If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   The GOP warns that FCC net neutrality laws will "derail the internet" and "stifle innovation". Thanks Obama   (foxnews.com) divider line 167
    More: Asinine, Federal Communications Commission, GOP, house republican leaders, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, streaming media  
•       •       •

955 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2014 at 10:31 AM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



167 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 11:22:53 AM  
fc09.deviantart.net

Everyone celebrate!
 
2014-05-15 11:23:39 AM  

sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?


We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:00 AM  

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


t3knomanser: raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat


You two do realize that labor costs are the cheapest costs in most large businesses right?  The biggest expense companies like McDonalds face is facilities and supply expenses.

Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.  Tell McDonalds that since they use so much electricity that they will have to start paying double what they pay to keep service, and the prices of the burger would skyrocket.  You think that McDonalds will just eat that price hike?  I mean, you can just go to Burger King right?  Oops, BK had their power throttled as well.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:18 AM  

sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.


But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:25 AM  

dr_blasto: Eliminating net neutrality will ensure existing players stay and see no future competition. Existing players will eventually buy each other out, leaving fewer and fewer sources.


And a stable stock market.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:40 AM  

t3knomanser: Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will  pay, not by the costs of production.



You should revisit Econ 101.

An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices. This is called "cost push inflation".
 
2014-05-15 11:25:18 AM  

sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.


You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?


Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?
 
2014-05-15 11:25:50 AM  

Mantour: gnosis301: Can someone explain how not having net neutrality promotes innovation? How can maintaining the status quo by not allowing preferential traffic derail the internet?

What's good for Comcast is good for America.  How do you even DARE question that?


Comcast is people my friend!
 
2014-05-15 11:26:13 AM  

t3knomanser: sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.

But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.


Seems the "why" shouldn't matter.  You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds.  They promise "up to" certain speeds.
 
2014-05-15 11:26:46 AM  

sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: You should still get that.

Except, of course, I won't. If the bits slow down starting at MY circuit than I'M the one that's not getting the speed, now aren't I?

Are you getting the speeds that your provider promises you?

Oh, well, they don't really promise, do they?

Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-15 11:27:01 AM  

m00: Have citations ready from generally accepted sources.

Then find a relevant Fark thread and politely state the case.


Find a Fark thread where that happens. Maybe you can argue that they're just trolls, but Fark's "conservatives" rarely have sources for anything; when they do it's almost always op-eds, special interest think tanks and talk radio; and even when you objectively prove them wrong through immutable sensory and mathematical evidence on certain things they just disappear and lay low for a bit then come right back later and resume the argument like nothing happened.

The fact is that conservatism in this country has become a matter of refusing to admit error, refusing to change opinions based on new information and winning elections at any cost. Look around the world at conservatives in other modern societies and then compare them to what we have here. Other countries have conservatives that are very much like what we had in the early 70s. But since then conservatism in the U.S. has morphed into this weird, "win-at-any-cost" mentality that doesn't even care about being right or governing for the benefit of the nation.

I mean, Jesus Christ... we're talking about a country where the Right side of the argument on abortion can't even seem to agree with itself that rape is a bad thing. If you present math to them to prove a point they just cut the front 2/3 of the chart off and claim your math DISPROVES it.

Conservatism in this country is farked. It's not that conservatism is inherently a bad thing or that Fark really has anything against it, it's that the way conservatism is practiced in America really has nothing to do with being conservative. It's just an adopted label at this point that's used by people who only care about their own ridiculously self-serving ends and it's out of control.
 
2014-05-15 11:27:10 AM  

CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.


You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:08 AM  

FinFangFark: sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.


The control of what you watch is the whole point of the push to end net neutrality. Comcast owns NBC/Universal. If they don't have something you like, well, too bad. Pay moar!

The providers need to be regulated as fark. They need to treat every packet the same. Leave the discrimination to the customer and the best content will win.

If I pay my ISP for a service, they're ripping ME off if they throttle something I watch because that provider isn't paying their extortion money. fark that shiat.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:11 AM  
This is the same GOP that said that de-regulating telecom was going to lead to more competition and lower prices... how about we stop listening to them on this (and every other) topic?
 
2014-05-15 11:28:27 AM  

t3knomanser: sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises?  Then you are getting what you pay for.

But now the question is- why am I getting less than the basic promised speed? If it's just network congestion and load- hey, I understand. But if it's because my last-mile provider is selectively deciding which traffic it wants to reach me in a timely fashion, well then I might just get upset.


Let's remember it may not even be your last-mile provider's fault. There could be a lot of providers between you and whatever it is you're downloading. Each and every one of them might decide they don't particularly like that data.
 
2014-05-15 11:28:39 AM  

sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter. You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds. They promise "up to" certain speeds.


Which is kind of bullshiat and should not be legal, because you know goddamn well they are 'Implying' that is the speed you will get.

Unless you think, say, someone driving 40 miles below the speed limit in the left lane is also OK? After all, it's a speed LIMIT! You can go UP TO  that speed!
 
2014-05-15 11:29:28 AM  

sendtodave: dr_blasto: Eliminating net neutrality will ensure existing players stay and see no future competition. Existing players will eventually buy each other out, leaving fewer and fewer sources.

And a stable stock market.


The stock market doesn't matter any more than the gambling floor of Mandalay Bay. Same shiat.
 
2014-05-15 11:29:39 AM  

sendtodave: Do you get "up to" the speeds that your telco advertises? Then you are getting what you pay for.


You're right on that point. It's a whole other thing that should be outlawed. I assume that's your point, right? There's too little regulation and the providers are abusing consumers as a result?
 
2014-05-15 11:29:41 AM  

t3knomanser: Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.
 
2014-05-15 11:29:56 AM  

dr_blasto: FinFangFark: sendtodave: CJHardin: sendtodave: skozlaw: sendtodave: Is Netflix still the scrappy underdog that we should root for?

Or is it a giant, fat media company that we would want to see pay?

I'm not rooting for Netflix, I'm rooting for me. I paid for a certain level of access, I should get what I paid these assholes for regardless of what bits I'm transferring without having to worry about whether or not the source of those bits paid their protection money.

Sure.  You pay for a certain level of access and speed.   You get that.  You should still get that.

Your content provider (Netflix) would have to pay more.  Is that a problem, if you don't?

You don't think that Netflix would raise their rates to account for the additional cost?

And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

We keep coming back to Netflix and the amount of bandwidth they eat up.  My understanding is the idea of no net neutrality goes beyond that.   Seeing as Comcast owns Universal, and a large chunk of content, there is the ability for Comcast to throttle your bandwidth if you want to watch Netflix, or non-Comcast owned content, yet if it's HuluPlus and NBC programming, then by all means, let's open that flood gate.

So, Comcast will effectively have the power to control what you watch...seeing as you cut the "Cable cord" so to speak in terms of the their TV services, so they can recoop that back.

Sorry if I'm a bit disjointed, but I'm listening in to the FCC meetings, and trying to follow along, and at this point, it's commissioners just doing the "I'm the lone voice, the others are r-tards!" speeches.

The control of what you watch is the whole point of the push to en ...


And that's my point.  I just keep seeing Netflix being brought up, as they should just raise their rates to offset the increased cost to ISP.  But I've always seen it as just more than that, as Comcast owns a ton of content, and have a stake in what you're watching.
 
2014-05-15 11:30:02 AM  

t3knomanser: CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.

You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.


Once again, you are wrong. Consensus among economists seems to be that increasing minimum wage does contribute to inflation. To what degree is what they debate.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2002/october /i nflation-factors-rise

Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y.
While the differences in inflation noted above may seem simple, the cause of price level changes observed in the real economy are often much more complex. In a dynamic economy it can be especially difficult to isolate a single cause of a change in the price level. However, knowing what inflation is and what conditions might cause it is a great start!
 
2014-05-15 11:30:10 AM  

qorkfiend: The fundamental problem here is that ISPs like Comcast refuse to build out their own infrastructure to handle the amount of traffic their clients are requesting.


Why would they given the normal pattern is that they don't invest in their infrastructure, customers and businesses start complaining louder and louder, then government gives them billions to build out their infrastructure to temporarily catch up with the rest of the world, then they go back to not investing while stiffing their customers.
 
2014-05-15 11:30:46 AM  

qorkfiend: Sure, but surely you realize that's not a workable option for most people, because their municipality doesn't do that. Additionally, remember that there are states that are actively outlawing that sort of public internet service.


Of course.  And I don't want to give the impression that I don't support net neutrality; I do.  I just don't see how trying to use the law to screw over your own customers is a viable long-term business plan.  People are smart, they'll find a workaround eventually.

Wasn't Google Fiber supposed to scare these guys into cleaning up their act?  What ever happened to that, or is it just rolling out very slowly?
 
2014-05-15 11:31:12 AM  

qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?


Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?
 
2014-05-15 11:31:45 AM  

qorkfiend: Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?


Because their business model is to provide the worst possible service that people will still use and charge the highest price the customer can afford. Since they've created local monopolies, there is zero competition to drive quality up.
 
2014-05-15 11:32:18 AM  

qorkfiend: t3knomanser: Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.

Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.


People forget that more and more folks have cut the cord and use Netflix and Hulu for all of their TV and movie watching.  Their alternative is to go back to cable at 4 times the price if they cancel the streaming services, and then guess who they have to go back to!  Win/win for Comcast!
 
2014-05-15 11:32:22 AM  

udhq: qorkfiend: Sure, but surely you realize that's not a workable option for most people, because their municipality doesn't do that. Additionally, remember that there are states that are actively outlawing that sort of public internet service.

Of course.  And I don't want to give the impression that I don't support net neutrality; I do.  I just don't see how trying to use the law to screw over your own customers is a viable long-term business plan.  People are smart, they'll find a workaround eventually.

Wasn't Google Fiber supposed to scare these guys into cleaning up their act?  What ever happened to that, or is it just rolling out very slowly?


VERY slowly is an understatement.  It was announced in Austin last year, and many areas that were promised the service in are still waiting for a timetable.
 
2014-05-15 11:33:31 AM  

jst3p: t3knomanser: CJHardin: Minimum wage hikes won't affect prices of a cheeseburger but by maybe a few cents.

You're missing the point- minimum wage hikes wouldn't affect the price of a cheesburger at all. They'd reduce the  profit margin on a cheesburger. The price of the cheesburger is set  by the market- McDonald's sells it for the highest price they can get away with, for the volume of units they hope to sell. If they raised the price, they wouldn't make more money- they'd sell fewer units. It's the median price theorem, and it's the most basic principle of market economics.

Which brings us back to the key point: if Comcast double-bills Netflix, Netflix cannot rely on price hikes to recoup that cost, because if they hike the price, they'll lose subscribers, and hence make  less money.

Once again, you are wrong. Consensus among economists seems to be that increasing minimum wage does contribute to inflation. To what degree is what they debate.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2002/october /i nflation-factors-rise

Cost-push inflation, on the other hand, occurs when prices of production process inputs increase. Rapid wage increases or rising raw material prices are common causes of this type of inflation. The sharp rise in the price of imported oil during the 1970s provides a typical example of cost-push inflation (illustrated in Chart 2). Rising energy prices caused the cost of producing and transporting goods to rise. Higher production costs led to a decrease in aggregate supply (from S0 to S1) and an increase in the overall price level because the equilibrium point moved from point Z to point Y.
While the differences in inflation noted above may seem simple, the cause of price level changes observed in the real economy are often much more complex. In a dynamic economy it can be especially difficult to isolate a single cause of a change in the price level. However, knowing what inflation is and what conditions might cause it is a great star ...


FARKING THIS^^^^^^^
 
2014-05-15 11:33:56 AM  

Felgraf: sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter. You should get the service that you were promised.

Which is probably why they don't promise certainspeeds. They promise "up to" certain speeds.

Which is kind of bullshiat and should not be legal, because you know goddamn well they are 'Implying' that is the speed you will get.

Unless you think, say, someone driving 40 miles below the speed limit in the left lane is also OK? After all, it's a speed LIMIT! You can go UP TO  that speed!


Exactly.

If the real problem is that the customer may not get "promised" speeds, because of rate hikes upstream or whatever, we should focus on that.
 
2014-05-15 11:34:10 AM  

t3knomanser: Do you think that prices actually work that way? If Netflix charges $10, and I get $10 of value out of Netflix, when Netflix raises its prices to $12, am I going to pay $12 for $10 of value, or am I going to cancel my subscription? This is ECON-101 stuff, here. Prices are driven by what the consumer will pay, not by the costs of production.

That, by the way, is why the whole "raising the minimum wage/taxes just passes the costs down to the consumer" logic is bullshiat. While raising the costs of production can have seriously negative impacts on the economy, it doesn't have a direct increase in the price.


It's a difference in scale, no? Workers' wages make up an insignificant of the costs of a restaurant doing business, but Comcast extorting (I can't seem to find the actual number, but I'm guessing that divided by $7, it comes out to millions of Netflix subscribers) from Netflix is a much more significant number.

Increase the costs of doing business, and you increase the cost of the goods that business produces. Not all increases are the same.
 
2014-05-15 11:34:52 AM  

jst3p: An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices.


It  may lead to a supply side shift- but in the case where the supply is unbounded (like digital delivery of media content), that doesn't really apply, now does it?

sendtodave: Seems the "why" shouldn't matter.


The "why" absolutely matters. Just because the speed limit on a highway is 55mph doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to constantly drive at 55mph. It's a commons, which means there's other traffic that I have to contend with, plus weather conditions and other ambient factors. A certain variability in speeds is to be expected. In the Internet, this is extra-problematic because a lot of the traffic coming to my house originates on other networks- Comcast can guarantee me 25Mbs down, but if a remote server only has 10mbs upstream, there's no way Comcast can deliver 25mbs from that host, and it's not Comcast's fault. Measuring network speed is very complex, and there are tradeoffs between bandwidth (bits-per-second) and latency on the network (if I'm playing an online game, I'm less interested in the bandwidth speed promised, and far more interested in the latency).

So if Comcast delivers  all traffic as quickly as it can, to the best of its ability, then we don't really have a problem. I'll probably see an average speed less than the promised speed, but so long as we're in the ballpark, it doesn't matter.

The problem is if Comcast purposefully delivers  some traffic slower than it is capable of. The very idea of saying "well, there's a fast lane" means that Comcast is capable of delivering traffic very quickly. Netflix doesn't buy bandwidth from Comcast,  I do. So why is Comcast inserting itself into my business relationship?
 
2014-05-15 11:35:04 AM  

sendtodave: qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?

Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?


How about you get the advertised rate for the service you pay for?
 
2014-05-15 11:35:31 AM  

sendtodave: qorkfiend: sendtodave: And McDonald's would raise the rates on hamburgers to pay for higher wages.

You are aware that Netflix has already raised their streaming rates this year, yes?

sendtodave: I figure if Netflix is using a large percentage of available bandwidth, they should have to pay accordingly.  If they have to raise rates to do so, oh well.

The customer demanding super cheap media doesn't mean that the telcos should get shafted.

Why doesn't anyone root for the telcos?

Why don't the telcos build out their infrastructure to handle the service volume that their clients are paying for?

Because building new infrastructure is cheap.   Customers need to actually pay for it.  Right now, the customers are paying for the existing stuff.

Want more?  Pay business rates for your business class speeds.

Spoiled people.  If 28K dial up was worth $10 per month, 3MB should cost, what, around $1000?


I know. It's not like the backbone and infrastructure development wasn't heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Because that would make it look like the ISPs are just corporate welfare queens looking for laws to make it impossible to compete with them.
 
2014-05-15 11:36:57 AM  

qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.


And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.
 
2014-05-15 11:37:40 AM  

t3knomanser: jst3p: An increase in the cost of inputs will cause a supply curve shift to the left which will lead to an increase in prices.


It  may lead to a supply side shift- but in the case where the supply is unbounded (like digital delivery of media content), that doesn't really apply, now does it?


You compared it to cheeseburgers. In that scenario you are incorrect.
 
2014-05-15 11:38:20 AM  

dr_blasto: Because that would make it look like the ISPs are just corporate welfare queens looking for laws to make it impossible to compete with them.


Of course they are!

That's a given.

What, that's bad?
 
2014-05-15 11:38:33 AM  

t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.
 
2014-05-15 11:39:28 AM  

t3knomanser: The "why" absolutely matters. Just because the speed limit on a highway is 55mph doesn't mean I can reasonably expect to constantly drive at 55mph. It's a commons, which means there's other traffic that I have to contend with, plus weather conditions and other ambient factors.


Where I live, the highway has a dedicated toll lane.
 
2014-05-15 11:41:07 AM  

jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.


To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

www.frbsf.org
 
2014-05-15 11:41:08 AM  

t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


That was the 2011 hike, and yes, they lost a bunch of subscribers. However, that didn't stop them from doing it again this year. They're doing a phased roll-out, precisely in order to avoid the price shock that caused them to lose so many subscribers in 2011, but none of that changes the fact that Netflix has increased their streaming price.
 
2014-05-15 11:42:20 AM  

t3knomanser: And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.


Suggesting that this modest price hike that won't even affect current customers for 2 years is similar to the 60% increase and fundamental change in how the service operates that occurred in 2011 is entirely dishonest.
 
2014-05-15 11:42:48 AM  

sendtodave: Where I live, the highway has a dedicated toll lane.


Roadways are not neutral networks. Parcel systems, Title II telecommunications systems, and until recently, the Internet  are.

jst3p: You compared it to cheeseburgers. In that scenario you are incorrect.


Fine, my irrelevant analogy used only to make a simple illustration did not accurately capture the situation.


jst3p: But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increase


And the end result is that they lost money, and thus were  worse off after the hike than they were before it. So they made a bad business decision to hike prices, because they attempt to preserve profit margins by passing on the costs resulted a loss of profitability.
 
2014-05-15 11:43:57 AM  

jst3p: jst3p: t3knomanser: qorkfiend: Netflix doesn't seem to share your reasoning, as they've already hiked the price.

And they hemorrhaged subscribers when they did it.

But why did they hike prices?


Hint: The input costs (content providers) increased.

To be more clear: This is exactly what happened: Input costs went up, price went up so quantity demanded decreased, just like the Econ 101 you claim to have been to:

[www.frbsf.org image 288x240]


I think they attended ECON 001
 
2014-05-15 11:45:37 AM  
GUBMINT BAD - REGULATION COMES FROM GUBMINT SO IT BAD - GUBMINT ENEMY - FREE MARKET WHARRGARBL DERP Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: ANY LAWS = SOSHALISMZ

/Sorry
 
2014-05-15 11:46:12 AM  

sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no


So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?
 
2014-05-15 11:46:38 AM  
#BothSidesAreSameLULZ
 
2014-05-15 11:46:49 AM  

t3knomanser: And the end result is that they lost money, and thus were  worse off after the hike than they were before it. So they made a bad business decision to hike prices, because they attempt to preserve profit margins by passing on the costs resulted a loss of profitability.


Or the costs they were charging were not profitable at all because of the rise in costs of inputs so they were forced to increase prices to remain profitable at all even if it were with fewer subscribers.
 
2014-05-15 11:48:05 AM  

mod3072: sprawl15: mod3072: Isn't this essentially the exact same farking thing that most of you have been shrieking about?

no

So we DO want content providers to control access to content on their networks?


no
 
2014-05-15 11:48:47 AM  
 
2014-05-15 11:50:42 AM  
Who would expect anything different from the an-American filth that is the GOP these days?

Is there one GOP congress thing that doesn't hate the US?
 
Displayed 50 of 167 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report