[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So on a Wednesday night when 35 million people are watching TRON in HD from netflicks, the ISP can’t prioritize Netflix so their customers are happy? [/quote]
I pay the same amount for use of Comcast provided internet and I want to watch videos on YouTube (just assume only 1M use YouTube on A Wednesday night). So I should have to sit through buffering every 30 seconds because more people use Netflix? How is that fair to me?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Government = regulation = layers of unnecessary complexity = consumers get fucked (but low income consumers get free shit)
Isn’t that how this always plays out?
Here’s a thought:
If it’s an action taken/initiated by the Obama administration, the only, and I mean ONLY, motivation is furthering the interests of his political agenda.
As has been brought up already in this thread, we just need to ask ourselves the following:
“How does this benefit the progressives?”
“What piece on the board is this, and how does this move set up opportunities for the government to further restrict our freedoms and prop up the nanny state?”
“How can this lead to more CONTROL over our daily lives?”
“Can the free market correct this? If not, why not?” (answer: too much regulation in place already)[/quote]
AC:
You can take this to the Bank…
Conservatives ALSO find ways to make a buck off of anything the Government does; and they are probably much better at it than Liberals/Progressives.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Conservatives tend to make money off of the government by EARNING IT. As in, they had the balls, took the risk, and started the companies that bid on, and are subsequently rewarded, the contracts to provide the service in the scope of work set forth by the RFP.
They even include provisions to accommodate the 8A requirements (you know, the requirement that a “socially or economically disadvantaged person” own 51% of a business that has XYZ% of the overall contract)…
THAT’S how conservatives “make a buck” off of the government. They EARN it.
Progressives on the other hand, stand in long lines with their fucking lazy hands out grabbing for free shit paid for by the excessive taxes imposed on “us conservatives that actually PRODUCE something”. They then keep voting in the fucking democrats who keep writing the laws to give them their free government cheese.
They’d be a lot more successful in the long run if they’d just get a job or start a business instead of just waiting around till the end of the month for shitty little check that amounts to (approximately) what I EARN on an average Saturday.
I mean, even when they DO start a business, they need the government to prop it up with subsidies that come from, GUESS WHAT?, OUR TAXES. Solyndra anyone?
Good idea + hard work + proper market timing = PROFIT
wishful thinking + laziness + government imposed/regulated market = MORE TAXES WASTED TO PAY FOR ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE FAILURE (but don’t worry, Hillary will save us!))
You can take THAT to the bank…
“…Conservatives tend to make money off of the government by EARNING IT…”
Wait…are you guys ready for this?
Wait…wait…
“…lolz…”
Mufasa
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So on a Wednesday night when 35 million people are watching TRON in HD from netflicks, the ISP can’t prioritize Netflix so their customers are happy? [/quote]
I pay the same amount for use of Comcast provided internet and I want to watch videos on YouTube (just assume only 1M use YouTube on A Wednesday night). So I should have to sit through buffering every 30 seconds because more people use Netflix? How is that fair to me?[/quote]
Yes, because the ISP can’t treat Youtube differently than Netflix, therefore you are at the mercy of the capabilities of the ISP, and it is obviously fair because people call it net neutrality. The ISP can’t structure priority and “throttle” one so it runs in your house at the speed you bought, without “throttling” the other too.
You’re coming at this thinking “the ISP is evil and will limit Netflix to grab them by the balls, therefore .gov needs to stop this.”
I’m thinking “yes, grabbing Netflix by the balls and strong arming them is wrong, and the ISP should get bitch slapped for doing so… However, any legitimate speed manipulation, to meet the demands of paying customers, is also now a no-go too.”
If bandwidth and speed are two different things, then the answer to my question before, that no one has answered, should be yes. If the answer is no, then maybe this regulation isn’t the best idea (at least at the insane lack of detail level we have now).
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
So again, does it cost the same resources to give you an HD movie at 50mb/s for two hours as it does a picture of Mila Kunis’s tits at 50mb/s?
If so, fine, the regulation has no real purpose except to prevent a problem that by and large hasn’t happened (sounds like voter ID according to lefties).
If not, then damn right Netflix should have to pay. Why should the consumer have to be the only one to pay?
I’m not really sure why people are so hot to protect the pocket books of the likes of google, Netflix and others, while fucking Comcast and themselves in the process.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
So again, does it cost the same resources to give you an HD movie at 50mb/s for two hours as it does a picture of Mila Kunis’s tits at 50mb/s?
If so, fine, the regulation has no real purpose except to prevent a problem that by and large hasn’t happened (sounds like voter ID according to lefties).
If not, then damn right Netflix should have to pay. Why should the consumer have to be the only one to pay?
I’m not really sure why people are so hot to protect the pocket books of the likes of google, Netflix and others, while fucking Comcast and themselves in the process. [/quote]
No, it does not cost the same.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
So again, does it cost the same resources to give you an HD movie at 50mb/s for two hours as it does a picture of Mila Kunis’s tits at 50mb/s?
If so, fine, the regulation has no real purpose except to prevent a problem that by and large hasn’t happened (sounds like voter ID according to lefties).
If not, then damn right Netflix should have to pay. Why should the consumer have to be the only one to pay?
I’m not really sure why people are so hot to protect the pocket books of the likes of google, Netflix and others, while fucking Comcast and themselves in the process. [/quote]
No, it does not cost the same.
[/quote]
Alright…
So now the question becomes:
Which is the better gamble:
a) The government regulation won’t significantly fuck up the flow of money and services, hamper competition or otherwise create a massive government controlled monopoly, that in 30 years becomes another tool of persecution like the IRS. (Oh, and another way to slide another tax in for us.)
b) Comcast et al won’t be dickheads and strong arm Netflix into paying over market prices to stream movies. EDIT: or become whores and violate the terms of their contracts with customers by giving some sites faster speeds than others.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So you guys are saying it takes the same amount of resources for Comcast to transmit an HD at a speed that prevents buffering, to 3-4 million users, at hones, for 2 hours straight, as it does to load a single facebook timeline at the same speed?[/quote]
No, what I’m saying is that an ISP shouldn’t be able to manipulate the speed at which the resources are provided. I agree they should absolutely be able to charge for the volume of resources used.
[/quote]
So on a Wednesday night when 35 million people are watching TRON in HD from netflicks, the ISP can’t prioritize Netflix so their customers are happy?
Yeah, sounds just like the conditions government would create. [/quote]
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
Another question:
If you as a consumer have a contract with Comcast that you get everything you click on at 50mb/s, and they only give you Netflix at 20mb/s because Netflix won’t pay as much as Amazon who pays for the full speed, can’t you just sue Comcast? Effectively negating the need for government regulation to prevent companies for paying for priority?
But less than 3 miles from where I live, I’ll show you a bunch of people who would kill the President with their Government Subsidized Porch Screens and choke his kids with their WIC Similac Vouchers.
It goes beyond bullshit to think that because someone holds a Political Etiology (whether Conservative OR Liberal) that they are somehow responsible, business owning, America Building people who neither take nor profit (NOR exploit) what is available from the Government.
Utter bullshit.
Now…I have noticed something in the last Political Cycles. That is this tendency to “exclude” as a “real” Conservative anyone who does, or believes or acts a certain way…"Oh…they are not a “real” Conservative…
Playing that game will most assuredly maintain a certain “Conservative Purity”…but I have news for you…there are Gay Conservatives; Conservatives COMPLETELY dependent on the Government…Conservatives who exploit and use the Government for their own ends…and Conservatives who drain and milk the system for all it’s worth…
(But again…maybe they aren’t “real”, I guess…)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Conservatives tend to make money off of the government by EARNING IT…”
Wait…are you guys ready for this?
Wait…wait…
“…lolz…”
Mufasa[/quote]
“lolz” =/= anything other than acknowledging that you can’t argue against any of my points…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So on a Wednesday night when 35 million people are watching TRON in HD from netflicks, the ISP can’t prioritize Netflix so their customers are happy? [/quote]
I pay the same amount for use of Comcast provided internet and I want to watch videos on YouTube (just assume only 1M use YouTube on A Wednesday night). So I should have to sit through buffering every 30 seconds because more people use Netflix? How is that fair to me?[/quote]
Yes, because the ISP can’t treat Youtube differently than Netflix, therefore you are at the mercy of the capabilities of the ISP, and it is obviously fair because people call it net neutrality. The ISP can’t structure priority and “throttle” one so it runs in your house at the speed you bought, without “throttling” the other too.
You’re coming at this thinking “the ISP is evil and will limit Netflix to grab them by the balls, therefore .gov needs to stop this.”
I’m thinking “yes, grabbing Netflix by the balls and strong arming them is wrong, and the ISP should get bitch slapped for doing so… However, any legitimate speed manipulation, to meet the demands of paying customers, is also now a no-go too.”
If bandwidth and speed are two different things, then the answer to my question before, that no one has answered, should be yes. If the answer is no, then maybe this regulation isn’t the best idea (at least at the insane lack of detail level we have now).
[/quote]
I wouldn’t say I think ISPs are evil and I don’t necessarily think the government is the answer. We regulate a lot of things that I think we should (ex. Stock Market) and a lot of things we should not (price of milk). I’m not set on where I feel the internet falls.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
So again, does it cost the same resources to give you an HD movie at 50mb/s for two hours as it does a picture of Mila Kunis’s tits at 50mb/s?
If so, fine, the regulation has no real purpose except to prevent a problem that by and large hasn’t happened (sounds like voter ID according to lefties).
If not, then damn right Netflix should have to pay. Why should the consumer have to be the only one to pay?
I’m not really sure why people are so hot to protect the pocket books of the likes of google, Netflix and others, while fucking Comcast and themselves in the process. [/quote]
I’m not protecting Google’s pocket nor have I said Netflix shouldn’t pay for the additional volume their services account for. In fact I said they should pay for that volume. Of course that additional cost will just be passed on.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So you guys are saying it takes the same amount of resources for Comcast to transmit an HD at a speed that prevents buffering, to 3-4 million users, at hones, for 2 hours straight, as it does to load a single facebook timeline at the same speed?[/quote]
No, what I’m saying is that an ISP shouldn’t be able to manipulate the speed at which the resources are provided. I agree they should absolutely be able to charge for the volume of resources used.
[/quote]
So on a Wednesday night when 35 million people are watching TRON in HD from netflicks, the ISP can’t prioritize Netflix so their customers are happy?
Yeah, sounds just like the conditions government would create. [/quote]
No.
Comcast is required to provide the service it is contractually required to provide. If they say 50mb/s, they have to provide 50mb/s regardless of what it is for.
I should get what I pay for no matter what I am doing on the internet. [/quote]
Another question:
If you as a consumer have a contract with Comcast that you get everything you click on at 50mb/s, and they only give you Netflix at 20mb/s because Netflix won’t pay as much as Amazon who pays for the full speed, can’t you just sue Comcast? Effectively negating the need for government regulation to prevent companies for paying for priority?
[/quote]
You could, but the contract is for speeds up to X mb/s 
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and I don’t necessarily think the government is the answer. [/quote]
Yeah… Me neither.
I typically assume ti isn’t these days and work back from there. Sort of like:
How can government abuse this? We all know they will.
When will government abuse this?
Does this significantly change things for the worst?
What will the unintended consequences be?
Is it even possible to have clear and straight forward regulation here?
How is getting paid for this?
Is what is happening in the market worse than any of the above?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and I don’t necessarily think the government is the answer. [/quote]
Yeah… Me neither.
I typically assume ti isn’t these days and work back from there. Sort of like:
How can government abuse this? We all know they will.
When will government abuse this?
Does this significantly change things for the worst?
What will the unintended consequences be?
Is it even possible to have clear and straight forward regulation here?
How is getting paid for this?
Is what is happening in the market worse than any of the above?
[/quote]
Any other view is pure-pie-in-the-sky.
[/quote]
Not to split hairs here, but wasn’t forming a Constitutional Republic in a way government as the answer?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and I don’t necessarily think the government is the answer. [/quote]
Yeah… Me neither.
I typically assume ti isn’t these days and work back from there. Sort of like:
How can government abuse this? We all know they will.
When will government abuse this?
Does this significantly change things for the worst?
What will the unintended consequences be?
Is it even possible to have clear and straight forward regulation here?
How is getting paid for this?
Is what is happening in the market worse than any of the above?
[/quote]
Any other view is pure-pie-in-the-sky.
[/quote]
Not to split hairs here, but wasn’t forming a Constitutional Republic in a way government as the answer? [/quote]
Government is the answer in the respect that it is a necessary evil.
What were talking about is how much power to feed the beast.
Rational people understand you need rule of law, and need government for rule of law. The eternal debate is how much, when and where do you give power to the government.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
and I don’t necessarily think the government is the answer. [/quote]
Yeah… Me neither.
I typically assume ti isn’t these days and work back from there. Sort of like:
How can government abuse this? We all know they will.
When will government abuse this?
Does this significantly change things for the worst?
What will the unintended consequences be?
Is it even possible to have clear and straight forward regulation here?
How is getting paid for this?
Is what is happening in the market worse than any of the above?
[/quote]
Any other view is pure-pie-in-the-sky.
[/quote]
Not to split hairs here, but wasn’t forming a Constitutional Republic in a way government as the answer? [/quote]
Government is the answer in the respect that it is a necessary evil.
What were talking about is how much power to feed the beast.
Rational people understand you need rule of law, and need government for rule of law. The eternal debate is how much, when and where do you give power to the government.[/quote]
I get that, I was just bustin your chops a little. It just seems to me that coming from one end of the spectrum (how is the government going to fuck this up this time) is just as counter productive as the opposite end (government is always the answer).
