Widgets Magazine
Page 6 of 63 FirstFirst ... 23456789101156 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 1560
  1. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Net neutrality is going away, apparently - one more casualty of the 5th-grader in charge.

    http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/s...ml?wpsrc=nymag

  2. #127

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Net neutrality is going away, apparently - one more casualty of the 5th-grader in charge.

    http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/s...ml?wpsrc=nymag
    Good. it was garbage.

  3. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Good. it was garbage.
    Going to break with my policy of not replying to you. Why?

  4. #129

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Good. it was garbage.
    Because the telecoms dont have enough power and money? Or do you like the idea of being a netflix customer but cant access it through your ISP, kinda like how you couldnt get ABC and Fox on Dish recently?

  5. #130

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    I fail to see the problem with having successfull people serve as leaders. Should Trump have gone to street corners and recruited homeless people to be appointees?

  6. #131

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    Because the telecoms dont have enough power and money? Or do you like the idea of being a netflix customer but cant access it through your ISP, kinda like how you couldnt get ABC and Fox on Dish recently?
    "enough power and money" - emotional histrionics, irrelevant to the conversation... except the irony that NN decreases competition and makes it harder for startups to challenge those EVIL telecoms with toooooo much power and money. Its not the governments role to make sure a telecom has "just the right amount of money" in the opinion of onthestrip.

    Access to Netflix isnt a right. in the free market ISP's have no incentive to block Netflix. Competition gives them an incentive to provide as much bandwidth to high traffic sites as their competitors. Regardless, even if your ISP did block netflix, tough titties. The governments role is not to force an ISP to provide you access to Netflix any more than it should be forcing The New York Times to deliver a box of turnips to your house.

    Netflix and porn take up huge amounts of bandwidth. That costs ISP's huge sums of money. Neither you nor the government should be dictating an ISP's business plan on how to leverage resources and distribute costs to provide the best level of service to its customers. NN forces ME to pay for YOUR usage of Netflix via my ISP.

    Back to your emotion based style of argument - dont you think Netflix makes enough money to pay its own way? Why are they getting a free ride on ISP infrastructure paid for by people who dont use Netflix due to a MANDATE by the government? Well, how much more money does Netflix need?

  7. #132
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,694
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    "enough power and money" - emotional histrionics, irrelevant to the conversation... except the irony that NN decreases competition and makes it harder for startups to challenge those EVIL telecoms with toooooo much power and money. Its not the governments role to make sure a telecom has "just the right amount of money" in the opinion of onthestrip.
    I side with Netflix on this issue:
    Access to Netflix isnt a right. in the free market ISP's have no incentive to block Netflix. Competition gives them an incentive to provide as much bandwidth to high traffic sites as their competitors. Regardless, even if your ISP did block netflix, tough titties. The governments role is not to force an ISP to provide you access to Netflix any more than it should be forcing The New York Times to deliver a box of turnips to your house.

    Netflix and porn take up huge amounts of bandwidth. That costs ISP's huge sums of money. Neither you nor the government should be dictating an ISP's business plan on how to leverage resources and distribute costs to provide the best level of service to its customers. NN forces ME to pay for YOUR usage of Netflix via my ISP.

    Back to your emotion based style of argument - dont you think Netflix makes enough money to pay its own way? Why are they getting a free ride on ISP infrastructure paid for by people who dont use Netflix due to a MANDATE by the government? Well, how much more money does Netflix need?
    Unlike you, I side with Netflix on this issue: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...tion/94990302/

  8. #133

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    "enough power and money" - emotional histrionics, irrelevant to the conversation... except the irony that NN decreases competition and makes it harder for startups to challenge those EVIL telecoms with toooooo much power and money. Its not the governments role to make sure a telecom has "just the right amount of money" in the opinion of onthestrip.

    Access to Netflix isnt a right. in the free market ISP's have no incentive to block Netflix. Competition gives them an incentive to provide as much bandwidth to high traffic sites as their competitors. Regardless, even if your ISP did block netflix, tough titties. The governments role is not to force an ISP to provide you access to Netflix any more than it should be forcing The New York Times to deliver a box of turnips to your house.

    Netflix and porn take up huge amounts of bandwidth. That costs ISP's huge sums of money. Neither you nor the government should be dictating an ISP's business plan on how to leverage resources and distribute costs to provide the best level of service to its customers. NN forces ME to pay for YOUR usage of Netflix via my ISP.

    Back to your emotion based style of argument - dont you think Netflix makes enough money to pay its own way? Why are they getting a free ride on ISP infrastructure paid for by people who dont use Netflix due to a MANDATE by the government? Well, how much more money does Netflix need?
    Eh. As someone who believes in small business and opportunities, NN offers startups the ability to compete in a neutral market. Non-NN lets ISPs and big players price startups out of the market. It's not an easy decision either way, really.

  9. #134

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    Eh. As someone who believes in small business and opportunities, NN offers startups the ability to compete in a neutral market. Non-NN lets ISPs and big players price startups out of the market. It's not an easy decision either way, really.
    You're right, it's not. Let's start penalizing companies for being successful and having pricing power because of it.That's a phenomenal idea.

  10. #135

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    You're right, it's not. Let's start penalizing companies for being successful and having pricing power because of it.That's a phenomenal idea.
    There's two sides of it, I suppose. By allowing ISP's to prioritize content, you could be stifling innovation and hurting small business. By not doing so, you distort the free market. What we have now is net neutrality for the most part, and it works pretty well.

  11. #136

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    There's two sides of it, I suppose. By allowing ISP's to prioritize content, you could be stifling innovation and hurting small business. By not doing so, you distort the free market. What we have now is net neutrality for the most part, and it works pretty well.
    You risk making public every facet of life because it could be argued it is "for the greater good". Same slippery slope that we are dealing with in saying that health care is a "right". Get ready for high internet prices once we start making it a right.

  12. #137

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    You risk making public every facet of life because it could be argued it is "for the greater good". Same slippery slope that we are dealing with in saying that health care is a "right". Get ready for high internet prices once we start making it a right.
    No, I'm arguing that the de facto arrangement we have now is fine. I wouldn't support making internet access a right, or establishing a complex regulatory regime. I thought we were supposed to be pro-innovation and pro-small business in this country? Government isn't supposed to create new entitlements , but keep the regulatory environment level across all business sizes.

  13. #138

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    "enough power and money" - emotional histrionics, irrelevant to the conversation... except the irony that NN decreases competition and makes it harder for startups to challenge those EVIL telecoms with toooooo much power and money. Its not the governments role to make sure a telecom has "just the right amount of money" in the opinion of onthestrip.

    Access to Netflix isnt a right. in the free market ISP's have no incentive to block Netflix. Competition gives them an incentive to provide as much bandwidth to high traffic sites as their competitors. Regardless, even if your ISP did block netflix, tough titties. The governments role is not to force an ISP to provide you access to Netflix any more than it should be forcing The New York Times to deliver a box of turnips to your house.

    Netflix and porn take up huge amounts of bandwidth. That costs ISP's huge sums of money. Neither you nor the government should be dictating an ISP's business plan on how to leverage resources and distribute costs to provide the best level of service to its customers. NN forces ME to pay for YOUR usage of Netflix via my ISP.

    Back to your emotion based style of argument - dont you think Netflix makes enough money to pay its own way? Why are they getting a free ride on ISP infrastructure paid for by people who dont use Netflix due to a MANDATE by the government? Well, how much more money does Netflix need?
    After reading this, I think we should allow power companies like OG&E to be able to not be neutral anymore either. I think we should let them be able to determine what appliance brands we get to power in our homes. Maybe GE isnt paying OGE enough money, so goodbye to my refrigerator until they work it out! That sounds like the world I want to live in...

  14. #139

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Net Neutrality is a difficult issue to me. On the one side, (consumer) I like the idea of Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming being free for AT&T Mobile users (or verzon, et al), against their data caps. On the flip side, I see how it gives those companies a serious competitive advantage versus other content providers. I have a feeling cable will go away, and we'll be paying more in total for local + hbo + tbs + netflix + hulu + fx + scifi + whatever than we were ever paying for cable as a package, imo.

  15. #140

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    After reading this, I think we should allow power companies like OG&E to be able to not be neutral anymore either. I think we should let them be able to determine what appliance brands we get to power in our homes. Maybe GE isnt paying OGE enough money, so goodbye to my refrigerator until they work it out! That sounds like the world I want to live in...
    This is the kind of emotional goofiness that makes you lose whatever argument you are trying to make.

  16. #141

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    After reading this, I think we should allow power companies like OG&E to be able to not be neutral anymore either. I think we should let them be able to determine what appliance brands we get to power in our homes. Maybe GE isnt paying OGE enough money, so goodbye to my refrigerator until they work it out! That sounds like the world I want to live in...
    I could argue easily that electricity truly is a matter of life and death for many, where internet is decidedly NOT.

  17. #142

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    Net Neutrality is a difficult issue to me. On the one side, (consumer) I like the idea of Netflix or Amazon Prime streaming being free for AT&T Mobile users (or verzon, et al), against their data caps. On the flip side, I see how it gives those companies a serious competitive advantage versus other content providers. I have a feeling cable will go away, and we'll be paying more in total for local + hbo + tbs + netflix + hulu + fx + scifi + whatever than we were ever paying for cable as a package, imo.
    I suspect you're right about the death of cable. And if the debate were simply about the nature of content, i.e, streaming video being billed at a higher rate than HTTPS or something, then I'd probably be supportive. The ability of large companies to crowd out or price out smaller firms is the issue I have. Turnpikes charge 18 wheelers more than cars due to the space and wear/tear they inflict on the road. They don't differentiate between Ford and Chevy small cars because Ford pays more.

  18. #143

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    There's two sides of it, I suppose. By allowing ISP's to prioritize content, you could be stifling innovation and hurting small business. By not doing so, you distort the free market. What we have now is net neutrality for the most part, and it works pretty well.
    I would argue that by not allowing ISP's to prioritize content you are a removing the broader market incentive for big wealthy players (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon, Google) from developing compression technology to deliver their content without using as much bandwidth while simultaneously forcing people who do not use their services to pay for them as ISP pass the cost of their bandwidth hogging to consumers in subscription fees. This also makes it harder for start ups to get their foot in the door as the giants have the advantage of running on what amounts to a government mandated subsidy from the public.
    Instead of investing in R&D that would make their product easier for ISP's to deliver, Netflix (on your dime) gets to allocate it's resources into gobbling up more content (making it harder on a start up competitor) and ironically, gobbling up startups that may have been forced to develop such technology to compete.

    There is a reason the big boys are pro-NN. Google - pro NN for everyone, but ANTI-NN for Google Fiber. Guess why?

    NN, in this regard is merely anti business, anti freedom (of both, the consumer and business), anti free market, and anti innovation. It is an answer to a problem that doesnt actually exist.

  19. #144

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadanth View Post
    I suspect you're right about the death of cable. And if the debate were simply about the nature of content, i.e, streaming video being billed at a higher rate than HTTPS or something, then I'd probably be supportive. The ability of large companies to crowd out or price out smaller firms is the issue I have. Turnpikes charge 18 wheelers more than cars due to the space and wear/tear they inflict on the road. They don't differentiate between Ford and Chevy small cars because Ford pays more.
    The road analogy is good one. But what NN is doing is saying a private toll road can not make 18 wheelers pay more than cars. That creates an incentive for more 18 wheelers to use that road, causing more wear and tear, raising the maintenance cost over time, and forcing the toll road owner to raise every users price to cover it. This is forcing car drivers to subsidize the heavy road usage of semi trucks. Where in the free market the toll road owner is able to leverage access to the road by charging the trucks more or even making deals with trucking companies to make it more efficient. This has an effect on the broader market as well... truckers and trucking companies would have to pass their cost on to their clients or develop another way to deliver their goods. The clients would look for cheaper more efficient delivery options.


    Another analogy: In the new Parcel Neutrality Act, the government disallows FedEx, UPS, etc to discriminate based on a packages size, weight, or points of origin/destination. All packages must be treated the same. The problems with this are really easy to see and the winners (large companies shipping large packages) and losers (little old ladies sending birthday cards to their grandkids) emerge immediately. Instead of paying hundreds (thousands?) of dollars to have my vehicles (imagine I am a car dealer of some sort) literally shipped from L.A. to Honolulu, I will now just put a cardboard box around each one and let the public pay for it for me (via FedEx redistributing costs to all end users). Why should I even try to develop a better or more efficient method? The government is making you pay my way.

    BUT DONT DELIVERY COMPANIES MAKE ENOUGH MONEY ALREADY!!!!!!!!!?????

  20. #145

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunty View Post
    Unlike you, I side with Netflix on this issue: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...tion/94990302/
    Bunty, you simply side with government control over every aspect of life.

  21. #146

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    After reading this, I think we should allow power companies like OG&E to be able to not be neutral anymore either. I think we should let them be able to determine what appliance brands we get to power in our homes. Maybe GE isnt paying OGE enough money, so goodbye to my refrigerator until they work it out! That sounds like the world I want to live in...
    IF OG&E had the technology to see which devices your electricity usage was going to...and IF you running a 60' Plasma TV and Playstation 24 hours a day was causing many times the drain on the power grid/maintenence costs than the little old lady next door only powering her refrigerator, fan, and a radio.... and IF everyone were paying a flat fee for electricity as opposed to by usage... THEN you would have an accurate analogy, and it would be an analogy that is in favor of MY argument, not yours.

    all you are arguing is "gimme dis! gimme dat! I want to do what I want and make other people bear the cost with NO REGARD for ANYONE ELSE!"

    Grow up.

  22. #147

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    The road analogy is good one. But what NN is doing is saying a private toll road can not make 18 wheelers pay more than cars. That creates an incentive for more 18 wheelers to use that road, causing more wear and tear, raising the maintenance cost over time, and forcing the toll road owner to raise every users price to cover it. This is forcing car drivers to subsidize the heavy road usage of semi trucks. Where in the free market the toll road owner is able to leverage access to the road by charging the trucks more or even making deals with trucking companies to make it more efficient. This has an effect on the broader market as well... truckers and trucking companies would have to pass their cost on to their clients or develop another way to deliver their goods. The clients would look for cheaper more efficient delivery options.


    Another analogy: In the new Parcel Neutrality Act, the government disallows FedEx, UPS, etc to discriminate based on a packages size, weight, or points of origin/destination. All packages must be treated the same. The problems with this are really easy to see and the winners (large companies shipping large packages) and losers (little old ladies sending birthday cards to their grandkids) emerge immediately. Instead of paying hundreds (thousands?) of dollars to have my vehicles (imagine I am a car dealer of some sort) literally shipped from L.A. to Honolulu, I will now just put a cardboard box around each one and let the public pay for it for me (via FedEx redistributing costs to all end users). Why should I even try to develop a better or more efficient method? The government is making you pay my way.

    BUT DONT DELIVERY COMPANIES MAKE ENOUGH MONEY ALREADY!!!!!!!!!?????
    Good analogies, and I did concede that if the pricing discriminated only on the nature of the content, rather than the provider and the contractual relationship, I'd be completely on board. I am just concerned that large companies with pricing power will be able to distort the market for the same type of content.

  23. #148

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    This is the kind of emotional goofiness that makes you lose whatever argument you are trying to make.
    You have given analogies, I gave mine. You may not agree but thats what NN does, it places the internet in the same category as a power utility. So I thought the hypothetical scenario was applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I could argue easily that electricity truly is a matter of life and death for many, where internet is decidedly NOT.
    What about telephones, are those life and death? If they are then I would venture to say the internet could be life and death too. Like I mentioned above, telephone companies are regulated like power companies in that they are to be neutral. Just the same as net neutrality makes the internet neutral.

    I prefer to view the internet more like power and phone utilities and less like cable tv. I think every person having equal and open access to the ol' information super highway is better than it not being open and equal.

  24. #149

    Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by onthestrip View Post
    You have given analogies, I gave mine. You may not agree but thats what NN does, it places the internet in the same category as a power utility. So I thought the hypothetical scenario was applicable.

    Your analogy supported MY argument, not yours... thats how I know you dont really know what NN does.. you just want to enjoy your Netflix no matter what effect it has on anyone else. Which is ironic because your initial reaction was a childish emotional outburst about the "greed" of telecoms for having the audacity to make money.... while your own motivation is simply your personal greed of wanting the government to force other people to pay for your Netflix at gunpoint.

  25. Default Re: Trump's nominees and appointees

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonerSoftail View Post
    I fail to see the problem with having successfull people serve as leaders. Should Trump have gone to street corners and recruited homeless people to be appointees?
    Successful != qualified

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Why I am still a Trump supporter..
    By SoonerQueen in forum Politics
    Replies: 333
    Last Post: 01-17-2019, 02:52 PM
  2. Donald Trump
    By Outhunder in forum Politics
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: 10-01-2015, 01:08 PM
  3. 2015 ULI Impact Award nominees
    By Pete in forum General Real Estate Topics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2015, 07:33 AM
  4. 2015 R&R Hall of Fame nominees
    By kelroy55 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 05:13 PM
  5. Political Appointees as Ambassadors
    By ThomPaine in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 03:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO