{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/2/2018 2:15:28 AM
11
All well and good, but that is not at all equal to the net neutrality that the fcc shot down.
Amazing how people don't even understand the position they are defending. If you don't understand your position, how can you possibly be open to debate from the other side?
English
-
[quote]All well and good, but that is not at all equal to the net neutrality that the fcc shot down. Amazing how people don't even understand the position they are defending. If you don't understand your position, how can you possibly be open to debate from the other side?[/quote]Care to expand on how the FCC's Net Neutrality is different?
-
The fcc rules that were under review would have classified the internet as a title 2 utility, meaning it would have been subjected to further regulation. THAT is what people opposed and the fcc halted. This California bill had nothing to do with utility classification.
-
[quote]The fcc rules that were under review would have classified the internet as a title 2 utility, meaning it would have been subjected to further regulation. THAT is what people opposed and the fcc halted. This California bill had nothing to do with utility classification.[/quote]Wouldn't it be better that the internet be classified as a utility?
-
Lol no. Regulated is opposite of free. No longer would the internet be the wild west, forefront of innovation. It would be open to strangulation by the government. Think of old time telephone companies. Government regulation is what created the big three isp's. Remember pac, bell, mci and others? They don't exist because there was no way a small, regional telephone company could go through all the expense of regulation without additional capital. So they merged with organizations that had capital. Regulations pick industry winners and losers by forcing out the underdog.
-
[quote]Lol no. Regulated is opposite of free. No longer would the internet be the wild west, forefront of innovation. It would be open to strangulation by the government. Think of old time telephone companies. Government regulation is what created the big three isp's. Remember pac, bell, mci and others? They don't exist because there was no way a small, regional telephone company could go through all the expense of regulation without additional capital. So they merged with organizations that had capital. Regulations pick industry winners and losers by forcing out the underdog.[/quote]You're arguing that it's better for them to have no regulation? How would consumers benefit from ISPs doing whatever they wanted? If my ISP decided to start throttling and charging for "fast lanes", I don't have another option. There is only one broadband ISP that serves my city of 250,000+. How do I win there?
-
You really think content providers would allow that to happen? Netflix, with it's 60% bandwidth consumption, is going to allow isp's to cutoff not only existing customers but costumers in their only growth market? No. Content providers will pay for the enhanced speed, in turn raise their price and create room underneath their price ceiling for their competitors floor entry into the market. This is how it works in most any industry. In my industry, we are the big, expensive player. Our very existence creates our own competition, an explosion from ~10 competitors to now over 40. Without us, an expensive, premium provider, that low floor wouldn't exist.
-
[quote]You really think content providers would allow that to happen? Netflix, with it's 60% bandwidth consumption, is going to allow isp's to cutoff not only existing customers but costumers in their only growth market? No. Content providers will pay for the enhanced speed, in turn raise their price and create room underneath their price ceiling for their competitors floor entry into the market. This is how it works in most any industry. In my industry, we are the big, expensive player. Our very existence creates our own competition, an explosion from ~10 competitors to now over 40. Without us, an expensive, premium provider, that low floor wouldn't exist.[/quote]Why would Netflix have any position to control what an ISP does?
-
Money. Netflix pays isp's for premium delivery. Netflix passes this additional expense to its customers in premium increases, in doing so creating a gap between what they charge (ceiling) and market point of entry and competitor premiums (floor). That's why content providers are so supportive of net neutrality. It isn't for some altruistic intentions, it's because they know it would secure their monopolies.
-
[quote]Money. Netflix pays isp's for premium delivery. Netflix passes this additional expense to its customers in premium increases, in doing so creating a gap between what they charge (ceiling) and market point of entry and competitor premiums (floor). That's why content providers are so supportive of net neutrality. It isn't for some altruistic intentions, it's because they know it would secure their monopolies.[/quote] So how does an up-and-coming service pay those entry fees that Netflix has the capability to?
-
They come up with an innovative business model that doesn't require such high operating expenses as Netflix for comparable service. This allows them to undercut Netflix on price. Netflix has to have the best shows, with the best quality. Their customers demand it. It is a product of being the top of the mountain. It's also why other services have such a difficult time competing, because the price pressure isn't there.
-
I don't see anywhere in California's bill that reclassifies the internet under Title II. That was the sole reason why the FCC repealed the original Net Neutrality ruling.
