Octopus Overlords

Enough wrote:Yep, Cruz has single-handily managed to completely poison the well as it were when it comes to net neutrality. Go read the comments section of any story on it that has come out since his remarks and you will see what I mean. Calling it Obamacare for the internet was a genius branding move, legions of dunder heads will do now make it their life's work to fight against net neutrality. Both parties piss me off to no end, but the anti-science and anti-internet/tech attitudes of the republican party have me extremely worried about the future for our country. Time to give some money to the EFF.

Maybe it's where I live and where I surf but I haven't heard the right coming out in defense of Ted Cruz but I have heard tons of the left coming out to attack him with a blind "Go Net Neutrality!" in their tone, which frightens me because at least some of the BS the FCC has been pulling has been in name of advancing net neutrality. Unless they've simplified the whole thing in the last few months I'm as befuddled as ever.

Enough wrote:Go read the comments section of any story on it that has come out since his remarks and you will see what I mean.

Christ all goddamn mighty. Ted Cruz is an ignorant asshole:

ignorant asshole Ted Cruz wrote:Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter?

FACEBOOK AND TWITTER SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY YOU STUPID FUCK HEAD.

Thanks Obama!

Dunderheads aside, conservatives overwhelmingly support net neutrality.

Some 83 percent of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17 percent reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83 percent of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access. […]

The poll also asked whether voters were concerned that big ISPs—like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T—could influence the government and elected officials in their favor; 72 percent of self-identified conservatives said yes.

I have no doubt that many changed their minds the moment Obama moved to support it.

Hasn't changed my opinion. No way I want the ISPs throttling my content based on it's source. Just give me the pipe I paid for and don't screw with it!

Rip wrote:Hasn't changed my opinion. No way I want the ISPs throttling my content based on it's source. Just give me the pipe I paid for and don't screw with it!

Yay, we're in agreement.

OK.. I'll take up the minority position. I oppose net neutrality legislation. I understand the theoretical argument in favor, but I want to wait until I actually feel the evils of non-neutrality before I support regulation. It's not like a decision today to leave the market unregulated forecloses the option to regulate in the future. Or maybe there is some big insidious effect of non-neutrality going on right now that I'm not noticing. Can you tell me about it?

As a Netflix customer, I can expect higher fees, slower acquisition of titles, or a slowdown in their continued development of products because they had to pay Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon in order to not degrade the service that they've previously enjoyed.

Rip wrote:Hasn't changed my opinion. No way I want the ISPs throttling my content based on it's source. Just give me the pipe I paid for and don't screw with it!

Rip, RM9 and GreenGoo unite!!

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:Hasn't changed my opinion. No way I want the ISPs throttling my content based on it's source. Just give me the pipe I paid for and don't screw with it!

Rip, RM9 and GreenGoo unite!!

Being against net neutrality is like requesting the power utility bills you based on what you plug in...

Black and Decker didn't pay the power company a premium so flaky dirty power for your toaster oven it is! GE did pay up so their toaster oven works awesome when plugged into the wall straight away! Uh oh, an unknown device has been plugged in, the brand is not able to be identified therefore your power will be flaky.

This little exercise also unintentionally shows the potential dark side of smart metering, hah.

Edited for clarity.

Enough wrote:Net neutrality is like the power utility billing you based on what you plug in...

Net neutrality is what prevents that, or it was until politicians and bureaucrats co-opted the phrase and flipped the meaning.

Yeah, they want the government to be 'neutral' (read:absent) in letting the carriers 'regulate' themselves, whereas the true meaning is that the carriers should be neutral in terms of content delivery. All packets are created equal, subject to legal exceptions like DDOS attacks and spam.

Yep well aware, sorry for the poorly worded lede. Hopefully better now.

Perhaps we can convince them it's a vast liberal conspiracy to charge them extra for FOX News?

Enough wrote:Yep, Cruz has single-handily managed to completely poison the well as it were when it comes to net neutrality. Go read the comments section of any story on it that has come out since his remarks and you will see what I mean. Calling it Obamacare for the internet was a genius branding move, legions of dunder heads will do now make it their life's work to fight against net neutrality. Both parties piss me off to no end, but the anti-science and anti-internet/tech attitudes of the republican party have me extremely worried about the future for our country. Time to give some money to the EFF.

That's what I was thinking. He's a master tainter.

Isgrimnur wrote:As a Netflix customer, I can expect higher fees, slower acquisition of titles, or a slowdown in their continued development of products because they had to pay Comcast,

Why would you expect that? Netflix costs go up, Comcast costs go down. The net effect on your price is ambiguous.

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Said no one ever. Why do you think Comcast prices would go down?

Alefroth wrote:

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Said no one ever. Why do you think Comcast prices would go down?

Because their costs are going down (since they are now getting a payment from Netflix). You can't believe that prices go up when costs go up without also believing the prices go down when costs go down. Well, you can believe it, but its a very strange thing to believe.

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Hahahahaha.

It doesn't cost Comcast anything to give me a packet of Netflix data compared to a packet of Amazon website data.

I am paying Comcast for a pipe to the Internet. Comcast is using the size of their subscriber base to obtain ransom money from Netflix. At the expense of their subscriber base (when Netflix refuses to pay ransom).

At no point in time do costs go down for Comcast's customers.

RunningMn9 wrote:

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Hahahahaha.

It doesn't cost Comcast anything to give me a packet of Netflix data compared to a packet of Amazon website data.

I am paying Comcast for a pipe to the Internet. Comcast is using the size of their subscriber base to obtain ransom money from Netflix. At the expense of their subscriber base (when Netflix refuses to pay ransom).

At no point in time do costs go down for Comcast's customers.

Costs and prices are two different things.

Right. But in this case neither goes down. It's just a ransom payment that Comcast is extracting from Netflix by holding their subscriber base hostage.

RunningMn9 wrote:

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Hahahahaha.

It doesn't cost Comcast anything to give me a packet of Netflix data compared to a packet of Amazon website data.

I am paying Comcast for a pipe to the Internet. Comcast is using the size of their subscriber base to obtain ransom money from Netflix. At the expense of their subscriber base (when Netflix refuses to pay ransom).

At no point in time do costs go down for Comcast's customers.

Lets keep things straight. Costs are not the same as prices. Comcast is (implicitly) charging Netflix more if they are shipping more data. Thus, the cost of shipping a unit of Netflix data is lower for Comcast after the deal than before it, since they now get partially subsidized by Netflix. Lower costs lead to lower prices.

PLW wrote:Lower costs lead to lower prices.

Bzzt! And you were doing so well up to there. Lower costs lead to higher profits.

RunningMn9 wrote:Right. But in this case neither goes down. It's just a ransom payment that Comcast is extracting from Netflix by holding their subscriber base hostage.

Evidence? I don't think any prices have changed.

PLW wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Said no one ever. Why do you think Comcast prices would go down?

Because their costs are going down (since they are now getting a payment from Netflix). You can't believe that prices go up when costs go up without also believing the prices go down when costs go down. Well, you can believe it, but its a very strange thing to believe.

Dude. The comcasts of the world are trying to provide you with the exact same service they are now, but get paid twice for it. Once from you, and once from Netflix (etc).

You think that because profits are up they are going to reduce prices on their service plans? We have decades of history showing that has never happened outside of government intervention (which Net Neutrality is not). They are figuratively holding their customers hostage and trying to get Netflix to pay to be able to reach their customers. They charge you, but won't let you access Netflix at a reasonable bandwidth unless Netflix pays them too. It's asinine.

There really isn't any gray area here. It's an ugly money grab and they are holding the internet hostage to get it.

PLW wrote:Evidence? I don't think any prices have changed.

Evidence of what? That Comcast used their subscribers to extract a ransom? Evidence that Comcast doesn't have any costs associated with the specific contents of a data packet? Evidence that after receiving the ransom payment from Netflix, it didn't lower any of cost or prices?

Kraken wrote:

PLW wrote:Lower costs lead to lower prices.

Bzzt! And you were doing so well up to there. Lower costs lead to higher profits.

Its a very odd model of the world where firms get all incidence of cost changes themselves. That's not the model that's getting applied to Netflix, where the assumption seems to be that they pass the extra costs on to consumers.

Now... maybe we think Netflix is in a more competitive market than Comcast is. Usually that would lead to costs having a more direct impact in prices than they would in a less competitive market. But I'll need some evidence for that. Netflix's position in the streaming-video market seems pretty monopolisitic to me, too. Even in this small town, I have at least 3 wired high speed internet choices. How many firms offer a service that comparable to netflix? For me, Amazon Video is the only thing anywhere close, and it's not really that close at all.

PLW wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Right. But in this case neither goes down. It's just a ransom payment that Comcast is extracting from Netflix by holding their subscriber base hostage.

Evidence? I don't think any prices have changed.

Just read up on the topic. He doesn't need to provide evidence since it is well documented, especially during the Netflix/comcast feud.

A quick search shows an enormous amount of FUD with regard to the Netflix/comcast issue, with fox news and others claiming it is not about Net Neutrality at all. No wonder PLW and others are unsure. One article I read showed a textbook case of Net Neutrality and claimed that it was clearly not a Net Neutrality issue.

RunningMn9 wrote:

PLW wrote:Evidence? I don't think any prices have changed.

Evidence of what? That Comcast used their subscribers to extract a ransom? Evidence that Comcast doesn't have any costs associated with the specific contents of a data packet? Evidence that after receiving the ransom payment from Netflix, it didn't lower any of cost or prices?

Evidence that Netflix prices go up and comcast prices don't move.

PLW wrote:

Kraken wrote:

PLW wrote:Lower costs lead to lower prices.

Bzzt! And you were doing so well up to there. Lower costs lead to higher profits.

Its a very odd model of the world where firms get all incidence of cost changes themselves. That's not the model that's getting applied to Netflix, where the assumption seems to be that they pass the extra costs on to consumers.

Now... maybe we think Netflix is in a more competitive market than Comcast is. Usually that would lead to costs having a more direct impact in prices than they would in a less competitive market. But I'll need some evidence for that. Netflix's position in the streaming-video market seems pretty monopolisitic to me, too. Even in this small town, I have at least 3 wired high speed internet choices. How many firms offer a service that comparable to netflix? For me, Amazon Video is the only thing anywhere close, and it's not really that close at all.

You're all over the place here. I guess I should ask you what you think Net Neutrality is, before we continue.

PLW wrote:Evidence that Netflix prices go up and comcast prices don't move.

I think you're asking me for proof that Netflix will pass the cost along to its customers, rather than just eat it, is that correct?

I don't even know how to respond to that. In what world do higher operating costs *not* get passed along to the consumer? Business 101, I guess, might be a good place for you to start?

If I suggest that a company who's costs outrun their revenue is likely to go out of business, is that something that you'd require proof of as well?

As for comcast, they haven't changed their service to you, why would they provide you with a discount? Netflix paying them is a completely different line item and is not tied to comcast users in any way, except through blackmail. There is zero chance comcast is going to give you a discount because another revenue stream opened up. Yikes, for even imagining that is a possibility. The prices they offer consumers are based on what the market will bear, not what their costs are. Decreasing their costs would have zero impact on what the market could bear, so...no discount for you?

If comcast invested in pure evil and it paid a nice dividend, do you think they are going to suddenly cut 10% off everyone's bill? Why would you think that? What possible motivation would comcast have to do that? Oh, we have enough money, everyone can go ahead and pay us less, that's fine. That's not how it works. They've shown us every step of the way that that isn't how they operate.

PLW wrote:Evidence that Netflix prices go up and comcast prices don't move.

Netflix agreed to pay the ransom the Comcast in late February. In May they announced a price increase of $1 per month for new customers. In October Netflix announced that the price increase killed their subscriber growth.

Xfinity didn't have to pay the ransom. Xfinity users didn't see any artificial speed throttling. Xfinity didn't have to increase prices and risk killing their growth.

Not lost on anyone is the fact that Xfinity is Comcast's streaming service for their subscribers.

At no point in time did Comcast's price go down.

PLW wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:

PLW wrote:Comcast costs go down.

Hahahahaha.

It doesn't cost Comcast anything to give me a packet of Netflix data compared to a packet of Amazon website data.

I am paying Comcast for a pipe to the Internet. Comcast is using the size of their subscriber base to obtain ransom money from Netflix. At the expense of their subscriber base (when Netflix refuses to pay ransom).

At no point in time do costs go down for Comcast's customers.

Lets keep things straight. Costs are not the same as prices. Comcast is (implicitly) charging Netflix more if they are shipping more data. Thus, the cost of shipping a unit of Netflix data is lower for Comcast after the deal than before it, since they now get partially subsidized by Netflix. Lower costs lead to lower prices.

Not with a monopoly.

RunningMn9 wrote:

PLW wrote:Evidence that Netflix prices go up and comcast prices don't move.

Netflix agreed to pay the ransom the Comcast in late February. In May they announced a price increase of $1 per month for new customers. In October Netflix announced that the price increase killed their subscriber growth.

Xfinity didn't have to pay the ransom. Xfinity users didn't see any artificial speed throttling. Xfinity didn't have to increase prices and risk killing their growth.

Not lost on anyone is the fact that Xfinity is Comcast's streaming service for their subscribers.

At no point in time did Comcast's price go down.

Pure coincidence. Show me some PROOF. Correlation does not imply causation.

Etc etc.

Didn't you read Comcast's press release? Their dividends went up by 15.4% annually, and the Board of Directors boosted its price with a stock repurchase program. Prices to consumers didn't change.

Comcast Corporation (NASDAQ: CMCSA, CMCSK), a leading cable, entertainment and communications company, announced today that it increased its dividend by 15.4% to $0.90 per share on an annualized basis. In accordance with the increase, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.225 a share on the company's common stock, payable on April 23, 2014 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on April 2, 2014.

In addition, Comcast announced that its Board of Directors has increased its stock repurchase program authorization to $7.5 billion. Comcast plans to repurchase $3.0 billion during 2014, subject to market conditions.

PLW wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:As a Netflix customer, I can expect higher fees, slower acquisition of titles, or a slowdown in their continued development of products because they had to pay Comcast,

Why would you expect that? Netflix costs go up, Comcast costs go down. The net effect on your price is ambiguous.

Are you serious? No way the ISp lowers prices. That would be counter to everything they stand for.

GreenGoo wrote: Dude. The comcasts of the world are trying to provide you with the exact same service they are now, but get paid twice for it. Once from you, and once from Netflix (etc).

Lots of markets work this way. When you buy cable TV, they are getting paid by you and by advertisers. You would like TV without ads. They aren't getting paid twice to provide you the exact same service. They are getting paid twice to provide you with WORSE service (from your perspective). What would happen to the price of cable if we outlawed ads? Would those reduced revenues just mean lower profits to cable companies? Or do you think the price of cable might adjust?

GreenGoo wrote: You think that because profits are up they are going to reduce prices on their service plans? We have decades of history showing that has never happened outside of government intervention (which Net Neutrality is not).

Are you saying that the price of internet has never declined? The level of internet I receive today would have cost hundreds of dollars of month (if it was even available) as little as a decade ago.

GreenGoo wrote:
They are figuratively holding their customers hostage and trying to get Netflix to pay to be able to reach their customers. They charge you, but won't let you access Netflix at a reasonable bandwidth unless Netflix pays them too. It's asinine.

There really isn't any gray area here. It's an ugly money grab and they are holding the internet hostage to get it.

Let's turn it on it's head. What if Netflix wanted to improve its throughput over what customers paid for and offered a subsidy to Comcast to guarantee that? No hostage-taking. Just a business decision. Does that seem ok?

GreenGoo wrote: You're all over the place here. I guess I should ask you what you think Net Neutrality is, before we continue.

Charging different content-providers different prices for the same data handling.

PLW wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Right. But in this case neither goes down. It's just a ransom payment that Comcast is extracting from Netflix by holding their subscriber base hostage.

Evidence? I don't think any prices have changed.

There you go, there is your evidence. Costs went down and you said prices would. They didn't though, did they?