- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Net neutrality is good for capitalism
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:29 pm
A lot of people on the right (not all but a good bit) have been opposed to net neutrality for quite some time. These same people who claim to be about the free market and capitalism 
Net Neutrality is the principle that no corporation or state authority can censor, slow down, block, or privilege certain content on the web. It's the basis for what has made the Internet a place for creativity, free speech, and innovation.
Without Net Neutrality, the very startups that make the Internet a force of innovation will be throttled – unable to compete with incumbent businesses that can pay to provide their access faster than any startup could.
How can anyone justify their opposition that prevents unfair competition and benefits this system of crony capitalism that has control of both parties at the moment?
Net Neutrality is the principle that no corporation or state authority can censor, slow down, block, or privilege certain content on the web. It's the basis for what has made the Internet a place for creativity, free speech, and innovation.
Without Net Neutrality, the very startups that make the Internet a force of innovation will be throttled – unable to compete with incumbent businesses that can pay to provide their access faster than any startup could.
How can anyone justify their opposition that prevents unfair competition and benefits this system of crony capitalism that has control of both parties at the moment?
15
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:31 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
A lot of people on the right (not all but a good bit) have been opposed to net neutrality for quite some time.
They are so afraid of big bad government they don't mind corporations running everything.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:34 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Why shouldn't ISP's be able to auction off or limit access to their network? What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:35 pm to cwill
quote:
What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
Problem with that line of thinking is that in many areas there is only one option for high speed internet.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:36 pm to cwill
quote:
Why shouldn't ISP's be able to auction off or limit access to their network?
i just told you why
Carriers can now charge content providers to make sure their content works well, something that privileges companies already dominating the market at the expense of the startups that have made the Internet great. Facebook or Google might be able to afford preferential treatment. But what about the startup that otherwise could replace them?
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
But then you limit a private company's ability to control how it's product is packaged and consumed (the ISP)?
Consumers will get charged before corporations ever do, and I believe the ISPs are throttling anyways......
Consumers will get charged before corporations ever do, and I believe the ISPs are throttling anyways......
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:38 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
They are so afraid of big bad government they don't mind corporations running everything.
The only difference between the two is one involves voluntary exchanges and the other uses force.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:39 pm to ironsides
quote:
But then you limit a private company's ability to control how it's product is packaged and consumed (the ISP)?
a very small price to pay in order to prevent the playing field from being slanted across the entire freaking internet.
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
A lot of people on the right (not all but a good bit) have been opposed to net neutrality for quite some time. These same people who claim to be about the free market and capitalism
Exactly. A truly "free market" does not have government enforced Net Neutrality regulations. That opposes the the very idea of what a free market is
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:42 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I don't believe you have justified the government telling service providers how to run their business and basically price fixing.
Also why don't you address this question:
Also why don't you address this question:
quote:
What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:45 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
except that it's not at all ISP's are essentially another utility. In many places there are only 1 (maybe 2) options. I know where I live in Austin I have just 1 internet option.
We place restrictions on what the electric or water companies can or can't do. Why not ISP's?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:46 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
How can anyone justify their opposition that prevents unfair competition and benefits this system of crony capitalism that has control of both parties at the moment?
So more government will prevent crony-capitalism? I think both sides of the aisle show an equal affinity towards crony-capitalism, so why give the govt even more power?
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:48 pm to upgrayedd
because net neutrality is, by definition, the antithesis of crony capitalism.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:49 pm to ironsides
quote:
But then you limit a private company's ability to control how it's product is packaged and consumed (the ISP)?
These companies aren't truly private. They use, and benefit from, the public airwaves and/or public right of ways for their infrastructure. And pay little or nothing for the priviledge.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I know where I live in Austin I have just 1 internet option.
Really? Do you live in a planned development that only has access to one provider or something? I thought there were 4 available in Austin
- Time Warner
- AT&T U Verse
- Eagle Broadband
- DirecTV
ETA: not trying to be a dick, I do would agree with your position, but was pointing out that it does the business of the internet provider that shells out a massive amount of money to just lay the infrastructure.
That being said, it already happens, with the physical locations of the content storage, it just has nothing to do with the service providers. Unless your name is redbox and you partner with Verizon.....
This post was edited on 1/15/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
a very small price to pay in order to prevent the playing field from being slanted across the entire freaking internet.
It's a good thing we had net neutrality in the 90s and early 2000s or else no Internet, or small, business would have ever been flourished.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:55 pm to Draconian Sanctions
If a service is being provided, why shouldn't the business be allowed to decide how it is provided?
Are you also against broadband price-tiers? Should everyone get the same speed regardless of price?
Are you also against broadband price-tiers? Should everyone get the same speed regardless of price?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:56 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Hey:
What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
What if one ISP choked off or limited access or restricted some competing sites and another one did not, was net neutral? Which one would have more customers?
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:57 pm to Roaad
quote:
Are you also against broadband price-tiers? Should everyone get the same speed regardless of price?
of course not because different parts of the internet are not being treated differently. The customer is paying for their speed and data needs.
Posted on 1/15/14 at 2:58 pm to cwill
I don't know why you keep asking this question when it's already been answered twice in this thread but here goes again. Your hypothetical only holds in places where people have more than one option for high speed internet and in many places in the USA there is only one option.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News