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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2014, 12:33 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

You are making inferences based on statements where I used conditionals. I did not mention any forced infrastructure improvement - you assumed that.
You have been sold a bill of goods by the industry you apparently work for.

I don't have any horses in this race - I get my internet the only way I can, which is satellite, there is no cable or cell service where I live, and DSL stops about a mile from me. I don't, and will continue to refuse to pay subscription fees to watch commercially supported television. (which would only be available via satellite anyway). Free TV went away when the industry went digital.
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 1:57 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
You are making inferences based on statements where I used conditionals. I did not mention any forced infrastructure improvement - you assumed that.
This is what you said;

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes, in order to get more water.
Please explain how "under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes" ?

Please explain how net neutrality will do this? because the facts that I can find don't indicate there is any link between net neutrality and increased spending on infrastructure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
You have been sold a bill of goods by the industry you apparently work for.
Just because I don't agree with you I automatically work for the industry in question. This is a personal attack

I'm left in a catch-22; my only defense is to divulge my own private information on a public forum, but you get to sit here and discredit my statements.

It is a shame that this is the new paradigm. Because I don't agree with you and you obviously are unable to answer with factual arguments you like Alan have resorted to besmirching my character as being in cahoots with some evil company you don't like.

What's next, maybe you'll call me a racist member of the elite class holding the poor people down? Surely without the ability to back up your points you'll get there at some point.

I was always brought up to respect others and their opinions even if I didn't agree with them, apparently you're cut from a different cloth
__________________
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 15, 2014, 3:47 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Please explain how "under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes" ?
To gain subscribers. If the subscriber pool grows to the point performance suffers the providers either improve infrastructure or suffer slow growth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Please explain how net neutrality will do this? because the facts that I can find don't indicate there is any link between net neutrality and increased spending on infrastructure.
So far all spending on infrastructure has been under the current sate of neutrality.

A university study I pointed out earlier explains how allowing providers to charge for access to the fast lane is a disincentive to improving infrastructure. It's a very simple analogy. Please review.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
It is a shame that this is the new paradigm. Because I don't agree with you and you obviously are unable to answer with factual arguments you like Alan have resorted to besmirching my character as being in cahoots with some evil company you don't like.
You said I "Hated" a company in an earlier post. Hate is a strong word I raised my children not to use. I prefer to think of it as a passion for Net Neutrality

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I was always brought up to respect others and their opinions even if I didn't agree with them, apparently you're cut from a different cloth
I don't respect anyone who's trying to take advantage of me for their own personal gain. Do you?
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 3:58 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

Please explain how "under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes" ?
Sorry you don't understand English. It was a conditional statement. IF they wanted more water, etc.

Just because I don't agree with you I automatically work for the industry in question. This is a personal attack
And accusing me of repeating a lie wasn't? The implication being that I am to stupid to recognize a lie, or am a liar myself.

What's next, maybe you'll call me a racist member of the elite class holding the poor people down? Surely without the ability to back up your points you'll get there at some point.
I was always brought up to respect others and their opinions even if I didn't agree with them, apparently you're cut from a different cloth

Since you have not answered any of my arguments, but changed the subject and then impliied I am either stupid or a liar, it seems that there is no further point in continuing this.
brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 6:02 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
To gain subscribers. If the subscriber pool grows to the point performance suffers the providers either improve infrastructure or suffer slow growth.
that sounds like competitive market pressure, not FCC regulation

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
So far all spending on infrastructure has been under the current sate of neutrality.

A university study I pointed out earlier explains how allowing providers to charge for access to the fast lane is a disincentive to improving infrastructure. It's a very simple analogy. Please review.
I did review it and I pointed out that it was based on a single provider market in 2006 that no longer exists. I have yet to see a more recent and relevant to the current market analysis provided from you or even an acknowledgement that it is dated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
I don't respect anyone who's trying to take advantage of me for their own personal gain. Do you?
I'm not trying to take advantage of you for personal gain. Even if I were an employee of an ISP as you continue to insist the benefit from having you as a customer would be minuscule to me. My 401k is also quite well diversified, thank you. So don't you worry if Comcast or Verizon or TWC soon to be Comcast/Charter goes belly up tomorrow I'll be just fine. I assure you I have nothing to gain if you decide to return to their service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Please explain how "under net neutrality, they would have had to increase the well size, as well as the pipes" ?
Sorry you don't understand English. It was a conditional statement. IF they wanted more water, etc.
I understand English very well. A conditional statement is usually if this then that.

What I read was

IF (net neutrality)
THEN (infrastructure improvement)

Which I don't think is mentioned as a goal or planned outcome of net neutrality. In fact I don't think there is anything in the laws proposed or the FCC's plans that would support that as an outcome of net neutrality. I again invite you to show otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
[I]And accusing me of repeating a lie wasn't? The implication being that I am to stupid to recognize a lie, or am a liar myself.
Sorry if you took it that way, I wasn't calling you a purposeful liar. I was saying you repeated a lie you were told was true. I did not mean to reflect on your intelligence.

Either way it's a bit different than dismissing someone's opinion because you think they work for "them"

As I explained it's a personal attack against which there is no viable defense. A personal attack that implies I am lying because nobody could honestly hold an opinion different from yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post

I don't have any horses in this race - I get my internet the only way I can, which is satellite, there is no cable or cell service where I live, and DSL stops about a mile from me.
ah but you do have a horse in the race, clearly you support federal regulation because you'd be more than happy to have a wired internet connection subsidized out to your rural location by an FCC tax on everyone else's internet.

See now I've rendered your opinion biased and stated anything you say is for personal gain.

See that's a personal attack that you can't defend against, I've told you why you're holding your opinion and said the only reason you hold it is for personal gain.

Doesn't feel like I'm respecting the validity of your opinion anymore, does it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
Since you have not answered any of my arguments, but changed the subject and then impliied I am either stupid or a liar, it seems that there is no further point in continuing this.
brian
I'm more than willing to answer your arguments, I thought I had with the argument that breaking up AT&T was what drove down costs.

As far as the deregulation vs. regulation: I guess you have a point although it is tempting to argue the "gentleman's agreement" under the old open internet rules wasn't truly regulation.

As for the instances of deregulation gone bad, I'm not going to respond individually because they're too big and not within the same industry.

Let me know what else I haven't answered.
__________________
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 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 7:16 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Man my feet hurt. Two days of walking the Gettysburg battlefield have been a chore. Maybe not as many land mines as this post though.....
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 7:47 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
Man my feet hurt. Two days of walking the Gettysburg battlefield have been a chore. Maybe not as many land mines as this post though.....
Again, the humor of Steve's readers does not disappoint! Thanks, I needed that.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 12:29 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
that sounds like competitive market pressure, not FCC regulation
Exactly. That's the way I'd like it. Sadly, the big monopolistic ISP/Content Providers/Content Owners won't leave well enough alone. They want to wrest control and charge for fast lane priority service. It's what monopolies do. It's more profitable. No investment but increased income. Whoo hoo! We're Number 30, We're number 30!

The study I mentioned is more pertinent today then when it was done. There are far fewer providers today than there were back then. There may be more types of delivery but those types are delivered by a smaller number of providers.

Here's a snippet from the Star Tribune (Minn/St Paul area) that states exactly what I've seen happen in the Pacific NW:

"But seven years after the FCC decision, there are far fewer choices for DSL service in the Twin Cities. The 47 independent DSL providers available in 2005 have dwindled to about a dozen. The survivors have shifted their emphasis to other areas as their DSL customer bases continue to decline due to lopsided competition from CenturyLink."

That was after the FCC ruled telephone companies such as CenturyLink no longer had to let independent DSL Internet service providers use their networks.

I'm not necessarily a fan of Title II but I'd choose it over the monopolies. As illustrated above, the FCC (bought and paid for) can't be trusted. That leaves Title II. Otherwise, I can see it now.... We're #40, We're #40!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I'm not trying to take advantage of you for personal gain.
It's not about you ramcewan.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 6:09 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
Exactly. That's the way I'd like it. Sadly, the big monopolistic ISP/Content Providers/Content Owners won't leave well enough alone. They want to wrest control and charge for fast lane priority service. It's what monopolies do. It's more profitable. No investment but increased income. Whoo hoo! We're Number 30, We're number 30!

The study I mentioned is more pertinent today then when it was done. There are far fewer providers today than there were back then. There may be more types of delivery but those types are delivered by a smaller number of providers.

Here's a snippet from the Star Tribune (Minn/St Paul area) that states exactly what I've seen happen in the Pacific NW:

"But seven years after the FCC decision, there are far fewer choices for DSL service in the Twin Cities. The 47 independent DSL providers available in 2005 have dwindled to about a dozen. The survivors have shifted their emphasis to other areas as their DSL customer bases continue to decline due to lopsided competition from CenturyLink."

That was after the FCC ruled telephone companies such as CenturyLink no longer had to let independent DSL Internet service providers use their networks.

I'm not necessarily a fan of Title II but I'd choose it over the monopolies. As illustrated above, the FCC (bought and paid for) can't be trusted. That leaves Title II. Otherwise, I can see it now.... We're #40, We're #40!
Now here's the thing chiPersei, you make a statement linking the lack of choice for DSL providers to the FCC removing the requirement that CenturyLink allows them on their network. Sounds reasonable and all but ignores the other possible reasons that those independent DSL internet providers aren't there anymore, namely that DSL has faced over the last seven years increasing market pressure from other delivery methods that offer faster speeds. What has happened to CenturyLink's market share of internet subscribers in those 7 years? I'm sure it's dropped as a percentage of the people buying internet service from all delivery methods.

Your conclusion is based on a logical fallacy that inserts the reason you want for the result. In a court of law you've failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because there are other likely reasons for the result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiPersei View Post
It's not about you ramcewan.
Oh chiPersei but you did make it about my opinions repeatedly stating that the only reason I held them was because I worked for an ISP. Basically you've repeatedly inferred that I do not honestly hold my opinion, but am instead dishonestly spouting an opinion given to me by an employer. And when I called it out your response was "I don't respect anyone who's trying to take advantage of me for their own personal gain. Do you?"

Maybe I'm too straightforward in my interpretation but when you say that in response to my statement, and use the term "personal gain" it is clear you're saying you don't respect me and my opinion because you think I'm trying to take advantage of you for personal gain. Now I called you out on how ridiculous the idea that I have something to gain personally from who you get your service from and you're backing off that statement?

If you want to say it wasn't about me, then fine I'll let you take that route out, but don't keep tossing out these veiled statements and denying what you said. If you say something in response to something I said I'm going to assume it's about me, call me silly, whatever but where I'm from you say something directed at somebody then it's about them, or you don't say it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the FCC announced their net neutrality proposal yesterday and it is basically in line with what the chair said; they'll enact Title II over the internet, they've promised fair treatment but they'll leave open the possibility of fast lane deals under their over watch where commercially reasonable.

like I said a lose-lose, we get regulation and likely a tax on the internet to support such regulation but big service providers like Comcast and Netflix will still be able to make the very deals that people find so offensive.

What does this mean? in my opinion it freezes the internet where it is as a baseline of what the service is required to provide. Anything above what it currently provides will likely only exist on a pay-to-play basis. If you were an ISP and you had the FCC telling you that you can't upgrade part of the network because it would be unfair to the other people on the network what are you going to do? I bet they'll choose to keep the network at the same level because they're forced into an upgrade one then you must upgrade all situation.

Anyways... if you'd like to comment to the FCC here's the link;

http://www.fcc.gov/comments

click item 14-28 to electronically comment on the rules that were announced on 5/15
__________________
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 16, 2014 at 10:44 AM.
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 11:50 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Now here's the thing chiPersei, you make a statement linking the lack of choice for DSL providers to the FCC removing the requirement that CenturyLink allows them on their network.
er... I think the Star Tribune said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Oh chiPersei but you did make it about my opinions repeatedly stating that the only reason I held them was because I worked for an ISP.
Actually haven't stated that once let alone repeatedly. I have, however, inferred it. After all, when's the last time you heard someone say they're on their way to Walmart because there's "an improved value proposition" on apples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
Maybe I'm too straightforward in my interpretation
Let's go with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
If you say something in response to something I said I'm going to assume it's about me, call me silly,
Silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
but when you say that in response to my statement, and use the term "personal gain" it is clear you're saying you don't respect me
Crap ramcewan, we're not talking marriage here. I once saw a cartoon where a guy couldn't leave his computer to go to bed. His wife pleaded with him, please, please come to bed. As he continued to pound the keyboard the man responded "I can't come to bed, someone is wrong on the internet!!!"

It's funny cuz it's true.

Good night
chiPersei 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 1:26 PM.