re: Sky Screamers Rejoice! Senate votes to repeal the repeal of Net Neutrality

quote:

---

Why exactly don't you support simply eliminating government caused monopolies and stepping the frick back?

---

I believe that access to the internet should be free from any gatekeeper restrictions based on content or corporate policy. And I believe it is impossible to "simply" end those government monopolies. It will take years and years to foster enough competition to give the consumer and the market the ability to regulate and demand net neutrality for itself.

And why can't we do both? Why not end monopolies but endure that companies that sprout up must continue the principals of net neutrality? What's the harm in that? Why do you oppose it.

And How do you propose we "simply" end the government monopolies? How would that work?

quote:

---

I believe that access to the internet should be free from any gatekeeper restrictions based on content or corporate policy.

---

So, this really has nothing to do with monopolies and all of that "no competition" shite is just one giant red herring.

There could be 10000 providers and, you'd be in the same spot.

Which, by the way, I've realized for this entire thread

quote:

---

I'll give you NN tards one guess as to why that is. Hint... It has nothing to do with lack of infrastructure and cost to run lines.

---

quote:

---

Breesus

---

quote:

---

How does it relate to net neutrality?

---

checks out.



You want to expand the current local/county problem to the national level. Again. Put your finger on why I have 4 ISPs to choose from in a relatively remote area, yet neighborhoods just on the other side of the county line only have one. On top of that, my bill is half for objectively better service. I know you can do it. Take the government safety goggles off for a minute and think.

quote:

---

So, this really has nothing to do with monopolies and all of that "no competition" shite is just one giant red herring.

---

No its not. The reality is that the monopolies exist and the net neutrality protections are needed to safeguard the market from those monopolies.

quote:

---

There could be 10000 providers and, you'd be in the same spot. 

---

If there were 10000 providers and a few of them offered unrestricted access to all content in accordance with the principles of net neutrality then there would be no need for the regulations.

But that's not the reality. You're arguing that we don't need any protections because one day in the future there's a possibility that that protection may become obsolete.

Why have the government set any standards at all? Why regulate food quality or medicine or drugs or weapons?

Let the free market decide. Eventually the shoddy companies and practices will stop right. And any problems along the way are justified to you because of the possible ends?

Hell why have a government at all? Why have prisons? Let the free market decide which crimes are worth punishing people for? Sure, in the interim there will be some problems, but hey eventually anarchy will settle to a balance, right?

quote:

---

but comparing the internet to water and electricity is butt frickin silly

---

Why? You love markets so much. Why not let the market dictate how the power company acts? I'm sure removing the government monopoly will allow hundreds of competing power companies to emerge. That's your argument for ISPs. And again you absolutely refuse to discuss a hypo.

quote:

---

No its not. The reality is that the monopolies exist and the net neutrality protections are needed to safeguard the market from those monopolies.

---

Except, you already stated that eliminating the monopolies would NOT change your position!

quote:

---

If there were 10000 providers and a few of them offered unrestricted access to all content in accordance with the principles of net neutrality then there would be no need for the regulations.

---

But if none did.........Here comes Breesus with his govt regulation sword!!

quote:

---

Why have the government set any standards at all? Why regulate food quality or medicine or drugs or weapons?

---

This just smacks of desperation on your part.

quote:

---

But that's not the reality. You're arguing that we don't need any protections because one day in the future there's a possibility that that protection may become obsolete.

---

Actually, that's not exactly right.

I'm arguing that your "protection" is worse than any problem you think you're fixing and worse, your "protection" will(as is always the case), tend to be permanent.

Basically, a permanent bad thing to replace a temporary bad thing.

quote:

---

Let the free market decide. Eventually the shoddy companies and practices will stop right. And any problems along the way are justified to you because of the possible ends?

---

I totally get it. You aren't a fan of markets. And now, you're out of the closet on it.

Thanks. I'm glad we got the monopoly red herring out of the way.

This is 100% about people wanting "my internet to stay the way I want it!!!!!!! "

Everything else is bootstrapping.

quote:

---

Hell why have a government at all? Why have prisons? Let the free market decide which crimes are worth punishing people for? Sure, in the interim there will be some problems, but hey eventually anarchy will settle to a balance, right?

---

LOL.

You've gone over the edge as all you liberals do.

"Oh my God, you don't support my government regulation........you're an anarchist!!!!!"

quote:

---

Why? You love markets so much. Why not let the market dictate how the power company acts?

---

Did you know I can't just build a giant factory that's going to pull 50% of the power from a local power plant and plug in?

Those frickers actually expect me to pay extra for that shite!!

quote:

---

And again you absolutely refuse to discuss a hypo.

---

Dude.

All of your hypos are the equivalent of "what if a Meteor, Jupiter and Venus all converge on Earth at once!!! Are you saying you're OK with that!!!".

quote:

---

This just smacks of desperation on your part. 

---

It's not desperate. It's a very logical conclusion to your asserted beliefs that free markets will always end up a net positive to the consumer and any negatives along the way are justified. That's exactly how you framed this argument. I took it to the logical conclusion, and you refused to acknowledge or discuss that and opted instead to make a stupid snarky comment as is your MO because I assume you're too stupid to have an actual conversation.

quote:

---

Except, you already stated that eliminating the monopolies would NOT change your position!

---

Yeah. I have beliefs and principles that I find very hard to compromise in. That shocks you?

quote:

---

But if none did.........Here comes Breesus with his govt regulation sword!! 

---

I conceded that if there were 10000 ISPs available everywhere nationwide that least some competition would exist and NN might not be necessary.

Of course, you can't appreciate or acknowledge that, because I assume you don't understand how to have a conversation with people.

You realize you are again here arguing that there is never a need for regulations on a free market and again I will ask you why you think this works for ISPs but not for energy and water.

Why not open energy and water to the free market? Don't like what happens? Get solar panels or power your house with a stationary bike. Boil all your water over a charcoal pit. Those are competitors, right?

If a bike is an absolute legitimate competition to a car in your opinion, and if a small percentage of the market can benefit from it thus justifying that competition, then how can you argue that generating your own power and finding your own source of water isn't competition?

quote:

---

I'm arguing that your "protection" is worse than any problem you think you're fixing and worse, your "protection" will(as is always the case), tend to be permanent. 

---

My protection is worse that the problem? A free and open internet that fosters competition is worse than Google and Comcast controlling all of the content you're allowed to view with no possibility of checks by the market? That's your position?

quote:

---

You've gone over the edge as all you liberals do.

---

I've already told you I'm not liberal. I fail to see how you think I am.