Laughable Anti-Title II Propaganda Video

jpm100 said:
And people who like big government have never lied to get their way? Right.....
Click to expand...

Not saying that haven't. But that's not the issue here. What's the way to handle this that has the best chance of ensuring affordable prices and good quality of service and future enhancements?

If it's giving wireless carriers everything they want they should make the argument on its own merit rather than injecting 'guvment' into every other word.
 
McFry said:
There is still no prejudice in this kind of throttling if it is done equally to all services. The electric company can charge me extra for peak usage and Comcast can do the same. What the electric company cant do is charge me extra for using LED bulbs instead of incandescent, the way Comcast wants to charge extra for Netflix vs Streampix.
Click to expand...

I already explained to you how Comcast can have the effect they want by targetting specific data rate criteria and time of day. But you choose to ignore.

The system brings the same result with less precision and so maybe a few non-netflix like services get dragged down in the process. That makes it better?
 
They are deleting all comments on the you tube video...Cowardly Trolls
 
Does anyone find it ironic they are using YouTube to host their douchery and denying comments. Yet Google, which owns youtube, is a proponent of net neutrality?
 
We should mark it for takedown based on some random copyright infringement charge lol.

It happens to Yugioh Abridged all the time! >_>
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
We should mark it for takedown based on some random copyright infringement charge lol.

It happens to Yugioh Abridged all the time! >_>
Click to expand...

Actually if you claim that you own the video they will take it down without reviewing it based on the fact that you said it was your video. I know a few people that have had that happen to them because somebody was being a prick.
 
They could have alteast spent abit more money and hired better actors.

I've seen more believable acting from a grade school play.
 
Yeah those poor corporations all they want to do is help us and create jobs and the mean old government just keeps getting in the way with regulations. man if we just got rid of all the regulations things go great I mean just look at the early 2000's we removed all those terrible regulations on financial institutions and it was all smooth sailing after that right?
 
It is difficult for anything to be neutral in a free market economy. Extending this beyond the 'net, should we believe that a room with a queen bed at Motel 6 should cost the same as a room with a queen bed at the Ritz? That would be neutral. I personally like the ability to pay a tad more and get that Gig package...
 
zeiker said:
It is difficult for anything to be neutral in a free market economy. Extending this beyond the 'net, should we believe that a room with a queen bed at Motel 6 should cost the same as a room with a queen bed at the Ritz? That would be neutral. I personally like the ability to pay a tad more and get that Gig package...
Click to expand...

So here's the deal. Wireless Spectrum is a limited PUBLIC commodity. As there is a finite amount of it, and a lot of people who need it. Therefore it should be regulated as a public utility as creating new spectrum and infrastructure to support it is impossible.

TelCo's would argue because bandwidth is limited, they need to limit the amount of data one person consumes, as well as sites they access. (In otherwords they wish to reserve the right to block access to sites like YouTube, or Netflix, or Pandora) This is a complete and total red hearing and strawman argument. Because of the way cell towers work, bandwidth can be increased by increasing the transmission power. During periods of high use, towers raise their generation power so they can transmit higher data rates to cell phones on fringe areas. This generates a shorter time slice necessary for a given phone, and allows more phones to fit in a given time slot. This is why you can have convention centers loaded with 50,000 people and not overload the tower.(That plus they dedicate towers)

Regulation while imposing new taxes of estimated $6/month would prevent phone companies from arbitrarily changing contracts without your express written permission. (AT&T Unlimited Data fiasco anyone) as well as put limits on how much cell companies can charge you, WHILE also ensuring that your traffic is not blocked.

Utility classification does NOT prevent the creation of Tiered bandwidth packages. So you can still buy a faster connection.

Utility classification does NOT prevent broadband providers from giving you free data (like Pandora as they claim) It just prevents the broadband provider from charging a fee to provide access to competitors.
 
I read a paper by the Ex CEO of AT&T that talked about the problems of an open internet with new devices like the iPhone.

To summarize what he said,
"Providing free unfettered access to the internet means loss of gated access. Gated access on feature phones was the bread and butter of phone companies as they controlled access. Thus as differentiation was lost between competitors, this forces them to compete on cost alone. Therefore we must differentiate by offering concierge services"

Now "what are concierge services" you may ask? Concierge services are specialty services offered by a provider not available to the general public. Case in point "On-Star" is a concierge service. It offers 911 dialing, vehicle diagnostics, remote car unlocking, stolen car tracking, and remote car shutdown, as well as directions. HOWEVER this strategy has failed as internet providers and independent vendors have found ways to offer these services for free (ODBII bluetooth phone diagnostics, and google maps anyone?) THUS phone companies are apt to compete on price yet again.

This is something the wireless providers are loathe to do. So they (AT&T and Verizon) try to gain control to as much internet wireless access as they can to control the market. Thus they are making themselves into monopolies with a limited resource.

A similar problem is facing COMCAST when they come up against Vudu, Crackle, Netflix, Hulu, RDo, Pandora, and more.


On a side note:
Anyone notice how Verizon and AT&T at the very same time stopped offering free phone upgrades at the end of your contract? I swear if I was the attorney general, I would investigate them for collusion and violation of the rico anti racketeering act.
 
Someone shoot that bastard please. Yeah yeah... messenger whatever. Shoot him.
 
Lith1um said:
Are they deleting comments? I can't see any comments except for two very pro comments, unless it's my mobile browser and yt being bitchy. I can't even see the comment I posted.
Click to expand...

They deleted my comments from two days ago.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
On a side note:
Anyone notice how Verizon and AT&T at the very same time stopped offering free phone upgrades at the end of your contract? I swear if I was the attorney general, I would investigate them for collusion and violation of the rico anti racketeering act.
Click to expand...

This is just the issue here. Happens everywhere. I'd honestly rather such much less complex regulation, and much more anti-trust/breaking up these huge corporations.

If they're so huge and powerful, they're too complex to manage and regulate/have too much power. Just break 'em up. And on the flip side, we can then break up government as well because it doesn't need to be as complex to try and manage the abuses of these gigantic firms, either.

Pipe dream, though. It's a symbiotic relationship for the most part.
 
this is so absurd it has to be fake... right? please tell me the onion did this, and it isn't actually sponsored by those telecom nazis
 
Comcast is now running a commercial stating how strongly they believe in net neutrality. I'm guessing they just don't know what the phrase means.
 
Sp33dFr33k said:
Comcast is now running a commercial stating how strongly they believe in net neutrality. I'm guessing they just don't know what the phrase means.
Click to expand...

It's just a tactic for misdirection. It's like telling a lie by inserting some truth. If they act like they support net neutrality then people are more likely to drop their guard.
 
jpm100 said:
I already explained to you how Comcast can have the effect they want by targetting specific data rate criteria and time of day. But you choose to ignore.

The system brings the same result with less precision and so maybe a few non-netflix like services get dragged down in the process. That makes it better?
Click to expand...
Uh every service like netflix gets bogged down. Comcast can find a way to target streaming video specifically then Youtube, Hulu, Crackle, HBO GO, and their own streampix would all have to degrade equally to avoid bias. Then comcast can sit around all they want and whine about insufficient bandwidth to handle the load and prove it by demonstrating all services on that protocol were affected equally. Meanwhile VoiP traffic and general web surfing can commence as usual.

There is absolutely no way that comcast can sneak in throttling on competing services and pawn it off as "luck of the draw".
 
DigitalGriffin said:
So here's the deal. Wireless Spectrum is a limited PUBLIC commodity. As there is a finite amount of it, and a lot of people who need it. Therefore it should be regulated as a public utility as creating new spectrum and infrastructure to support it is impossible.
Click to expand...

So, the FCC auctions off spectrum licenses - that is, exclusive access to specific frequency ranges for a specified period of time, as defined by geographic area, power level, and frequency. The government makes a significant amount of revenue off of this.

DigitalGriffin said:
TelCo's would argue because bandwidth is limited, they need to limit the amount of data one person consumes, as well as sites they access. (In otherwords they wish to reserve the right to block access to sites like YouTube, or Netflix, or Pandora) This is a complete and total red hearing and strawman argument. Because of the way cell towers work, bandwidth can be increased by increasing the transmission power. During periods of high use, towers raise their generation power so they can transmit higher data rates to cell phones on fringe areas. This generates a shorter time slice necessary for a given phone, and allows more phones to fit in a given time slot. This is why you can have convention centers loaded with 50,000 people and not overload the tower.(That plus they dedicate towers)
Click to expand...

No. That's not how it works, at all. Bandwidth is not increased by increasing power, it can only be increased by adding extra carriers (extra frequencies) and installing extra backhaul. Increasing power may help with coverage, but it absolutely does not provide any extra bandwidth. Only a finite amount of information can be transmitted within a given frequency range, and increasing amplitude (power) does not increase frequency.

As for the convention centers, those are usually either COWs (Cell on Wheels), or it's been outfitted before with a DAS (Distributed Antenna System), or they change the tilts on nearby cells.

DigitalGriffin said:
Regulation while imposing new taxes of estimated $6/month would prevent phone companies from arbitrarily changing contracts without your express written permission. (AT&T Unlimited Data fiasco anyone) as well as put limits on how much cell companies can charge you, WHILE also ensuring that your traffic is not blocked.
Click to expand...

Phone companies already can't arbitrarily change contracts - most people don't read the fine print though.

DigitalGriffin said:
Utility classification does NOT prevent the creation of Tiered bandwidth packages. So you can still buy a faster connection.
Click to expand...

That's true, so I'm not sure why we're doing it at all.

DigitalGriffin said:
Utility classification does NOT prevent broadband providers from giving you free data (like Pandora as they claim) It just prevents the broadband provider from charging a fee to provide access to competitors.
Click to expand...

Ummm if they give you "free" (subsidized) data from one provider and not from another, that would be considered as having the same effect as charging a fee to the other competitor, so no it would probably be banned.
 
They are going to raise my taxes $72? FUCK THAT! THAT'S BULLSHIT IMGONNA BURN THE WHOLE WORLD DOWWNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!



:D
 
youtube should send them a bill for every view that video got. they need to reimburse youtube for the cost of the bandwidth.
 
mavrocket said:
The fools in this thread (pretty much everyone so far I've read) that think that Title II will help need to do some research.

The FCC Commissioner himself has his own statement on this: http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pais-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Enjoy your speedy internet at a decent price while it lasts, suckers! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A Republican complaining about an illegal Obama power grab, such a novel argument. /s

It's going to be interesting to see Republican talk out of both sides of their mouths on this one for the coming months and years. Defending the likes of Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T while dissing other considerably more popular tech companies like Google and using Obama as the big government socialist bad guy.

Fuck, good luck!
 
flashoverride said:
So, the FCC auctions off spectrum licenses - that is, exclusive access to specific frequency ranges for a specified period of time, as defined by geographic area, power level, and frequency. The government makes a significant amount of revenue off of this.
Click to expand...

And your point is? The government auctions off use of public utilities all the time. ie: Toll Roads. But they can still establish the standards by which the companies run them.



No. That's not how it works, at all. Bandwidth is not increased by increasing power, it can only be increased by adding extra carriers (extra frequencies) and installing extra backhaul. Increasing power may help with coverage, but it absolutely does not provide any extra bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. While addition frequencies and backhaul help, they are not necessarily a first line to up bandwidth. Think of it this way...as you get further away from your wifi router, your tranmission rate drops because your signal is getting weaker. Therefore it takes more time to transmit the data you require. A similar thing happens with cell towers and cell phones on a fringe area. Boosting the power helps those phones who can't transmit at the maximum rate thereby increasing the number of phones that can access a network at the same time.

And Not every convention center has a DAS or COWs installed. (Micro/pico or otherwise)





Phone companies already can't arbitrarily change contracts - most people don't read the fine print though.
Click to expand...

Actually they can't. That's against the law. What they can do is say, "We are changing the terms on you, but you have to object to it and by law we have to notify you of said change"

This too may be changing as there are bills in committee that says you have to "opt-in and not opt-out"



That's true, so I'm not sure why we're doing it at all.



Ummm if they give you "free" (subsidized) data from one provider and not from another, that would be considered as having the same effect as charging a fee to the other competitor, so no it would probably be banned.
Click to expand...

IF lets say pandora subsidized free data, then yes, that would be illegal. However if the phone company subsidizes their own data, that would not.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
And your point is? The government auctions off use of public utilities all the time. ie: Toll Roads. But they can still establish the standards by which the companies run them.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, toll roads aren't auctioned off. And if they are that's positively fucking disgusting and the taxpayers who built that road should have no part of it - vote the bastards that authorized it out.


DigitalGriffin said:
Incorrect. While addition frequencies and backhaul help, they are not necessarily a first line to up bandwidth. Think of it this way...as you get further away from your wifi router, your tranmission rate drops because your signal is getting weaker. Therefore it takes more time to transmit the data you require. A similar thing happens with cell towers and cell phones on a fringe area. Boosting the power helps those phones who can't transmit at the maximum rate thereby increasing the number of phones that can access a network at the same time.
Click to expand...

Wow! That really makes sense. Except for the part where electromagnetic radiation travels at the speed of light - so no, it doesn't have anything to do with time. It does have to do with radio conditions and the ability to use different modulating schemes - QPSK or 64 QAM, for example. Increasing the power does not necessarily improve the SnR or RF conditions. In some cases it can, but not always (in some cases it actually makes it worse). In urban areas you have to contend with mutlipath fading, differences in building materials and their effects on propagation, distortion and potential interference. However my original point still stands: in identical RF conditions, the only way to increase bandwidth is to increase the frequency range either by broadening the carrier or by using carrier aggregation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/3g-lte-basics.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_amplitude_modulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-shift_keying#Quadrature_phase-shift_keying_.28QPSK.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
 
So, I'm noticing that they are tightly editing their comments section on youtube. We should launch a comment campaign. Remember Poe's Law. Try to be so sarcastic they believe you are being genuine.
 
heatlesssun said:
A Republican complaining about an illegal Obama power grab, such a novel argument. /s

It's going to be interesting to see Republican talk out of both sides of their mouths on this one for the coming months and years. Defending the likes of Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T while dissing other considerably more popular tech companies like Google and using Obama as the big government socialist bad guy.

Fuck, good luck!
Click to expand...

That's a bullshit point.

The Choice is not Title II or let Comcast, TW, Verizon bend over customers. That's tht biggest lie in all of this. That Title II is the only option. BIG FUCKING LIE.
 
Biznatch said:
I wasn't going to click on it, but did anyway. And it was exactly what I expected seeing the headline and fox news... Please tell me you don't actually believe anything in that article... It's almost as stupid as the video this thread was about.
Click to expand...

Not anymore stupid than people blindly supporting an option because they've been made believe it interferes with the overall evil scheme's of ISP's.

Other than inferring it interferes with ISP's I yet to hear how the Title II mechanism will work to help consumers and not be usurped. Essentially because people don't want to be caught in a lie.

"Pass Title II, then paradise occurs" doesn't do it for me.
 
Oh yeah, right. I need to catch up with things. The new selling point is

Pass title II and watch republicans get their panties in a bunch.

Nice for them that we've become so easily to manipulate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top