Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5, 2014, 8:43 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
Dr. Hsing Cheng and Shubho Bandyopadhyay, University of Florida, and Hong Guo, University of Notre Dame.

If you grew up with the internet I would have thought you would have known how to Google.
No need to be condescending because I don't agree with you. I asked because I wanted to give you the opportunity to provide a correct reference instead of assuming where it came from. You don't have to agree with me but I expect you to be respectful of my points just as I am of yours.

So the study you cited is six years old and the model is based on a single ISP in the market. I couldn't find the source of funding for this study referenced, I wouldn't be suprised if it were funded by a federal grant.

Quote:
a monopolist Internet service provider
(page 7)

and the conclusion is premised again on a single ISP.

Quote:
The absence of meaningful competition in providing broadband access to consumers in many
areas of the United States makes the broadband service provider a de facto monopolist, and therefore the
sole gatekeeper in determining (a) the content that gets across to the end users and (b) in what fashion.
Therefore the debate about net neutrality assumes tremendous importance to a policymaker.
(page 29)

That may have been true in 2008 but now it is no longer true. As I've pointed out repeatidly we now live in a much more competitive ISP space. FIOS and AT&T were just beginning to invest in rolling out their networks in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS) . 4G cellular service was first offered in 2008 (Sprint WiMax), Verizon didn't start offering 4G until 2011, same time as AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G#United_States)

Simply put the study is based on a premise (ISP monopoly) that is no longer valid.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2014, 9:25 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 133
Default

Government control of private industry (and/or vice versa)
... definition of fascism.
spacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2014, 11:00 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
No need to be condescending
I'm sorry ramcewan. But for me anyway, you gave yourself away on your first post with "an improved value proposition." Everything since has been suspect. Again, speaking for myself.

I truly hope whatever happens doesn't affect your income or your 401k investments in any negative way.

One question though. Since you refer to the increased competition as a reason for your favorable outlook for the internet, what is your take on Comcast's proposal to buy Time Warner?
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5, 2014, 11:09 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spacer View Post
Government control of private industry (and/or vice versa)
... definition of fascism.
Thanks for chiming in spacer. Don't believe I've seen you post here before.

One thing for sure, this thread has raised awareness of the net neutrality issue.

Thanks Steve's, for not kicking me off and allowing all of us this venue for the sake of expressing our opinions on this very important and current issue.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2014, 5:37 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spacer View Post
Government control of private industry (and/or vice versa)
... definition of fascism.
in one statement you've summed up my feelings, thank you for your succinctness

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
I'm sorry ramcewan. But for me anyway, you gave yourself away on your first post with "an improved value proposition." Everything since has been suspect. Again, speaking for myself.

I truly hope whatever happens doesn't affect your income or your 401k investments in any negative way.

One question though. Since you refer to the increased competition as a reason for your favorable outlook for the internet, what is your take on Comcast's proposal to buy Time Warner?
You know Alan, I've tried to offer informed counter points against your points, I've treated you with respect and responded in an adult fashion. In the end your only response is to accuse me of being a shill for the cable industry because obviously my income or 401k is on the line.

The fact is I've provided valid reasons and explained my reason for being against the so called "net neutrality" that you've come here to support. I've shown the study you cited is outdated and flawed and you've not been able to respond.

In debate when the other person can't offer a valid response without turning to deriding the opponents character it is usually a sign they've lost.

I'll reiterate that I am a small government supporter who doesn't feel that the FCC needs to regulate the internet in any fashion including "net neutrality".

It is a shame you're not more open minded and willing to concede that my points are valid because you're blinded by your hatred for a company and desire for a government imposition against them.

I'm going to put this all aside and return to the relationship we had as fellow photographers and I hope that you do as well.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2014, 3:14 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
in one statement you've summed up my feelings, thank you for your succinctness

You know Alan, I've tried to offer informed counter points against your points, I've treated you with respect and responded in an adult fashion. In the end your only response is to accuse me of being a shill for the cable industry because obviously my income or 401k is on the line.

The fact is I've provided valid reasons and explained my reason for being against the so called "net neutrality" that you've come here to support. I've shown the study you cited is outdated and flawed and you've not been able to respond.

In debate when the other person can't offer a valid response without turning to deriding the opponents character it is usually a sign they've lost.

I'll reiterate that I am a small government supporter who doesn't feel that the FCC needs to regulate the internet in any fashion including "net neutrality".

It is a shame you're not more open minded and willing to concede that my points are valid because you're blinded by your hatred for a company and desire for a government imposition against them.

I'm going to put this all aside and return to the relationship we had as fellow photographers and I hope that you do as well.

hee, hee, hee, I thought so. Gotcha!

And now we return to our regularly scheduled program.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2014, 5:50 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,891
Default

Now now you two boys .... settle down please

It is interesting to view this debate - and Alan, again thanks for raising the issue - and Ewen [& others] for some quite valid points

In Australia we -do- have a different view of things, and we -do- feel that government "intervention / involvement" by setting 'operational guidelines' for big business for the benefit of the community at large, is okay

Australia seems to have a much stronger 'social conscience' than I detect for the USA - and as such we'll accept a certain level of government oversighting of the activities & financial behaviour of big business ... and if it goes too far, it's regulated to a standard acceptable to all

So - we're in for a huge shake up and technical updating of the whole phone / internet network - via government intervention. Doesn't matter which mob is in-government, [our version of democrats vs republicans] the aim is to get a damn good and hi-speed network up and running and available to all Australians, at a reasonable cost via government involvement & some regulation etc

We're different - obviously
Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2014, 10:28 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

One thing I learned while campaigning for Net Neutrality on other sites is the average Joe or Jane doesn't t know much about it or why it's important. They know it sounds good but just what is it? Here's a 3 minute, fast moving, and entertaining video that explains it pretty well. http://goo.gl/VMM4Dg

Enjoy.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2014, 12:58 AM   #29
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Frankly, I don't normally allow this type of topic in the forums, period. That's because once we have any kind of topic related to politics, religion, or similar, the debate tends to get a bit more "heated" (and personal), and just causes hard feelings among members.

So, it's best to prohibit this kind of discussion, as we want the forums to be a place to discuss photography, regardless of a member's background, religion, political beliefs, etc.

IOW, this particular thread is a bit on the political side, and has gotten a bit too personal in nature more than once.

It's an interesting topic, and one that is of interest to photographers (as we all use the internet for posting and viewing content). So, I'm inclined to let the discussion continue.

But, we do need to make sure the posts are civil, without any personal comments about what someone else thinks is right or wrong. Thanks.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2014, 8:26 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Read an interesting article on this subject today. It appears that the FCC is still considering enacting Title II regulation under the 1934 telecommunications act but is also looking at ways to allow the very pay for preference deals that people find so offensive as long as they review them under a clause referred to as section 706. This section 706 would allow the FCC to review on a case by case basis whether the deal was "commercially reasonable".

In a nut shell the FCC steps in, regulates, and you still have Netflix paying Comcast and Verizon for preference.

As is the usual case with federal legislation we have a lose lose situation; A small company won't have the resources to petition the FCC to review a deal it is seeking to provide guaranteed service, but big companies will be able to pay to get their deals through.

For example Comcast's David Cohen is considered to be one of the most influential non-lobbyists in Washington; he testifies at hearings, visits White House policy summits, holds fund-raisers where President Obama praises him by name, and presses Comcast's case with top FCC officials. Verizon has Randal Milch who is likewise highly influential in Washington.

As I've said before FCC regulation is a bad thing for the internet, both sides, pro and against are already talking about the costs of regulation, which will be passed down to consumers.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32

Last edited by ramcewan; May 14, 2014 at 8:29 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.