Forums

Net Neutrality...

• Robert1893 7,722 Posts

  Sat, Dec 16 2017 6:57 PM

  dchallenger:

  remarkedly easy nudging a thread off in a whole new direction :)

  Speaking of things going off in a whole new direction, that's the same thing my caddie said about my approach shots!

  I asked him: what's the biggest problem with my game?
  
  He told me, "You're standing too close to the ball after you hit it."
  
  

• HackWilson1930 1,437 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 4:44 AM

  Loss of net neutrality and the effect on players in the United States will most likely be determined by the internet provider each player uses. If a provider decides to charge companies like WGT a fee for a "fast lane" and WGT does not pay; users of that provider should expect slower play.

  With the particular business model the WGT employs, it would be hard to see them making a payment to each provider without finding a way to increase their revenue stream. Most likely that revenue stream would have to be some kind of subscription service. 

  All of this speculation will be moot if providers such as Verizon or Comcast do nothing in the foreseeable future as far as charging fees to maintain internet streaming speeds. There are already lawsuits in the works to stop the FCC's decision  and there will be acute pressure on Congress to legislate on the issue. (Not that Congress has any intention of taking some kind of action)

  If WGT were owned an operated by a service provider, this would be a far greater issue in that the service provider could charge other providers a fee to stream WGT. Some might decide not to pay and thus not stream WGT. If you used one of those providers for your internet, you would not be able to get WGT. This is the main issue since many of the large service providers also stream their own content.  Time-Warner and HBO and "Game of Thrones" come to mind. Here in lies the rub.

• Robert1893 7,722 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 7:38 AM

  @HackWilson

  +1 

• jimshaw39 675 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 3:00 PM

  the internet worked quite well before BO. government interference, in the U.S., rarely improves anything.

  Jim

• akk447 379 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 3:26 PM

  Dump Trump he;s a buffoon!

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 3:33 PM

  jimshaw39:

  the internet worked quite well before BO. government interference, in the U.S., rarely improves anything.

  Jim

  Yeah, government interference in the US rarely improves anything...except maybe the abolition of slavery,  ensuring equal protection under the law, recovering from the Great Depression, the interstate highway system, access to affordable healthcare, desegregation of schools, maintaining infrastructure, regulating Wall St in order to avoid economic calamity, regulation and inspection in order to ensure safe food, federal agencies to monitor (and hopefully prevent) attempts by foreign governments to interfere in our elections and to be vigilant against terrorism, ensuring equal opportunity to housing, and maybe most importantly, ensuring that no individual is above the law.

  But aside from those things, and others I'm sure I've missed, government interference in the US rarely improves anything.

   

• Wutpa 4,803 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 3:44 PM

  mkg335:

  Yeah, government interference in the US rarely improves anything...except maybe the abolition of slavery,  ensuring equal protection under the law, recovering from the Great Depression............

• Robert1893 7,722 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 3:59 PM

  @mkg335
  
  While I tend to agree with you that the government doesn't (many times) get the credit it should, I think a couple of those examples are suspect (at best). For example, I don't think it should get credit for the abolition of an institution that it worked to preserve for quite some time (slavery).
  
  Additionally, the abolition movement was less government based than it was individual or group based. Indeed, the Second Great Awakening played a prominent role in the abolition movement.
  
  And as far as ending the Great Depression that was helped considerably by a tremendous ramp up in military spending along with the imposition of fairly severe rationing of goods and services. And let's not forget that during the Depression, they had a recession! :-)
  
  I just wouldn't put a lot of stock in those two examples. Jus' sayin'. :-)

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 4:04 PM

  "His shoe!  The shoe is the sign."

• mkg335 5,491 Posts

  Sun, Dec 17 2017 4:11 PM

  Robert, you raise fair points, and I'll gladly admit that oftentimes the government is a blundering hulk of a bureaucracy.

  I do stand by the basic point of my post, that government is necessary and essential, albeit far from perfect.

  I'd also like to apologize to Jim...upon re-reading, I didn't have to be so snarky in trying to make my point.