Quizzical

About

Username
Quizzical
Joined
Visits
6,750
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
3,819
Rank
Epic
Favorite Role
Tank
Posts
18,230
Badges
51
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    Phry said:
    Hulluck said:
    Choice = I meant over all across the U.S. No company has a monopoly indefinitely here atm.  No I won't contact anyone and "bulb,  blub" Because nothing negative has happened. The sky hasn't fallen. End of worlds isn't here. And again the minute an isp messes up it will get everyone' attention and I'll worry about it then. Even if its some rural entity it will grab everyone'  attention. I'm basically inline with Quizzical's frame of thought for the most part.  Competition does work. If you live rural it's just the way it is atm. I know that choice very well. I just bought my house in April. I had a choice. 160 acres literally in the middle of no where.  No cell phone towers nothing. I loved the features of the land but hated the house and was worried about its age. Other was new construction in urban area. I choose new construction just to build equity and use as a stepping stone. Life goes on. When something happens I'll worry about it then. Sorry about typos or anything else. My phone's kinda crap. Been in water to many times. Was using my pc earlier.
    No company has a monopoly indefinitely? the problem there is that they have a monopoly now, unless that changes then choice does not exist beyond the old 'do you want internet yes/no' choice, how much you pay is very much dependant on the whims of whoever is providing internet services in your area, legislation needs to go in now to take away the rights of any ISP to limit or restrict other ISP's from competing with them in the areas they operate, without exception! anything less would be anti consumer, and it would be extremely disingenous of you to suggest otherwise.
    There is an important difference between:

    1)  The government has granted some ISP an artificial monopoly.
    2)  An ISP has a monopoly in a particular area because they're the only one that has bothered to build a network.

    The former needs to be ended and quickly.  That's a completely unforced error and insane public policy.  The latter is perhaps undesirable, but the reality is that it's just not that profitable to build out networks in areas that aren't that heavily populated.

    There is also an important difference between:

    1)  There's only one way to get on the Internet at all from a particular area.
    2)  One ISP offers a massively better product (higher bandwidth, higher or no bandwidth caps, better ping, etc.) than any alternatives.

    The true monopoly of the first situation these days would require you to live in a really out of the way place.  But the second can also have a lot of the undesirable characteristics of a monopoly, depending on how bad the second best ISP in an area is.  If only one ISP offers anything better than dialup, then that's pretty much a monopoly.  If the second best ISP offers 5 Mbps without any data caps, or perhaps 4G LTE that caps you at 10 GB/month, that meaningfully restricts what the best ISP can do even if it's far from ideal.  If the second best ISP offers 50 Mbps without data caps, you've got good competition and shouldn't complain.

    I would submit that areas that have a competitive market in Internet access shouldn't have regulations designed under the assumption that all ISPs there simultaneously have a monopoly.  For areas that don't have much competition, getting more competition should be the primary focus, and treating the ISP there as a monopoly to be regulated should at most be a temporary thing with plans to drop it if more competition arrives.
    RexKushman
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    Don't assume that if there are a ton of regulations imposed, they'll be the regulations you want.  Comcast can afford to hire a lot of lawyers and lobbyists.  A small ISP that only serves one market can't.  Who do you think that the regulations will be written to favor?

    When regulation really took off in the United States in the 1930s, the effect in many industries was killing off a lot of small businesses and pushing consolidation of industries into fewer, larger businesses.
    Phry
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    k61977 said:
    There are really only a handful of providers most of the country already.  Comcast and Timewarner pretty much have 2/3 of the country on lockdown.  They bought up most of the competition let them keep there name but all the money goes to them.  Just try going into an area that either of those as the major provider for landline internet and get someone else if you don't live in a major city.  So yeah there is already a huge monopoly in this country for this service.
    I'd submit that one of the most important considerations in any proposed regulations is what will it do to competition.  If you've got multiple good ISP options where you live, then your ability to switch to a competitor will do more to push them to offer you better service than any regulations ever could.

    Let's also not forget that lighter regulations doesn't mean no regulations.  Ajit Pai has said that the main thrust will be informing customers of what you're doing.  It will remain very illegal for an ISP to throttle sites or block sites while claiming that they aren't.  On another net neutrality thread, someone linked to a list of bad things that various ISPs did that they were fined or otherwise sanctioned for and forced to stop before the Title II regulations were implemented in the first place.
    SirAgravaineHulluckCaffynated
  • FCC killed net neutrality. What does it mean for gamers?

    Considering that this only reverts to the rules as they were in early 2015, freaking out only makes sense if you thought the Internet was some dystopian wasteland in 2014 and has gotten massively better since then.

    Either the sky will fall or else it won't.  Most likely, returning to the light-touch regulatory regime that facilitated the rise of the Internet over the course of nearly 20 years preceding the FCC's arbitrary switch to Title II regulations in 2015 will similarly help facilitate future Internet improvements that we don't foresee today.

    But it's also possible that ISPs will commonly roll out abusive and predatory business practices and block legitimate sites that they don't like or some such.  If that happens, then the view that heavier regulation of the Internet is necessary will become prevalent all across the political spectrum rather than the Internet being just another domain in with the left wants more regulation and the right wants fewer.  In that case, heavier regulations will come, hopefully in the form of Congress passing a bill properly authorizing heavier regulations.

    And don't think that Congress is incapable of acting when there's overwhelming public support for an issue.  It's hard to pass laws when half of the public is in favor and half against, and that's by design, but it's much easier to pass laws when there is broad popular support and few people opposed.  For example, consider the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, which passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a vote of 392-5.
    TheDarkrayneEponyxDamorSirAgravaineErgoProxyDecayDaranarlaxieGorweScotbartoni33Bellomoand 5 others.
  • Triple Channel Sticks in a Dual Channel Board - Double the memory at risk of single channel mode?

    So long as you stay with 1.5 V and 1600 MHz, there's no real risk of overclocking-style damage.  The main risk is system instability.  This is something that you can readily test:  if you do a memory-heavy run of Prime95 for an hour and it doesn't crash or otherwise produce any errors, you're set.  If the new memory doesn't like some particular settings and the computer won't boot, you can take it back out and the computer will work fine again.
    Torval