Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0Correct. But with NN gone and not really having choices as a consumer, I could be more negatively impacted if Comcast decided to play shitgames now. I'm more at their mercy than before; they and AT&T know this
But it would be fair to say, that net neutrality is not responsible for your problems.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
*snip*
Originally posted by Robtard
Ah okay. I see where the problem is. You don't know basic economics and can't comprehend what I'm telling you.
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct. But with NN gone and not really having choices as a consumer, I could be more negatively impacted if Comcast decided to play shitgames now. I'm more at their mercy than before; they and AT&T know this
Well, you have 3 options possibly more due to satellite. If Comcast does try to **** with you by giving you faster Netflix.... I would switch.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Well, you have 3 options possibly more due to satellite. If Comcast does try to **** with you by giving you faster Netflix.... I would switch.
Three options that are not really options. BTW, I don't need faster Netflix, it's already seamless and you're ignoring that overhead cost can be (and often are) passed onto the consumer, in whole or part.
Originally posted by Robtard
Three options that are not really options. BTW, I don't need faster Netflix, it's already seamless and you're ignoring that overhead cost can be (and often are) passed onto the consumer, in whole or part.
The cost is not gonna be significant due to equilibrium. There is a reason that Australia has some of the cheapest internet in the world and that Netflix costs the same here as it does there. I would not be too nervous.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So if KMC manages to not get shut down. How much will they make people that want to post here pay to do so?I imagine it will be totally FAIR and UnBiased....
[/B]
Lol, KMC is not bandwidth intensive enough for net neutrality to even affect it. But the real question is: What the **** is with the green text?
Satelite ISP's are simply not good enough right now to be a viable option for most people. They are expensive, they have low data caps, and they have high latency. They may be the ISP's of the future, but right now they simply aren't competitive.
I think people in favor of net neutrality have made a bit of a mistake by exaggerating the effects of its removal akin to a doomsday scenario that will destroy the internet in its entirety. That's not what's going to happen and these kind of arguments lead to people like Surtur asking why it wasn't a doomsday scenario before NN came into effect. The internet will continue, you will likely just have to pay more to continue using it as you currently do, with less competition and startups since the startups won't be able to afford to pay for the fast lanes, which will give them a significant disadvantage to established companies who can afford to pay the premium.
All that said it's unlikely we really see any effect of NN repeal for a few years. This is going to be tied up in the courts for a while yet, and ISP's are going to be on their best behavior for a while to create the illusion that they aren't slimey toad ****ers who are looking to gauge their customers now that the laws protecting customers from predatory practices is gone. And maybe by the time the effects do really come into play satellite ISPs will actually be a viable option.
Oh them silly jews.
Originally posted by Flyattractor
YouTube video[b]Oh them silly jews.
[/B]
I can't hear him over the sound of his yamaka.
Originally posted by BackFire
Satelite ISP's are simply not good enough right now to be a viable option for most people. They are expensive, they have low data caps, and they have high latency. They may be the ISP's of the future, but right now they simply aren't competitive.I think people in favor of net neutrality have made a bit of a mistake by exaggerating the effects of its removal akin to a doomsday scenario that will destroy the internet in its entirety. That's not what's going to happen and these kind of arguments lead to people like Surtur asking why it wasn't a doomsday scenario before NN came into effect. The internet will continue, you will likely just have to pay more to continue using it as you currently do, with less competition and startups since the startups won't be able to afford to pay for the fast lanes, which will give them a significant disadvantage to established companies who can afford to pay the premium.
All that said it's unlikely we really see any effect of NN repeal for a few years. This is going to be tied up in the courts for a while yet, and ISP's are going to be on their best behavior for a while to create the illusion that they aren't slimey toad ****ers who are looking to gauge their customers now that the laws protecting customers from predatory practices is gone. And maybe by the time the effects do really come into play satellite ISPs will actually be a viable option.
Well, I appreciate the fact that there are no doomsday scenarios being called for. That being said, I did have a few gripes with your post.
1. Satellite is not a relevant option now, but at the time in which net neutrality would have affected the market would be thriving. And, if we removed the ISP regulations that hurt competition this issue would become extraneous. (You noted this)
2. The next concern you had was based on the idea that net neutrality would stifle competition. I think there are a few things to note: competition creates internet speed which is why the US has such terrible internet, 8 out of the 10 countries with the fastest internet have no net neutrality and the top 3 is inhabited only by countries without the legislation. It is no mistake that those countries have ample competition. How does South Korea have the most internet competition in the world, if they have no net neutrality? The answer is simple net neutrality does not boost competition. I think net neutrality would actually help competition by giving smaller ISPs the ability to customize their service more effectively.
3. As far as cheap internet goes, out of the 6 countries with the cheapest internet, only one of them has net neutrality.
I think the real issue here is the lack of competition caused by government regulations in localities.
Yes the main issue is regional monopolies, NN was just a band-aid for that in the first place. However, the unfortunate reality is those monopolies aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as the agreements are already on the books and it will be no easy task to do away with them. As such, if we're going to allow monopolies to exist, then those monopolies must be regulated in order to prevent predatory practices that are inevitable with such monopolies. Doing away with the regulation while allowing the monopolies to continue will only exacerbate the whole thing.
When I mentioned competition I wasn't really talking about competition among ISPs, because NN doesn't really have much to do with that compared to the regional monopolies issue; but competition within the web. Like if some small start up wanted to try and take on netflix in the streaming industry it would be almost impossible since they would be stuck in the slowlane as they wouldn't be able to compete with Netflix being able to afford their fast lane internet pass.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes the main issue is regional monopolies, NN was just a band-aid for that in the first place. However, the unfortunate reality is those monopolies aren't going anywhere anytime soon, as the agreements are already on the books and it will be no easy task to do away with them. As such, if we're going to allow monopolies to exist, then those monopolies must be regulated in order to prevent predatory practices that are inevitable with such monopolies. Doing away with the regulation while allowing the monopolies to continue will only exacerbate the whole thing.
Well, as you said net neutrality is a band-aid, a band-aid which is less efficient than an unfettered market. I view it as counterproductive for government to add another layer of regulation by a problem caused by regulations. As you already noted, satellite is the future of the ISP market, and if net neutrality does not affect the market for a few years once satellite comes to existence, it will render the issue as extraneous. That being said, I would still rather have no net neutrality even with the regulations. Prioritized internet spurs on greater ISP competition and enhances my experience. But as long as we agree on the root issue, this is merely a difference of opinion.
Originally posted by BackFire When I mentioned competition I wasn't really talking about competition among ISPs, because NN doesn't really have much to do with that compared to the regional monopolies issue; but competition within the web. Like if some small start up wanted to try and take on netflix in the streaming industry it would be almost impossible since they would be stuck in the slowlane as they wouldn't be able to compete with Netflix being able to afford their fast lane internet pass.[/B]
This is where the greater competition among ISPs created by the repeal would come in handy. Smaller streaming services could make deals with smaller providers to prioritize traffic and besides Netflix started without net neutrality, right?
Yes netflix started without NN but there was no competition for streaming at that point, and they initially started as a mailing service. If there was already a major streaming company in existence then who knows if Netflix would have been able to succeed in that department.
Besides I think it's folly to compare the internet of 2007 to the internet of today. It was not as bandwidth-heavy and it was in less demand as a utility for every day use.