmother who stayed home and talked to relatives all day was getting a good deal. She was being subsidized by everybody else.

But then the Internet came about and all the young people would dial up into the Internet. They would stay connected for hours that nobody in the family could make or receive phone calls.

[Hatfield]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Landline are a waste of time.[/quote]

Totally disagree. I cannot stand the latency of cell phones.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
With Net Neutrality, if someone were to start as streaming service (porn or whatever), he would still need to pay for an ultra fast Internet connection (the total capacity of that service would be limited by the connection). And he would also have to pay third parties to localize the content closer to his consumers. So it’s not like he would have unlimited bandwidth at everybody else’s expense.
[/quote]

This is what Obama said.

[quote]
Obama, in his statement, called for an “explicit ban” on “paid prioritization,” or better, faster service for companies that pay extra. The president said federal regulators should reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act.
[/quote]

So tell me again why I would need to pay extra for my ultra fast connection. There’s a ban on being able to charge extra for a extra fast connection under Obama’s Net Neutrality plan.

[spdrun]

Tiered service for end users would still be legal. Forcing users to pay to unthrottle specific sites is unacceptable.

Would you like to have to pay $500/mo to be able to access any sites other than those run by big pig firms that can pay off the ISPs? Didn’t think so.

[FlyerInHi]

Livin, here’s Obama’s plan. What specifically do you take issue with?

http://gizmodo.com/obamas-plan-to-save-the-internet-1656774403?rev=1415636323690

– No blocking.
– No throttling.
– Increased transparency.
– No paid prioritization.
The above is to protect consumers from having their services slowed down by ISPs.

There will still be tiered plans for consumers and businesses. Services such as Netflix will still have to negotiate deals with ISPs.

Nobody will get unlimited bandwidth at other people’s expenses.

Let’s say you’re a business and your upload is X mbps. That upload speed will limit the number of customers you can serve. If you want to grow your business, you have to pay ISPs to increase your bandwidth as your customer base grows. The total number of customers you can serve will depend on the maximum bandwidth you have negotiated and paid for with different service providers. That doesn’t change with Net Neutrality.

The statement that one can start a porn streaming service and force other people to pay is a lie. The people who believe that are stupid and don’t have a clue about technology.

[joec]

^
|
|

I agree with the above. If people are “forced” to pay for higher levels of service, what’s to say ISPs will not just FORCE people to pay up or throttle you down to 64kbps? It sounds like they can hold anyone hostage unless you pay up. Internet bills are already too high (as are cell phone bills) and it sucks you can’t get something basic/decent for < $30.00 It just sounds like it puts too much power with the Telcos and if it's a good thing for them, it will probably be a bad thing for the consumer. This reminds me of how getting rid of Obamacare can be very bad... Think of this scenario, what if we dump Obamacare and health care providers can just dump anyone/everyone who wants maternity? We all know the cost is extremely high for delivering babies and complications can be extreme (I've seen 300k+ bills)...especially with older moms nowadays. As an insurer, why not just dump all women to get more profits and not pay much out? I speak this from experience because prior to Obamacare, I searched all over as a self employed family and there was all of 1 (ONE) plan which even had maternity at all and it was a bad plan to begin with. Even though we're done with kids, there's just something f*cked up about the whole US system. Also, even if you WANTED and are willing to pay, NO ONE will sell you the insurance (since when we bought it, Obamacare wasn't around yet). Sorta like the messed up mortgage market for self employed too. Anyways, back on topic, the Internet access market isn't that competitive. At least there's T-Mobile to shake up the wireless industry a bit.

[scaredyclassic]

IVF is super cheap in mexico. I guess that’s where we need to have babies too.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Disagree about milk delivery, as well as land-line service. Grocery delivery is actually becoming MORE popular than it was a few years ago, what with online services. Unlike a cell phone, a land-line phone is actually comfortable to talk on and doesn’t sound like a drunken Scandinavian at the bottom of a well.[/quote]

Just wanted to say that I LOVE this description of cell phone sound quality. Could not agree more. Cheers, spdrun! 🙂

[kcal09]

I agree.

[Author]

Posts