| reply to Somnambul33t
Re: Wait - huh? You are not seeing all the hidden cost.
Even if the cost never once go up, the act of violating the Sherman Act can keep the cost to consumers inflated. I'm not saying this is a violation of that, I am simply pointing out to you that just because cost does not directly go up, does not mean that consumers are paying the price they would if there was competition. If you want to know what prices should actually be for consumers, look in markets that actually have competition, if you can find one (3 or more providers).
If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution. |
|
| said by Skippy25:If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution.
last i checked, that's exactly the point of the Constitution. Have you read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers? the entire point of the Constitution was to tell the government explicitly and precisely what it was legally allowed to do. We grant the government it's rights by loaning it a small portion of our liberties. It can't create new rights for us since the people and the states already own ALL rights except those we lent to the Federal government.
and slightly more on topic, how does the government always know whats best for the consumer? does it have a crystal ball that predicts the effects of every decision a business makes? they cant even predict the effects of it's OWN decisions well.
But...back on topic, i still dont see a problem with this. it's a benefit to consumers. If comcast made a deal with microsoft that all traffic done via your xbox didnt go against your cap, would you really throw anti-trust laws and the FCC at them? isnt that a benefit? you cant turn a benefit of one company into a negative for another and then cry fairness. how would ANY company provide better services? they wouldnt.
it's pathetic that this is even debatable as a possible violation of anti-trust laws when this clearly benefits customers in every aspect of the term. |
|
| No, I would not throw antitrust laws at them as I dont believe this is an antitrust violation, I believe it is a net neutrality violation and should be dealt with accordingly. |
|
| there's no such thing as neutrality. you may desire to keep companies and services neutral with each other, but what if it comes at the expense of the consumer? if you believe this to be against so-called net neutrality because comcast would be favoring it's partnership with microsoft's xbox live over non-existing partnerships with netflix, hulu, amazon, etc, what about me? what if im a comcast subscriber and i want to use xbox live to stream TV? doesnt this now HURT me? how is that neutral? |
|
| Based on that response I would suggest you go do some research on network neutrality and then come back with an educated and relevant remark.
Your attempt to make the neutrality argument consumer based instead of content/network based shows your lack of understanding about the entire issue to advance this discussion any further.
But to answer your "its all about me" question.... you should be able to use your xBox to stream TV if you want and they have enabled it. I have absolutely no issue with that. However, you should be able to do that at the same cost (or no less than the cost) that I should be able to stream IPTV from another source or to another "box" like an HTPC. I would even concede this being perfectly fine not counting against your caps if ALL traffic that stays on their network does not count against caps as well. All traffic means that it doesnt matter if it is emails, streaming TV, torrents, music, linux distros, or games. If the origin of the source and the destination is on the Comcast network then it doesnt count against a cap.
NOTE: In order for you to understand my comments in the preceding paragraph you would have had to do what was recommended in the first paragraph. |
|
| i do thoroughly understand NN. however, i think it's implecations are beyond your understanding. You claim it's merely about keeping content/networks unbiased when in reality it's about "fairness". if i have comcast, i want benefits to using comcast. if one of those benefits allows me to stream more content from xbox, or hulu, or amazon prime than from netflix, so be it. forcing a company to remove such a benefit, or preventing one from ever occurring, is not fair to me. i use netflix. i love netflix. But if comcast's service, or Hulu plus, or xyz subscription offered a better experience and comcast offered no cap hit for it, i'd have no problem using it instead. If it's not as good as netflix, i can keep paying for netflix and i wont be penalized.
If comcast actively creates penalties for using netflix, and not your negative benefits those like you like to call penalties, it might just be time to ditch comcast or move to business class. or i could use my unlimited VZW LTE to stream netflix instead. i wont be hurting, and i hate statists trying to push national legislation to help some people while it hurts many others. |
|
| I has nothing to with fairness from the consumer perspective so stop trying to ride that horse. Again, your reply shows you have no clue what NN is actually about so I am done with you.
One last thing and hopefully this will make it clear to you based on the stupidity of your very last sentence. The entire point of NN is that no one gets "hurt" while some people get "helped" because both of them have the exact same fair opportunity to get the service they want without having any loopholes or hoops to jump through. The entire fact that you even mention one group is helped while the other is hurt shows the exact reason why NN is needed and that you dont understand it.
So learn what NN is and then maybe you can try your hand at another discussion some time as I am done with you and your lack of knowledge concerning this one. |
|
| said by Skippy25:I has nothing to with fairness from the consumer perspective so stop trying to ride that horse. Again, your reply shows you have no clue what NN is actually about so I am done with you.
One last thing and hopefully this will make it clear to you based on the stupidity of your very last sentence. The entire point of NN is that no one gets "hurt" while some people get "helped" because both of them have the exact same fair opportunity to get the service they want without having any loopholes or hoops to jump through. The entire fact that you even mention one group is helped while the other is hurt shows the exact reason why NN is needed and that you dont understand it.
So learn what NN is and then maybe you can try your hand at another discussion some time as I am done with you and your lack of knowledge concerning this one.
lol you dont seem capable of thinking past the immediate effects of NN. i have not been talking about those, but of the unintended consequences that statists refuse to acknowledge. when you introduce market-distorting legislation there will be many unintended outcomes. in this case, i believe it will hurt many consumers who would have been able to pay less for one service or to utilize it more than another. When you let statists create laws, it hurts everybody, period. when you limit the choices a business can make, you limit how they can make money, shed costs, expand services/products, or lower prices. that is exactly what NN would do: restrict the abilities of internet-based companies to respond and adapt to market changes. this deters innovation, which hurts consumers.
i bet youre also one that believes broadband, housing, and health insurance (not health care, but insurance) is a right. |
|
| Your an idiot in saying that not having an open internet will hurt consumers from getting products/services they want when it will do 100% the opposite.
Spin it how you will, but if an ISP is forced to deliver every packet without discrimination then their entire user base is able to get (to their satisfaction) every products/services they want. You claiming anything else is shear silliness from every possible angle you can come from.
And so there is no confusion, discrimination of packets includes, but is not limited to:
Prioritizing based on partnerships
Placing arbitrary caps on service
Working around caps based on partnerships
In everyone of those cases I have listed, there are losers and winners when the ISP implements them. This goes toward both the consumers and the businesses they choose to favor or turn away. |
|
Wyngs
join:2010-02-20
Coos Bay, OR
1 edit | reply to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:said by Skippy25:If you are going to minimize our constitution to a piece of paper that says only what a government can do, then you miss pretty much the entire point of the constitution.
last i checked, that's exactly the point of the Constitution. Have you read the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers? the entire point of the Constitution was to tell the government explicitly and precisely what it was legally allowed to do. this clearly benefits customers in every aspect of the term.
On the contrary. The Constitution is a document that places LIMITS on what the government can do. It was never meant to list all the things it could do - an obvious impossibility.
|
|
