Net Neutrality

Most on the poliboard here think anything that deals with regulation is bad. Most don't realize how much power ISPs have, and those that do don't really care. They think that regulation always, without fail, hinders an economy, and that whatever happens in a free market is supposed to happen.

I guess what I'm saying is, in response to this:

quote:

---

Sorry if this should be on politics. Couldn't decide which was more appropriate.

---

It will be better received here, but the poliboard needs to hear it more than we do. Unfortunately, with the mentality there, it's likely to force more of them to be anti-NN just because NN sounds like some sort of liberal plot.

quote:

---

the last thing anyone should want is corporations controlling what you see and do online.

---

It's the second-last thing I want.

The last thing I want is government controlling what I see and do online.

The internet is one of the best things we have going.

I want the internet to stay the same as it is now.

quote:

---

They are correct.

---

So the Fed Govt should have let AT&T stay a massive monopoly?

I like the way it is now if they start charging to access: amazon, yahoo , youtube etc... then the consumer is screwed

quote:

---

So the Fed Govt should have let AT&T stay a massive monopoly?

---

AT&T was a massive monopoly primarily due to government protection initially, allowing the use of utility right of ways to put the backbone into place for their system. Once broader competition was allowed, the telecommunications industry exploded.

quote:

---

I agree. That never would have happened had the govt not decided it had to break up AT&T.

---

We agree on that. I think AT&T was essentially granted antitrust exemption (if not overtly, then it was a de facto exemption since no move was made to address this for decades) early on to allow for the development of the communication infrastructure. Once the decision was made to lift that protection, Ma Bell was clearly a monopoly in violation of antitrust legislation.

quote:

---

Did you like it prior to 2015.

---

This is the laziest argument against NN regulation there is. You have to assume that market conditions never change (they do), that we as consumers and citizens never change our demands (we do), that shareholders will stop demanding more profits (they won't), that technological progress itself doesn't change things (it does), etc., in order for this argument to hold any weight at all.

You have to be so entrenched in a conservative mindset that you are completely blind to what's happening in the world in order to be swayed by this argument. Actually that's probably an accurate description of a significant portion of the Republican party.

NN is a big issue for the general public now (it has been a hot topic in the tech world for over a decade) because things have progressed to the point that was expected. That is, data caps (and the associated fees) are now being used as a weapon by ISPs to hinder competition from streaming video competitors. The next step is paid fast lanes, which will be in effect a tax levied by private entities on their competition. This is an objectively bad thing, but the current administration doesn't seem to think so.

quote:

---

the last thing anyone should want is corporations controlling what you see and do online.

---

I will take free enterprise in our market economy every time over government control. We saw what government control can do under the Obama administration basically using government power as a political weapon. No thanks.

quote:

---

Did you like it prior to 2015.

---

This is an incredibly dishonest talking point, but you already know that given your constant trolling on this issue.

Next you'll bring up the FTC?