by Auralia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:49 pm
by Araraukar » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:33 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Auralia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:39 pm
Araraukar wrote:Maybe you should stick to one repeal at a time, rather than try to repeal all the resolutions by people you have a grudge with (or whatever that OOC chatter in your other thread is).
by Linux and the X » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:46 pm
by Sovreignry » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:48 pm
by Linux and the X » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:59 pm
by Auralia » Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:02 pm
Linux and the X wrote:I suppose that's why you decided to make a new thread; you didn't want to have all the arguments against it so readily accessible.
Linux and the X wrote:I guess the failure to even link to the prior thread — as WA tradition expects — was simply an oversight.
by Araraukar » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:48 am
Auralia wrote:The previous thread is in the WA Archives.
Auralia wrote:It's in the OP.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Auralia » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:47 pm
Araraukar wrote:Now it is. Ty, but for others to need to point it out to you isn't the best way to present yourself as an honest person with nothing to hide.
by The Scientific States » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:13 pm
by Auralia » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:25 pm
The Scientific States wrote:Strongly opposed, there is no good reason to repeal the resolution and your arguments provided in your resolution fail to point out any real flaws in the original resolution.
by Linux and the X » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:20 pm
by Atest » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:10 am
Auralia wrote:An unjust ban on tiered service isn't a "real flaw"?
by Auralia » Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:23 am
Atest wrote:Tiered service significantly reduces the quality of service.
Atest wrote:You have yet to establish how the Net Neutrality Act harms the consumers
Atest wrote:...that intercontinental networks should not be regulated by anything other than a global entity.
by Mousebumples » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:08 am
by Hittanryan » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:22 am
In practice, there is not enough competition between ISPs to prevent the abuses that net neutrality seeks to control. Due to the aforementioned expense of building suitable infrastructure, many rural and developing areas may have no competition at all, with a single provider offering service. This is to be expected in sparsely populated or impoverished areas; if in a given area there are only a handful of customers who can afford the monthly access charges, a lack of demand deters additional ISPs from investing in an effectively saturated market.
This problem is not limited to rural or poor communities. Many sizable cities and suburbs only sport two ISPs, typically large telecom firms with revenue from other subsidiaries such as cable TV and phone service. Consumer choice remains limited enough that ISPs would essentially be able to "get away with" the abuses previously outlined. Small startup companies are essentially dependent on government assistance according to your idea, which is an unsustainable and politically infeasible model in many locales.
At present, an environment competitive enough to deter ISPs does not exist outside of very large cities in the richest countries. Add in globalization and the growth of multinational business, and there is a need for GAR #89 or something like it.
by Auralia » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:28 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Auralia wrote:It effectively requires that all consumers purchase an unlimited Internet plan. Many consumers won't be able to access the Internet because the only plan available is too expensive.
*scratches head* Does the principle of Supply and Demand not work here? If the price for the only plan available is "too expensive" for "many consumers," wouldn't the companies drop their prices so that more consumers could partake?
Hittanryan wrote:snip
by Mousebumples » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:38 am
Auralia wrote:Mousebumples wrote:*scratches head* Does the principle of Supply and Demand not work here? If the price for the only plan available is "too expensive" for "many consumers," wouldn't the companies drop their prices so that more consumers could partake?
Most businesses would offer multiple plans at different prices and allow consumers to choose the plan most appropriate to their needs, thereby maximizing their customer base. Unfortunately, GAR #89 bans this practice.
by Atest » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:25 am
Auralia wrote:What are you talking about? Tiered service allows consumers to purchase a plan appropriate to their needs. Your quality of service will vary based on the price you paid. Overall quality of service will likely increase because tiered service is a mechanism for companies to distinguish themselves from their competitors.
Auralia wrote:It effectively requires that all consumers purchase an unlimited Internet plan. Many consumers won't be able to access the Internet because the only plan available is too expensive.
Auralia wrote:What are you talking about?
by Hittanryan » Sat Sep 28, 2013 12:13 pm
by Auralia » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:43 pm
Hittanryan wrote:And you cannot assume the market for ISPs is equally competitive enough everywhere to mitigate the negatives of non-net neutrality.
Hittanryan wrote:You're always in theoreticals, Auralia, never looking how it works in practice. Exactly how many ISPs do you think service areas outside major metropolitan regions? How many companies can afford to build and maintain the necessary network infrastructure without that high volume of consumers? If the solution is more competition, how do you promote that? Government handouts to the private sector?
Hittanryan wrote:A ban on tiered service closes one avenue for content discrimination by ISPs in WA member states. Net neutrality means you access the same Internet content at comparable speeds for the same type of connection. Users don't have to use the ISP's lousy search engine because Google gets throttled down to 4 kbps. Users can access news articles that criticize their ISP, its subsidiaries, or its parent company. Web designers don't have to be affiliated with an ISP to avoid having their website throttled, promoting entrepreneurship.
If you're really worried about competitiveness, bandwidth throttling is a way of enforcing uncompetitive practices on the Internet. ISPs who run online services could selectively throttle bandwidth to their competitors' websites, leading users to make use of what might otherwise be uncompetitive services. It would stifle diversity and competition within the IT sector, with independent startups unable to make headway against the ISPs even if they're producing a superior product.
by Auralia » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:50 pm
Mousebumples wrote:I am aware of that. However, are you saying that supply and demand need not apply with this resolution in place?
Atest wrote:Tiered service plans that the telecom industry implement marginalize low-income individuals by setting priority on those who pay for a premium service. Your fallacious statement regarding industry competition lacks a full assessment of a market economy.
[...]
Incorrect assumption. If internet service providers are forced to sell a single, unthrottled connection, said market will reduce prices due to corporate competition.
Atest wrote:I would have thought what I said was rather evident. Internet should not be regulated by individual countries or their ISPs.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement