Posted on 06/05/2006 3:51:43 PM PDT by yoe
Bandwidth costs are, and have always been, decreasing. Once demand outstrips supply, there will be overbuilding again, like there was a few years back. Don't worry about it, it wasn't a problem in the past, ain't a problem now, won't be in the future. It's dial tone. You pay for phone lines. Those who get a lot of calls need lots of phone lines and they pay for it.
What we do need to worry about is a tiered internet. Imagine if you will, if your Aunt Katie had to pay extra for decent phone quality when anyone called her.
That's the better analogy.
The telecoms are just trying to charge twice for the same traffic.So let them try. Big deal. Government supervision of the internet is not the answer to the rent seeking behaviours of any enterprise.
Your description of those on the other side of the issue puts your analysis into question -- considering who is on the other side of your argument.This is a non-argument that speaks to the weakness of your position. Follow me carefully. Just because a lot of people believe it, fallacy girl, doesn't make it true. Part of what it means to be a conservative is to think for yourself, whether every other conservative agrees with you or not.
Net neutrality actually *preserves* the "right's" access to the Internet on an even-keel with any big MSM business interests. The big MSM business interests would love to see "net neutrality" sacked and push the "right's" messages into the corners and cobwebs of the Internet.Net neutrality does nothing of the sort and you know it. All net neutrality does is ensure that a bandwidth hungry provider of web television pays the same freight as a blogger pays to anchor a few text files, precisely the sort of free riding behaviour that degrades the performance of the entire internet infrastructure, an infrastructure that was never optimized for audio or video streaming, and net neutrality does all this based on a flawed legal premise that will take years and years to litigate as everyone decides that the net is not being neutral *enough* to them or their particular interest, whether left or right or whatever.
Bandwidth costs are, and have always been, decreasing.A risible claim on its face. The pipes have gotten fatter, yes, but the media providers using them are propagating faster than the available bandwidth can compensate.
The entire network should be built out to accommodate all traffic -- in the same way that roads in the United States should be built to accommodate the traffic. I don't drive on most of the roads that the public pays for (which includes "me" in the "public"). But, I understand that we need the infrastructure for society.I appreciate the way you construct arguments that your opponents can so easily turn on you. Regard. Have you ever seen those weighing stations that states make trucks pass through? Of course you have. Why do you think states make trucks pay tolls to use their roads and highways? Because they place a disproportionate burden on the infrastructure; therefore they pay more than family sedans or SUVs. Duh. So why aren't you arguing for road neutruality, you super genius?
For those of you who say "get another provider," I'd say that would be great except there are none in some areas. The government has seen fit to give one cable company a monopoly in my area, and therefore there are no other providers. Profoundly stupid, but reality.So the *real* problem is a lack of competition. So why not fight the real problem instead of arguing for even *more* government supervision of our communications infrastructure, goverment supervision that you, yourself, call "profoundly stupid"?--why do you want MORE, and not LESS, stupidity? You're like a drug user arguing that drugs should be distributed free of charge to cut down on crime, when the real problem is that drug users are using drugs. Dude! Just say no to drugs, and just say no to government supervision of the marketplace!
They started out doing that. No one liked it; hardly anyone bought it; it went nowhere. And then, someone had the really good idea (that we operate on today) of having flat rate service. Then consumer usage took offBut I thought you said that the marketplace doesn't work and that we needed some hair-brained scheme called net neutrality to save us from those evil ISPs. Yet now you're arguing that the marketplace works?--so, I would answer, why not just LET IT WORK?
What's new? Consumers pay for everything in the world already. Nothing changes.Indeed. Only so-called net neutrality will ensure, like rent-control in New York, that the wrong people are doing most of the paying, setting up what we call in sociology a system of "perverse subsidies," a system where bandwidth hogs receive massive subsidies at the expense of every other element in the system.
What we do need to worry about is a tiered internet. Imagine if you will, if your Aunt Katie had to pay extra for decent phone quality when anyone called her.Aunt Katie does this all the time, you super genius. I get far better reception on my cell than most because I am willing to *pay* for it, by buying into a network that has, itself, invested heavily in their infrastructure.
Net neutrality actually *preserves* the "right's" access to the Internet on an even-keel with any big MSM business interests. The big MSM business interests would love to see "net neutrality" sacked and push the "right's" messages into the corners and cobwebs of the Internet.Precisely not the case. It is precisely the "big MSM businesses"--e.g. google--who are arguing *for* net neutrality, because it (perversely and massively) subsidizes their hugely disproportionate use of resources like bandwidth. They want a free ride. And who can blame them? We would all like a free ride I suppose. So let the market place sort out who pays.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is completely false. Google is already paying for their bandwidth; nobody is getting a free ride.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is completely false. Google is already paying for their bandwidth; nobody is getting a free ride.They pay as much as anyone else despite many, many trillions of hits, which is the problem according the telecomms and ISPs.
You said -- "Why do you think states make trucks pay tolls to use their roads and highways?"
The "trucks" on the Internet are already paying their tolls. Those sites who use a *lot of bandwidth* are currently paying *a lot more* than I am. They pay their way, too -- you see.
Currently *both sides* of the data being transmitted is being paid for right now. The big bandwidth sides of the data are paying *big bucks* for their bandwidth. And me, when I access those sites, I'm paying for my bandwidth. So, you see, big users are paying more and small users are *also* paying for the same data being transmitted.
So, now you want a *third or fourth* way for that same data to be paid for. Well, guess who (in the end) is going to pay for that third or fourth charge on that very same data (which is already being paid for *twice*)? It's going to be the *consumer*. Yeah, right, they always get it in the end. So, you want that ole consumer to pay yet again for another level and tier of charges.
Good going there Sherlock...
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. Does FreeRepublic.com pay for bandwidth? Who pays for that? The users... And do those same users pay for their own personal bandwidth? Yes. So, right now, you've got the "users" paying for that same data "going out" (of FreeRepublic.com) and paying for their data coming in (to their own data connection at home). And so, now you want those same users to pay a third or fourth time... Yeah..., do you work for some of these "special interests" who want to charge us all this money?
You said -- "Yet now you're arguing that the marketplace works?--so, I would answer, why not just LET IT WORK?"
Well..., you see..., I don't have such a simple-minded view or the world (or rather, I'm not working for those big-business interests that some people are...).
It definitely does not always work. If the "market" always worked, we wouldn't have trials and Enrons and so on -- would we. The market obviously did not work there. It's called greed and fraud.
And likewise we'll have greed and fraud in play here, too -- fleecing the consumer, as usual.
Regards,
Star Traveler
So, now you want a *third or fourth* way for that same data to be paid for. Well, guess who (in the end) is going to pay for that third or fourth charge on that very same data (which is already being paid for *twice*)? It's going to be the *consumer*. Yeah, right, they always get it in the end. So, you want that ole consumer to pay yet again for another level and tier of charges.Dude. Try to focus, OK? You are going to pay *anyway*, because net neutrality only gives the bandwidth hogs a free ride, not you, the consumer, because you are precisely the one who pays if the providers cannot recoup the costs of suddenly carrying all this extra bandwidth. If you think net neutrality is going to give you something for nothing than you are sadly mistaken--deluded, one could say.
You said -- "... a system where bandwidth hogs receive massive subsidies at the expense of every other element in the system."
Bandwidth hogs, as you put it are paying for their bandwidth as it is. We also pay (on the consumer side) for the *very same bandwidth* a *second time* when we access that site.
And "bandwidth hogs" -- as you put it -- are simply popular sites. I guess you could call FreeRepublic a "bandwidth hog" since they're using a lot more bandwidth than a normal user is at home (of course..., never mind that many users are accessing this site and paying for their own bandwidth, plus FreeRepublic paying also...).
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said (when answering D-fendr) -- "Dude. Your arguments are so weak. Are you getting enough oxygen maybe?"
I see your arguments are so weak and you're so "whacked out" about them, that you have no other recourse other than these lame type of comments. That's a sorry way to answer.
Regards,
Star Traveler
It's called greed and fraud.So you've given up on argument and now you just want to attack peoples' characters? And so soon? This net neutrality idea must be weaker than I imagined if it cannot even be reasonably argued!
And they can't think of a single thing they shouldn't be involved in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.