Quote of the Day

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Mark Cuban says net neutrality will "f*ck everything up."

Billionaire investor and ABC “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban unloaded on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to fundamentally change how it oversees the open Internet. “That will f*ck everything up,” said the voluble Cuban in remarks Wednesday at the Code/Media conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Calif. “Having them overseeing the Internet scares the sh*t out of me,” Cuban said.
Click to expand...
 
So Mark Cuban is a total clueless tool.

What else is new? This should have been evident to anyone who has ever watched a single episode of fishtank.
 
Government having more control of the internet? Yeah, no thanks. They let the Comcast/Time Warner thing go through, and somehow, you guys think Net Neutrality is going to make it better?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041436818 said:
So Mark Cuban is a total clueless tool.

What else is new? This should have been evident to anyone who has ever watched a single episode of fishtank.
Click to expand...

SharkTank
 
Master [H];1041436824 said:
Government having more control of the internet? Yeah, no thanks. They let the Comcast/Time Warner thing go through, and somehow, you guys think Net Neutrality is going to make it better?
Click to expand...

Unless I am mistaken the merger has not been approved yet. What I really want is competition. The only choice I have here is Comcast. Frontier is totally incompetent and cant get a reliable DSL service to my house not to mention that its slower. So Comcast can charge pretty much what they want and are free to impose caps. They need to make it cost effective\attractive for companies to start laying fiber that is not associated with some old telephone cable conglomerate.
 
If my hero Elon was truly worthy of adoration, he'd set up free internet service and it would turn the world on it's head.
 
Guy with lots of money doesn't like anyone standing up for the average joe.

Imagine that...
 
jkerr2 said:
Unless I am mistaken the merger has not been approved yet. What I really want is competition. The only choice I have here is Comcast. Frontier is totally incompetent and cant get a reliable DSL service to my house not to mention that its slower. So Comcast can charge pretty much what they want and are free to impose caps. They need to make it cost effective\attractive for companies to start laying fiber that is not associated with some old telephone cable conglomerate.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Full free market competition with 4 or 5 competitors to choose from in every neighborhood in America would be preferable, drive down prices and drive up speeds and quality of service.

It is - however - evident we will never see that. The major ISP's and cable companies have carved out territories, and only in very rare cases to the cross into a competitors area for a turf war, and even when they do, there is usually an element of collusion and the limited competition doesn't fix the problems in the service.

The Free Market only works in a competetive environment, and we have a rigged system in which the environment is not competetive.

Because of this, some level of regulation to prevent the large ISP's from abusing their market positions is needed. I - for one - wish they had gone further, and implemented the full Title II requirements, including pricing and shared wiring regulations, but this should be better than nothing (I hope).

The current situation is untenable, and something had to be done.

I'd rather have highly incompetent government working for my interests, than highly competent private industry working against me.
 
As someone that realizes increased regulation is likely the only real solution to this problem, increased regulation isn't the ideal answer. Ideally, the free market would self regulate in order to keep any one company from absolutely dominating. The problem is that the time for self-correction has passed, and we need some way of forcing competition back into the market or forcing these companies to behave. Like it or not, the only way these companies are going to act in the consumer's best interest is if there is government intervention.

Ex.: People complain about data caps on fixed connections. The market should have corrected itself by offering a more appealing package, but since that's not possible, companies are able to behave in anti-consumer behavior, and follow one another in doing this.

I'm all for capitalism, but when you only have a handful of huge companies "competing" and they all behave more or less the same, capitalism doesn't work as it should.
 
self regulation can only happen if consumers have a choice. Local monopolies allow companies to dictate what the product is without any consumer feedback thus leading to companies trying to charge double for the same service and lying about advertised speeds/etc.
 
Does he not realize that the FCC already "oversees" the internet based on Title I (yes of that same "ancient" 1934 communications act!!!
 
I don't have a firm grasp on all of this so don't kill me.

However wouldn't making it title II and a utility totally screw up everything and make it possibly for competition?

Wouldn't this allow for leasing of lines and access third party sellers and such? IE good for us consumers and bad for those greedy people? Also getting rid of these stupid anti-municipality laws.

Okay this is flame worthy but still true; there is a political party though that is very much against all this too.
 
I have seen his argument before.

His argument is pro QoS more than it is pro paid priority per se.

There is a valid argument to be made here. Real-time services (VOIP, Games) and near real time services (streaming) can be rendered useless if crowded out by non-real time services like web traffic, torrents, etc.

QoS tweaks can be made to the network to prioritize packets of these real time and near real time services so that they function, with little noticeable impact to non-realtime services.

I kind of agree with this line of thinking.

On the other hand, its very tough to write regulation that permits this type of QoS, without providing loopholes that can be used for the type of paid prioritization and blocking net neutrality seeks to avoid.

The better solution would be to scale the network backbones such that the bottleneck is always the last mile to the customer, and not the backbone itself, that way individual customers can choose to enable QoS on their own networks (or just quit that torrent while watching netflix). Unfortunately the big ISP's have been terrible at this.

They typically don't have too much in the way of backbone congestion internally, but the peering sites with other Tier1's have been the huge problem, and will continue to be, until we completely throw out and recreate from scratch how peering and compensation is calculated.

Verizon is terrible in this regard. They blindly consider the origin of a packet (as part of its header) as its owner with no regard for whether said packet was requested by a client on their network or not, and thus demand that the source of the packet should compensate them for increasing connections at their peering sites, which is just plain dumb when you consider how the net really works.

This way it allows the ISP to use its monopoly control of geographical sections of end users as tool to unfairly extract concessions from the companies that seek to send them data.

It is currently unclear to me how and if the Title II regulation of Net Neutrality will deal with the peering problem, but the peering problem is just as big, as Net Neutrality on the last mile to the end user.
 
I've read the legislation that I've been able to find and I'm changing my mind on it. Having the government as the overlord of speech content is not what I wanted. I just wanted all data to be treated equally and without regard to point of origin and destination. I wanted to see isp's become dumb pipe providers and break up the regional strangle-holds that the big isp's have to allow other smaller ventures pop up. That is not going to happen under this law. Instead having government become the arbiter of speech will be tantamount to having a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. This will lead to no good deed going unpunished. I want government out. Get out of the way. This legislation does none of that. It just makes their control tighter than ever.
 
Everyone here that is supporting this farce named "Net Neutrality" should really ask themselves these questions:

1. Why, if the FCC proposed Net Neutrality is so good for you and I, why are they keeping the contents a secret until after it's voted on?

2. What in the new rules is there that must be kept away from us, who it is supposedly to protect?

3. What big government program regarding the internet is also kept a secret, including having secret courts?

4. What was the last big government program that we were told was good for us and were not given the chance to read it's language, and has turned out to be nothing more than an enormous tax-the-middle-class and boost the insurance industry package? (Obamacare)

Wake of sheeple and smell the pile of horse manure you are being sold before you're so deep in it you can't smell it anymore.
 
Master [H];1041436824 said:
Government having more control of the internet? Yeah, no thanks. They let the Comcast/Time Warner thing go through, and somehow, you guys think Net Neutrality is going to make it better?
Click to expand...

Yeah blame the big corporations for this, the FCC tried to simply state "you can't pick and choose which sites go fast" and they knee jerked "fuck you, we'll sue because you can't make that decision due to the lack of classification we have".
 
sfsuphysics said:
Yeah blame the big corporations for this, the FCC tried to simply state "you can't pick and choose which sites go fast" and they knee jerked "fuck you, we'll sue because you can't make that decision due to the lack of classification we have".
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the likes of Comcast are not too happy with Verizon for bringing that suit.

Without Verizon suing to throw out initial Net Neutrality regulations we would still have had a watered down regulation filled with loopholes that only touched the surface.

Verizons lawsuit resulting in the supreme court throwing it out because they lacked classification resulted in the current Title II classification path, which is way worse for their interests.

Amusing, isn't it.
 
bigstusexy said:
I don't have a firm grasp on all of this so don't kill me.

However wouldn't making it title II and a utility totally screw up everything and make it possibly for competition?

Wouldn't this allow for leasing of lines and access third party sellers and such? IE good for us consumers and bad for those greedy people? Also getting rid of these stupid anti-municipality laws.

Okay this is flame worthy but still true; there is a political party though that is very much against all this too.
Click to expand...

As with many issues, the argument is not simple. If local monopoly franchising were stopped, then theoretically competition would occur and rates might face downward market pressures. Increased regulation typically comes with increased compliance costs, so this will offset rate reductions to some extent. There is also no guarantee that new entrants will actually step into a market and without Title II oversight the government lacks the authority to enforce anti-trust/anti-competitive laws or address instances of alleged price fixing/general collusion within the industry.

Mr. Cuban seems apt to follow a market philosophy of reduced government intervention overall. There is some merit in the argument as the track record of regulatory agencies is not always exemplary. The downside in this particular case is that government intervention in the markets has already occurred, primarily in the form of those aforementioned local franchise rights (a.k.a. authorized monopolies), which is at least part of the reason why we have ended up where we are.

I agree that responsible regulation is probably the answer in this case, because without Title II oversight, the government will have very little leverage with regard to increasing broadband penetration, controlling prices, fostering competition, and/or reducing collusion within the industry (remember that line about Comcast not gaining undue influence because they were never in competition with TimeWarner in most markets to begin with). Basically, we regulated our way into this situation and it seems appropriate to regulate our way out of it.
 
Quix said:
I hear that Mark Cuban is a big Comcast stockholder.
Click to expand...

I hear that Mark Cuban is a yappy-dog little dumbfuck and a douchebag.

*Watches video*

Looks like we're BOTH right.
 
mavrocket said:
Everyone here that is supporting this farce named "Net Neutrality" should really ask themselves these questions:
Click to expand...

Honestly. While FCC-imposed control isn't really desirable. It's a LOT more desirable than huge concerns like Comcast/Verizon/AT&T being able to middle-man service providers and extort fees out of them for traffic originating INSIDE THEIR OWN NETWORKS.

Think about it. You go to McDonalds, request a burger, fries and soda. You fork over $5 for it. But some jackass comes up, grabs the fiver out of your hand and hands $4.50 over to the cashier. The cashier says you still owe 50 cents. So you give them two quarters, which are promptly snatched from your hand and they give the cashier 40 cents.

That's pretty much EXACTLY what the big ISPs are trying to do in this case. They're trying to bill you for the service, then bill content providers for servicing you.

So what winds up happening is that the content providers are going to bump prices to make ends meet, until your ISP decides they want to extort a BIGGER arbitrary percentage out of them. Repeat ad infinitum.

FUCK THAT NOISE.

These large ISPs have money exploding from every available orifice. Yet they won't invest in building out their infrastructure. But they think they've come up with a way to get MORE money without actually doing anything.

Sure, it can work for bigger, profitable concerns like Netflix (that can afford it).
But it basically shoots the idea of newer services in the head, as the big ISPs try to essentially turn themselves back into stand-alone networks like AOL, Compuserve, etc.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
I'm all for capitalism, but when you only have a handful of huge companies "competing" and they all behave more or less the same, capitalism doesn't work as it should.
Click to expand...

there is a word for this,that word is CARTEL

there is an amazing parallel of isps/ cable tv and the railroads / oil cartel of the early 1900's
 
the biggest problem we have is lack of choice of providers. Currently there is so much regulation (mostly local) that keeps pretty much anyone but the local cable company or telephone company from bringing in lines for internet access.

If all of that regulation was removed we wouldn't have these issues.

The problem is there is a monopoly in my neighborhood of who I can get internet from and the regulations keep anyone else from providing that service.
 
Elios said:
there is a word for this,that word is CARTEL

there is an amazing parallel of isps/ cable tv and the railroads / oil cartel of the early 1900's
Click to expand...

I agree with this; I think most of the American economy is now controlled by cartels.

If an industry is so large, complicated and powerful the only way to keep it under control is to layer on more government and large, complicated regulation, just break it the hell up.

It's the perfect capitalist response, create more competition.
 
Ever wonder why there is not more competition in the isp space...
rboc_map.gif


Behold the breakup of at&t and the territories carved out of the country. Each little bell dare not expand into another's territory. essentially this is exactly what is going on today the big companies are staying in there territory and not expanding into others. I remember when i called vz about fios in Chicago back in the day they said they could not due to territory agreements.

source for more info here
http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/bellopercomp.html

TLDR: ISP'S ARE CARTELS
 
maxius said:
Ever wonder why there is not more competition in the isp space...
rboc_map.gif


Behold the breakup of at&t and the territories carved out of the country. Each little bell dare not expand into another's territory. essentially this is exactly what is going on today the big companies are staying in there territory and not expanding into others. I remember when i called vz about fios in Chicago back in the day they said they could not due to territory agreements.

source for more info here
http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/bellopercomp.html

TLDR: ISP'S ARE CARTELS
Click to expand...

whats funny is all that has merged down to mostly AT&T and Verizon
with most being AT&T land
Verizon has now sold off most of what it bought up and is back to it Bell Atlantic size
withe Fairpoint and Frontier now owning small parts
 
Zarathustra[H];1041436818 said:
So Mark Cuban is a total clueless tool.

What else is new? This should have been evident to anyone who has ever watched a single episode of fishtank.
Click to expand...

True.. however many will listen to him because he fits their image of knowledge and success. The mob will listen to such fools simply because of his apparent success in life, where he has fucked over many others in order to gain his wealth. IF we could but drive ignorance from the mob's media addled brains, ah I can almost imagine the glory.
 
Elios said:
post bell breakup
rboc_map.gif


now
O0OHerd.png
Click to expand...

This is what my father went through in the early 80s during AT&T's divestiture when he was an employee of Southern Bell.
I'm sure the judge presiding over all that is rolling in his grave.
 
not about net neutrality but I can not fathom why they would allow the comcast/tw thing to go through....

I mean, how is that not a monopoly?
 
Bigbacon said:
not about net neutrality but I can not fathom why they would allow the comcast/tw thing to go through....

I mean, how is that not a monopoly?
Click to expand...

Their argument is that consumer choice wouldn't be reduced by them merging because they don't compete in any geographical location.

Which pretty much - in their own words - proves that they are cartels...
 
From tech to political opinion...

mavrocket said:
Everyone here that is supporting this farce named "Net Neutrality" should really ask themselves these questions:

1. Why, if the FCC proposed Net Neutrality is so good for you and I, why are they keeping the contents a secret until after it's voted on?

2. What in the new rules is there that must be kept away from us, who it is supposedly to protect?

3. What big government program regarding the internet is also kept a secret, including having secret courts?

4. What was the last big government program that we were told was good for us and were not given the chance to read it's language, and has turned out to be nothing more than an enormous tax-the-middle-class and boost the insurance industry package? (Obamacare)

Wake of sheeple and smell the pile of horse manure you are being sold before you're so deep in it you can't smell it anymore.
Click to expand...
 
Bigbacon said:
not about net neutrality but I can not fathom why they would allow the comcast/tw thing to go through....

I mean, how is that not a monopoly?
Click to expand...

its not
but it is like the railroads and standard oil
 
Mark Cuban is the kind of entrepreneur that explains why we like guys like Elon Musk and Richard Branson so much.
 
Someone needs to cut the bullshit bingo words out and give it a easy to understand layman's sentence for a name. Lets call it, "Leave the internet as it is now" vs "Advertiser controlled bandwidth throttling"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top