However Aus has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission which is much stronger than any American consumer protections and Aus consumers actually have a choice because monopolising shit where you put cables (probably did a shit job too) isn't allowed. Like dodgy fucks fold at the name strong.
I whine about our NBN but if the coalition hadn't essentially thrown money down the crapper to stall proper fibre it would be fucking perfect like it is in New Zealand
Funny, cos one Aussie I know has a problem with his ISP owning all the cable in the area and refusing to fix a problem causing his network to crap out regularly past 10 PM.
Well sounds like a niche case and knowing the ISP name would help out. It could very well be the case they refuse to maintain or expand there holdings explicitly because they can't monopolise like with telstra and everything they were given after we privatised their worthless ass.
I know there is the foxtell cables which are out of date and being bought out anyway and some regions have VDSL2 which is basically fttn from when it was not grossly obsolete tech and the nbnco answer it to build near identical infrastructure on the same location.
Incomptinence wrote:Revolting husk impersonating a person Ajit Pai plans to make its move in december along with the smoking ruins of the FCC and probably forbid state level net neutrality rules in the process.
meanwhile the subset of donald trump supporters who use the internet are all "wtf I hate net neutrality now???" even though it's virtually guaranteed that the sites they visit would not be favored by ISPs unless the ISPs suddenly decide to make large purchases of hentai sites and imageboards
there are some trump supporters out there that would try to breathe fluorine if you told them that obama was pro-oxygen though
Grazyn wrote:Net neutrality is a regulation. Regulations are bad. The internet should be free of regulations. Do you want to regulate the internet?
I don't see the issue???
>Regulations are bad mmkay
What are you, a fucking idiot?
Look at the financial industry to see how letting the soggy biscuit eating private school boys play with deregulated rules is an utterly retarded idea.
If you don't think the money grubbing cunts aren't going to divvy up the internet into different tiers and packages, remember:
A. Most Telco providers are cable companies, who already package things
B. The Portuguese isps are already selling different internet access packages
Grazyn wrote:Net neutrality is a regulation. Regulations are bad. The internet should be free of regulations. Do you want to regulate the internet?
I don't see the issue???
>Regulations are bad mmkay
What are you, a fucking idiot?
Look at the financial industry to see how letting the soggy biscuit eating private school boys play with deregulated rules is an utterly retarded idea.
If you don't think the money grubbing cunts aren't going to divvy up the internet into different tiers and packages, remember:
A. Most Telco providers are cable companies, who already package things
B. The Portuguese isps are already selling different internet access packages
Do you want the federal state to tell private companies what they can or cannot do? What are you, a fucking socialist? If you don't like their packages, don't buy them. Vote with your wallet. Let the market regulate itself. Regulations are inherently bad.
Incomptinence wrote:Yeah I hope they deregulate the FDA next so you can be what you eat.
Full of shit.
Oh that covers the ironic posting possibility too, thought I wouldn't get around that conundrum
God you can smell the berniebros who jumped on Trump's train from miles away. I'll bite
>company poisons food, dumps chemicals in the lake, forces their employees to work in sweatshops
>media reports on it
>people stop buying their products
>company either fails or stops that behaviour
I know that total deregulation will never happen, but when you start to believe there are "bad" and "good" regulations, you are just falling for socialist propaganda
You plainly don't mean a thing you are saying because that shit happens all the fucking time short of the food poisoning.
Probably because that would count as manslaughter or something and they would get done under criminal law.
The line about communism being against human nature? It has a flip side implying capitalism is right along the grain of human nature. Greed, innovation, exploration, free enterprise all that shit.
Throw in corporate personhood and we get this fucking madness of corporations embodying human desires treated legally as individuals then we should just exempt them from anything short of killing people?
It's a beast embodying the good and the bad of us and like we are bound by the yoke of laws so should they be also held down and put to use.
It's like the laffer curve meme the right pulls on taxation when all that really happens is those rich enough pay almost no tax like it was an exponential instead of having an ideal little utopian bob in them middle.
Yeah at the point all media is consolidated in one megacorp you can depend on it to report on abuses by big business I am sure the north korean state media is doing similar.
To reiterate I know you are not serious but it's nice to tell even a facetious shit stirrer that elevating corporations to sovereign nations beholden to none will just take you back to square one.
I live in Europe. In the EU, you can't even open a lemon stand without stumbling into a web of regulations and red tape. And with that legal jumble that is strict liability, it doesn't even matter if you yourself did something wrong: one of your underlings messed up and broke some regulation, maybe in good faith? You're getting put under the jail. So you can understand how I feel looking at a beacon of free enterprise like the US trying to go the same route.
"Corporations are beholden to none" they're beholden to their investors. Who are beholden to profits. And profits need customers. "Corporations are inherently evil and need a heavy government yoke to steer them towards good" is, simply put, socialist propaganda. Customers DO have power. YOU have power. Corporations may try to manipulate the public, that's what they do, but at the end of the day if people don't buy their stuff, they fail.
So only customers can keep corporations in line, the government should just stay still and observe? Of course not. There's a lot of things the state can do. Education. Schools. Educate a generation of customers who don't easily fall prey of manipulation. Ban lobbying. Enforce complete and absolute separation between government and big business. Smart customers will influence the media and won't be influenced by it, only informed. Your favourite media is only spouting ads and paid reviews? Don't buy it. Turn the media into what they were always supposed to be, the sentry dogs of democracy. And beyond that, leave corporations free to operate in the market, enforcing only basic laws to prevent frauds and human harm.
so corporations will do anything to make the slightest buck, we should depend on them doing the most foul insidious shit they can get away with under the nose a ""free"" corporate press that invests less in investigation every year
good corporations who follow the law act morally and treat customers well exist, they are less profitable and weeded out over time
removing regulations hastens the process
use government infrastructure, benefit from law & order, deal with the government as a consumer of goods and a business partner sometimes even a subsidiser, should have no control over the corporation pfft have your cake and eat it too bullshit
not everything bad is fucking flaying babies they can and will use the soft screw in boring ways that you can't convey in stories to people because they A: happen all the time and B: are so fucking boting they are you guessed it not newsworthy
With the increase of automation there will come a point where workers are not needed and therefore the working class consumer has no capital to invest in the corporation. Then under your rhetoric they might as well kill us all.
Last edited by Incomptinence on Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Grazyn can you please explain to me in simple terms why you think regulations forcing telecomm companies to not give preferential traffic to their own services and preventing them from charging more for things they dont want you to see is bad? I literally can not understand why a person would think this unless they work for Verizon or something.
Arthur Thomson says, "Since there are no admins I would loging with another account and kill you"
Caleb Robinson laughs.
Arthur Thomson catches fire!
tusterman11 wrote:Can you stop lying? I just asked you and you are was a piece of shiit on me!!!
Kor wrote:I wish Wyzack was still an admin.
EngamerAzari's real number one fangirl <3
certified good poster
Grazyn wrote:I live in Europe. In the EU, you can't even open a lemon stand without stumbling into a web of regulations and red tape. And with that legal jumble that is strict liability, it doesn't even matter if you yourself did something wrong: one of your underlings messed up and broke some regulation, maybe in good faith? You're getting put under the jail. So you can understand how I feel looking at a beacon of free enterprise like the US trying to go the same route.
"Corporations are beholden to none" they're beholden to their investors. Who are beholden to profits. And profits need customers. "Corporations are inherently evil and need a heavy government yoke to steer them towards good" is, simply put, socialist propaganda. Customers DO have power. YOU have power. Corporations may try to manipulate the public, that's what they do, but at the end of the day if people don't buy their stuff, they fail.
So only customers can keep corporations in line, the government should just stay still and observe? Of course not. There's a lot of things the state can do. Education. Schools. Educate a generation of customers who don't easily fall prey of manipulation. Ban lobbying. Enforce complete and absolute separation between government and big business. Smart customers will influence the media and won't be influenced by it, only informed. Your favourite media is only spouting ads and paid reviews? Don't buy it. Turn the media into what they were always supposed to be, the sentry dogs of democracy. And beyond that, leave corporations free to operate in the market, enforcing only basic laws to prevent frauds and human harm.
Alright but in the real world there are only 1-2 isps per area in the US, they all coordinate anyway, and the internet is pretty critical to modern life so mass boycotts are unlikely.
> enforcing only basic laws to prevent frauds and human harm
Those regulations are anything but basic. I don't have any hard numbers but I'm going to assume the vast majority of regulation was either motivated by (or at least justified by) someone saying it'd protect people. Even stupid silly shit like banning large sodas was something that someone thought would help people be healthier. It isn't black and white harm regulation vs extra random nonsense, its varying degrees of harm with varying degrees of tradeoff.
>Ban lobbying
Seems a bit out of place after several posts about how business will do the right thing if left alone you end with saying business needs its speech rights restricted and can't be allowed to advocate on their own behalf when the government is debating regulation.
Incomptinence wrote:The line about communism being against human nature? It has a flip side implying capitalism is right along the grain of human nature.
it's time for my favourite ancap meme
a lot of ancap memes are good but I like this one the most
Seems a bit out of place after several posts about how business will do the right thing if left alone you end with saying business needs its speech rights restricted and can't be allowed to advocate on their own behalf when the government is debating regulation.
In my country most of the political pressure doesn't come from lobbies but from unions. I see your point, I guess you can look at it like a variant of the paradox of tolerance: lobbying is the one thing you have to be intolerant about if you want to have unrestricted tolerance in everything else business-related. There's no point even talking about regulation or deregulation if companies are allowed to steer the government wherever they want. If they want to be heard, they can follow the same steps as any regular Joe, they don't need preferential treatment.
Also, I don't believe that the natural state of humans is being cynical assholes. The evolution of language itself requires trust towards your fellow men, and ethics wasn't invented by aliens. I also believe that the phrase "true capitalism has never been tried" holds more truth than people think. But it all starts with your vote. Vote for good people, and good things will come out eventually.
Grazyn wrote:And with that legal jumble that is strict liability, it doesn't even matter if you yourself did something wrong: one of your underlings messed up and broke some regulation, maybe in good faith? You're getting put under the jail.
If this is how you think strict liability works you should get a lawyer.
Wyzack wrote:Grazyn can you please explain to me in simple terms why you think regulations forcing telecomm companies to not give preferential traffic to their own services and preventing them from charging more for things they dont want you to see is bad? I literally can not understand why a person would think this unless they work for Verizon or something.
As I said, I'm against regulations in principle, I'm afraid that this will be used as a foot-in-the-door for more internet regulations based on the assumption that "Look, NN was a regulation and you all wanted that, right? So we have another bunch of regulations we're sure you'll enjoy!". And if I'm reading this correctly, the regulation they want to remove has only been there since 2014, and I don't recall companies throttling traffic and all those doomsday scenarios in the years before that. If "packages" actually happen, I imagine they would work like Sky, and as on Sky, there is a lot of stuff on the internet I don't care about: I'd rather pay less for a package of things I want even if it means I can't access a bunch of stuff I wouldn't want anyway.
Wyzack wrote:Grazyn can you please explain to me in simple terms why you think regulations forcing telecomm companies to not give preferential traffic to their own services and preventing them from charging more for things they dont want you to see is bad? I literally can not understand why a person would think this unless they work for Verizon or something.
As I said, I'm against regulations in principle, I'm afraid that this will be used as a foot-in-the-door for more internet regulations based on the assumption that "Look, NN was a regulation and you all wanted that, right? So we have another bunch of regulations we're sure you'll enjoy!". And if I'm reading this correctly, the regulation they want to remove has only been there since 2014, and I don't recall companies throttling traffic and all those doomsday scenarios in the years before that. If "packages" actually happen, I imagine they would work like Sky, and as on Sky, there is a lot of stuff on the internet I don't care about: I'd rather pay less for a package of things I want even if it means I can't access a bunch of stuff I wouldn't want anyway.
Why would you want to access things that your ISP didn't want you to see anyway?
You're all talking like ISPs would rush to censor everything like good puppies at the service of The Man. Don't worry, I'm sure you will still be able to access your 4chan and other alt-right sites given you purchase the "foreign propaganda" package.
But seriously, there are probably a lot of people who can't afford internet now but will be able to buy a "basic package", so compartmentalizing the internet may not be a bad thing after all.
Wyzack wrote:I guess I dont have anything to say other than that I disagree with you on a fundamental level and am praying Net Neutrality is not repealed
I mean, I'm still convinced he's shitposting. This is the /pol/ thread, after all.
Grazyn wrote:
"Corporations are beholden to none" they're beholden to their investors. Who are beholden to profits. And profits need customers. "Corporations are inherently evil and need a heavy government yoke to steer them towards good" is, simply put, socialist propaganda. Customers DO have power. YOU have power. Corporations may try to manipulate the public, that's what they do, but at the end of the day if people don't buy their stuff, they fail.
I guess you're not familiar with pure capitalist china's steel industry.
They'll ship you a crate of high quality steel for your lab boys to test and approve so you'll send them payment for the rest of the order, which arrives and instead of that high quality steel you get shite recylced fishing trawlers that have all the structural integrity of a piece of short bread.
Want refund?
Tough shit, we close business, take money, set up new business.
Screw you, round eye.
Oh, and the unions haven't done fuck all since Thatcher killed them in the 80s, not that they were doing much useful after commie fuckers took them over the 70s and kept taking the piss.
Grazyn wrote:And if I'm reading this correctly, the regulation they want to remove has only been there since 2014, and I don't recall companies throttling traffic and all those doomsday scenarios in the years before that.
this chart shows what happened to netflix traffic right before the NN rules were put into place, the increase is from them starting to have to pay comcast to stop throttling them
oh no big bad scary government regulations are bad xdDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDddddddDDDDDDdddddDDDDDDDDddddDDDDDDDDDDDDD
in advance of my eventual forum ban, I just wanted to say
you are mom is gay
Too much regulation is bad (communism), too little regulation is bad (corporations gouging consumers in any way they can).
Not complicated my dudes
Spoiler:
"Clowns are different you can't trust those shifty fucks you never know what they're doing or if they're willing to eat a dayban for some cheap yuks."
-Not-Dorsidarf
"The amount of people is the amount of times the sound is played... on top of itself. And with sybil populations on the shuttle..."
-Remie Richards
"I just spent all fucking day playing fallen london and sunless sea and obsessing over how creepy the fucking dawn machine is and only just clocked now that your avatar is the fucking dawn machine. Nobody vote for this disgusting new sequence blasphemer he wants to kill the gods"
-Stickymayhem
"Drank a cocktail of orange Gatorade and mint mouthwash on accident. Pretty sure I'm going to die, I am on the verge of vomit. It was nice knowing you guys"
-PKPenguin321
"You're too late, you will have to fetch them from the top of my tower, built by zombies, slaves, zombie slaves and garitho's will to live!"
-Armhulen
"This is like being cooked alive in a microwave oven which utilises the autistic end of the light spectrum to cook you."
-DarkFNC
"Penguins are the second race to realise 2D>3D"
-Anonmare
"Paul Blart mall cops if they all had ambitions of joining the Waffen-SS"
-Anonmare
"These logs could kill a dragon much less a man"
-Armhulenn
">7 8 6
WHAT MADNESS IS THIS? POETIC ANARCHY!"
-Wyzack
"We didn't kick one goofball out only to have another one come in like a fucking revolving door"
-Kraseo
"There's a difference between fucking faggots and being a fucking faggot."
-Anonmare
"You guys splitting the 20 bucks cost to hire your ex again?"
-lntigracy
"Wew. Congrats. It's been actual years since anyone tried to make fun of me for being divorced. You caught me, I'm tilted. Here is your trophy."
-Timbrewolf
"I prefer my coffees to run dry too *snorts a line of maxwell house*"
-Super Aggro Crag
"You don't have an evil bone in your body, unless togopal comes for a sleepover"
-Bluespace
">Paying over a $1000 for a lump of silicon and plastic
Lol"
-Anonmare
"Then why did you get that boob job?"
-DrPillzRedux
"You take that back you colonial mongrel"
-Docprofsmith
"I don't care whether or not someone with an IQ 3 standard deviations below my own thinks they enjoy Wizard rounds."
-Malkraz
1. People are dicks
2. They'll dick other people over if allowed
3. Having large groups of people dicked over is bad for society
4. Thus we should not allow them
Yeah, most of the US is under the thumb of 2-3 ISPs at best per area, and it's not even good internet for the most part, just passable
So trying some bullshit plan like boycotting an ISP just gets you no internet, or if you're lucky, an alternative that is exactly the same or worse as the one you're boycotting
i dont think too many regulations equals communism
Communism is also known as a command economy, where the government controls all the manufacturing and commands them to produce so much of this and that. Can't get much more regulated than that.
Spoiler:
"Clowns are different you can't trust those shifty fucks you never know what they're doing or if they're willing to eat a dayban for some cheap yuks."
-Not-Dorsidarf
"The amount of people is the amount of times the sound is played... on top of itself. And with sybil populations on the shuttle..."
-Remie Richards
"I just spent all fucking day playing fallen london and sunless sea and obsessing over how creepy the fucking dawn machine is and only just clocked now that your avatar is the fucking dawn machine. Nobody vote for this disgusting new sequence blasphemer he wants to kill the gods"
-Stickymayhem
"Drank a cocktail of orange Gatorade and mint mouthwash on accident. Pretty sure I'm going to die, I am on the verge of vomit. It was nice knowing you guys"
-PKPenguin321
"You're too late, you will have to fetch them from the top of my tower, built by zombies, slaves, zombie slaves and garitho's will to live!"
-Armhulen
"This is like being cooked alive in a microwave oven which utilises the autistic end of the light spectrum to cook you."
-DarkFNC
"Penguins are the second race to realise 2D>3D"
-Anonmare
"Paul Blart mall cops if they all had ambitions of joining the Waffen-SS"
-Anonmare
"These logs could kill a dragon much less a man"
-Armhulenn
">7 8 6
WHAT MADNESS IS THIS? POETIC ANARCHY!"
-Wyzack
"We didn't kick one goofball out only to have another one come in like a fucking revolving door"
-Kraseo
"There's a difference between fucking faggots and being a fucking faggot."
-Anonmare
"You guys splitting the 20 bucks cost to hire your ex again?"
-lntigracy
"Wew. Congrats. It's been actual years since anyone tried to make fun of me for being divorced. You caught me, I'm tilted. Here is your trophy."
-Timbrewolf
"I prefer my coffees to run dry too *snorts a line of maxwell house*"
-Super Aggro Crag
"You don't have an evil bone in your body, unless togopal comes for a sleepover"
-Bluespace
">Paying over a $1000 for a lump of silicon and plastic
Lol"
-Anonmare
"Then why did you get that boob job?"
-DrPillzRedux
"You take that back you colonial mongrel"
-Docprofsmith
"I don't care whether or not someone with an IQ 3 standard deviations below my own thinks they enjoy Wizard rounds."
-Malkraz
Meanwhile, net neutrality is a catch 22. Either we let the incompetent FCC control the internet, or we let the malicious ISPs control the internet. Either way you're fucked.
Spoiler:
"Clowns are different you can't trust those shifty fucks you never know what they're doing or if they're willing to eat a dayban for some cheap yuks."
-Not-Dorsidarf
"The amount of people is the amount of times the sound is played... on top of itself. And with sybil populations on the shuttle..."
-Remie Richards
"I just spent all fucking day playing fallen london and sunless sea and obsessing over how creepy the fucking dawn machine is and only just clocked now that your avatar is the fucking dawn machine. Nobody vote for this disgusting new sequence blasphemer he wants to kill the gods"
-Stickymayhem
"Drank a cocktail of orange Gatorade and mint mouthwash on accident. Pretty sure I'm going to die, I am on the verge of vomit. It was nice knowing you guys"
-PKPenguin321
"You're too late, you will have to fetch them from the top of my tower, built by zombies, slaves, zombie slaves and garitho's will to live!"
-Armhulen
"This is like being cooked alive in a microwave oven which utilises the autistic end of the light spectrum to cook you."
-DarkFNC
"Penguins are the second race to realise 2D>3D"
-Anonmare
"Paul Blart mall cops if they all had ambitions of joining the Waffen-SS"
-Anonmare
"These logs could kill a dragon much less a man"
-Armhulenn
">7 8 6
WHAT MADNESS IS THIS? POETIC ANARCHY!"
-Wyzack
"We didn't kick one goofball out only to have another one come in like a fucking revolving door"
-Kraseo
"There's a difference between fucking faggots and being a fucking faggot."
-Anonmare
"You guys splitting the 20 bucks cost to hire your ex again?"
-lntigracy
"Wew. Congrats. It's been actual years since anyone tried to make fun of me for being divorced. You caught me, I'm tilted. Here is your trophy."
-Timbrewolf
"I prefer my coffees to run dry too *snorts a line of maxwell house*"
-Super Aggro Crag
"You don't have an evil bone in your body, unless togopal comes for a sleepover"
-Bluespace
">Paying over a $1000 for a lump of silicon and plastic
Lol"
-Anonmare
"Then why did you get that boob job?"
-DrPillzRedux
"You take that back you colonial mongrel"
-Docprofsmith
"I don't care whether or not someone with an IQ 3 standard deviations below my own thinks they enjoy Wizard rounds."
-Malkraz
CosmicScientist wrote:I still prefer bureaucratic dictatorship because under that any cultural or class purges aren't politically motivated and if your neighbour gets deported or shot, it's because someone misspelled the address on an execution for inability to meet quotas form or filled out the wrong one or the national office complex ordered a B12.a5-B form instead of a B13.a5-B. And you can't tell the enforcer to not murderise someone because there's a 6 month contention period after which your complaint will be reviewed and the enforcer will themself be murderised if they do not meet quota, though they also have a 6 month contention period which they can apply for whilst they have the job, so they need to murderise to keep the job, and after the review is completed, if the complaint was found to be wrong they are fired for incompetence however if the complaint was found to have merit or truth, they are murderised for unlawfully murderising a citizen of the Great Human Machine. So worketh the National Office Complex.
Imagine being so corporate brainwashed you advocate for anti-consumerism because if everyone isn't trying to bleed you dry at any opportunity they're a commie
Grazyn wrote:"Corporations are beholden to none" they're beholden to their investors. Who are beholden to profits. And profits need customers. "Corporations are inherently evil and need a heavy government yoke to steer them towards good" is, simply put, socialist propaganda. Customers DO have power. YOU have power. Corporations may try to manipulate the public, that's what they do, but at the end of the day if people don't buy their stuff, they fail.
I just want to highlight this as a particular example of stupidity
boycotts don't work. there are too many people in the market for virtually any product for any boycott to be statistically significant. they especially don't work for A) near-monopolies, of B) quasi-utilities, where C) most people in the market don't know what the fuck net neutrality is let alone why anyone would make consumer decisions about it. if you want to not buy the internets to make a political point while probably ruining your life in the process, go right ahead, but don't think anyone will care
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro
Incomptinence wrote:Corporations would love to rule our lives with a gilded fist.
One of the best parts about democratic government is it is full of incompetent fools.
That's why I trust democracy because we elect unsuited fuck ups giving us wriggle room to be actually free.
>the current state of nbn is, in the big picture, good for me
damn
Corporations corrupting government is terrible I think we have been over this even consumerist boy agrees.
While governments do have a certain level of ineptitude lobbying, campaign funding and deals for corporate media support cause them to make decisions that make even less economic sense than usual.
Pocket money from daddy business man or a chance to win a particular election by turning all the "reporters" into yes manning pod people undermines us more than any SMOL GUBBERMINT VERSUS BIIG GIBBERMUNT nonsense.
They had the right idea on their own then strangely the party against this idea had tons of old media backing HMMM.
Regulation is a double edged sword, it is true that regulations can be complicated and sometimes ham handed, and sometimes regulations get put in place by business interests themselves to make entry into the market harder.
Remember, what ever corperations say about "loving free markets" they dont, producers love everyone else having free markets and them having a monopoly, and due to systemic problems making short term decision making more attractive than long term planning means they will try to exert any non-market-based control they can to make sure they can maintain that growth rate for the stock holders this quarter long term health of the company be damned.
You see, investors can move their money more freely than a company can move physical capital, meaning they dont care about the long term health of a market because they can just move to another sector to cover poor performance.
This in mind we can look at what regulations exist and why they exist. Often times they exist for very good reasons, such as preventing practices that get people killed (OSHA, FDA, etc.), preventing practices that are criminal or harmful to the economy and society as a whole (ATF, FEC and others) or protecting consumers and other firms from anti-competitive business practices (anti-trust laws and net neutrality being a prime example)
Regulation is preferable to no regulation as corporations have no direct money incentive to do the right thing for anyone, and the nature of the economy means that they are legally required to consider their investors, and those investors dont give a shit about long term goals if their portfolio takes a hit because of it.
The government also has a much better mechanism of accountability than firms do, because in a republic everyone theoretically has an equal voice, where if we relied on economic power to prevent bad behavior, it just means the interests of those with the most economic power get served (more so than it already does)
Taking a "All regulation bad" mentality is black and white thinking and a sign the person doesnt actually want to think about the subject. Reality sadly resists simplicity, and regulations are a tool that needs to be used carefully, but DOES need to be used, and when it comes to things like net neutrality, it should be there.
TL;DR: Regulation exists for a reason, Ana-cap style market systems dont work empirically, and especially dont work with the current economic system we have going now. Nuance is sadly a thing we have to understand.
I don't know the situation in the US, do you not have different ISPs? Does Comcast have a monopoly on the market? Why do you take for granted they will all band together to offer the worst deal ever to consumers, instead of competing against each other to make the most money out of it? Carriers offer all kind of cell phone plans in my country to suit every kind of customer, I assume the same thing will happen for internet packages. If anything, it will allow minor ISPs like Google Fiber to emerge by offering competitive plans.
Grazyn wrote:I don't know the situation in the US, do you not have different ISPs? Does Comcast have a monopoly on the market? Why do you take for granted they will all band together to offer the worst deal ever to consumers, instead of competing against each other to make the most money out of it? Carriers offer all kind of cell phone plans in my country to suit every kind of customer, I assume the same thing will happen for internet packages. If anything, it will allow minor ISPs like Google Fiber to emerge by offering competitive plans.
In many places, especially in the midwest, you often have only one choice for high speed internet, and there is little incentive to build more infrastructure.
Telecom companies are notoriously poor at customer service and available internet speed, and with how necessary internet is to survive in today's economy having basically all online commerce controlled by a single company is a recipe for bad things.
Internet is more a utility like water than it is a luxury like cable television today.
Grazyn wrote:I don't know the situation in the US, do you not have different ISPs? Does Comcast have a monopoly on the market? Why do you take for granted they will all band together to offer the worst deal ever to consumers, instead of competing against each other to make the most money out of it? Carriers offer all kind of cell phone plans in my country to suit every kind of customer, I assume the same thing will happen for internet packages. If anything, it will allow minor ISPs like Google Fiber to emerge by offering competitive plans.
In many places, especially in the midwest, you often have only one choice for high speed internet, and there is little incentive to build more infrastructure.
Telecom companies are notoriously poor at customer service and available internet speed, and with how necessary internet is to survive in today's economy having basically all online commerce controlled by a single company is a recipe for bad things.
Internet is more a utility like water than it is a luxury like cable television today.
But net neutrality does nothing to provide that incentive, if anything it discourages it: why would companies invest in high speed networks and cable coverage if they can't charge for it?
They can charge for it, they just have to treat it as a common carrier so they cant seek rent for the rest of e-commerce.
As they are currently monopolies they have no need to provide better service, and the nature of telecomms means that entry into the market is STUPIDLY HIGH, it is why you only see google even attempting it, plus it takes time to implement the infrastructure.
So removing current restrictions on how they charge for service means that you will basically have to eat the increased cost to get access to what today can be seen as the economic equivalent to water, you need internet to even apply for jobs now.
Plus the telecoms arent just trying to remove neutrality regulations they are also preventing municipalities and states from regulating internet or from setting up municipal versions.
This is Value extracting, rent seeking, anti-consumer behavior. Which is the exact thing regulation is designed to prevent.
In a perfect market with perfect institutions, and perfect information acess with no barrier to enter the market your point about increasing value in the market works, but reality doesnt mesh perfectly with basic economic models sadly, and the amount of time required to reach a new economic equilibrium would lead to more money lost from lost e-commerce than gained from increased competition in telecommunications.
Plus, as I said earlier, there is no incentive for the telecoms to keep the market free after they remove restrictions, and as they are stopping municipalities from making public alternatives via influencing the FCC we can see that they dont WANT free markets, they are just using the argument to gain a more free monopoly.
CosmicScientist wrote:
As a question of my own, are net neutrality regulations supposed to prevent arbitrary, malicious or favoured decision making for business and end user traffic when the system is over saturated, or is it to prevent artificial slowing down of traffic when physical capacity can handle the paid for data plan, or is it both? I have no clue if the netflix graph shown on the previous page is showing actively malicious or preferential behaviour or something I don't know about because me no looky uppy this stoof.
It is made to prevent both. The primary argument against it is that it prevents setting up preferred lines for medical facilities for example, but it also prevents them from arbitrarily throttling websites that dont pay for special treatment from the ISP. It is easier to make a special line by giving the people who pay for special lines preferred access to lines that already exist. Special lines made for special buyers means that there is less bandwidth for others.
Net neutrality regulations basically keep the ISPs from acting like a de-facto extortion racket. The amount of power Telecoms would have over the economy without these regulations is frightening.
CosmicScientist wrote:
As a question of my own, are net neutrality regulations supposed to prevent arbitrary, malicious or favoured decision making for business and end user traffic when the system is over saturated, or is it to prevent artificial slowing down of traffic when physical capacity can handle the paid for data plan, or is it both? I have no clue if the netflix graph shown on the previous page is showing actively malicious or preferential behaviour or something I don't know about because me no looky uppy this stoof.
It is made to prevent both. The primary argument against it is that it prevents setting up preferred lines for medical facilities for example, but it also prevents them from arbitrarily throttling websites that dont pay for special treatment from the ISP. It is easier to make a special line by giving the people who pay for special lines preferred access to lines that already exist. Special lines made for special buyers means that there is less bandwidth for others.
Net neutrality regulations basically keep the ISPs from acting like a de-facto extortion racket. The amount of power Telecoms would have over the economy without these regulations is frightening.
I'm trying to understand but follow this example:
You live in the middle of nowhere. You have shitty internet infrastructure. You want to watch netflix but you can't because your internet is shit. Here comes the cable company, they lay miles of state-of-the-art fiber network up to your living room. Now you can watch netflix all day, loading their network with terabits of data. But thanks to net neutrality, the company can't charge you more for that, or netflix either. They just spent billions of dollars only to provide Netflix with a hefty profit.
Now let's move to your neighbour. He is a farmer. He couldn't care less about netflix, he uses the internet just to tend to his business, watch a couple youtube videos and stalk pre-teens on facebook. He has access to the same network as you do, he pays the same as you do. But he'd rather pay less for a package that only includes high speed for the stuff he actually cares about. Cable company spent money to give him something he doesn't even want.
