- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:07 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Its GWB “we have to end he free market to save he free market” territory.
I do so enjoy someone telling me that a government rule that prevents a business from behaving as a business might is making it a "free market".
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:26 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If I sell zucchini and you sell chicken, we are clearly selling different niches but we are ABSOLUTELY competitors. Don't believe me? Let's see what happens when Chicken is $50 a pound.
The existence of the zucchini sets a ceiling on what you can get away with charging for chicken before a lot of your customers say, "frick that, I'm eating zucchini".
you're right about this but its annoying. having competitors does not mean there are no monopolistic practices being employed.
see microsoft..
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:27 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:That’s not a free market, though.
And that’s not what this is about. It’s about treating data equally, not censoring it.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:30 pm to Breesus
quote:Right. Just like a grocery store can refuse to carry a product and keep it off the market. Once again you’re proving there is nothing special about the ISP market. Market discrimination, bias and selection happen all over the place. It’s a necessary condition of having a free market.
If you can treat data unequally, then you can censor it
A market where vendors have no choice about what products and services to offer isn’t a free market. It’s the opposite really.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:31 pm to kingbob
quote:
You keep saying that despite over and over again, us saying the opposite.
If I was you I'd quit talking to ShortyRob. I think the poor guy might be legitimately autistic.
He just keeps parroting the same thing and refusing to think critically or engage in any meaningful discussion.
When he puts out a talking point or theory such as "a free market is always better than the alternative" or "government regulations are always worse than the problems they seek to regulate" he is incapable of backing it up or expounding on the idea.
When you try to ask a question to understand where he's coming from or clarify a point he retorts with a personal insult or squawks some generalities about liberals or some such nonsense.
He's impossible to talk to because his autism or aspergers doesn't allow his brain to function properly.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:33 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Excuse me but I don't know who you are referring to when you say we because Breesus absolutely took that position
See this is a good example.
Not only did not take that position, but I said three times that if meaningful competion existed between ISPs it may reduce the need for NN altogether.
He has dismissed it everytime I've said it and then continued to tell me I belive in "the magic government sword of regulation in all instances" or some other such nonsense quote followed by an insult to my intellegence and some quip about how he knows everything but refuses to explain it because I wouldn't understand it anyway.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:33 pm to weedGOKU666
quote:I find it odd that people use the interenet to bitch and moan about how bad their internet service is.
I find it deeply ironic that a dude with 50k+ posts on an Internet forum is passionately arguing the unimportance of it.
The only reason they have a venue to complain is because it actually works quite well.
ISPs are kinda like plumbers. Everyone is absolutely sure they are getting screwed by them, but they haven’t the faintest clue about the actual costs, expenses, efforts involved. But they are 100% sure they are getting screwed.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They had this opportunity prior to 2015 and they didn't do it.
Yes
They
Did
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:35 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Then on this you different from your counterparts but it does provoke a follow-on question
No. He's not. I said that almost literally word for word earlier in this thread. Hold on while I go find it and link it.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:36 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Cpt and Shorty argue to troll. You shouldn’t engage in debate with them.
I think you told me this 20 pages ago. I should have listened.
But I enjoy arguing and debate. Even when arguing against someone who just likes to argue. But it's only enjoyable when that person has a knowledge of the issues and the ability to intellegently debate them. ShortyRob possess neither of those. Because he's autistic.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:38 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Ill give you an example. Direct to consumer broadcast satellite tv was technically available in the late 1970s. The FCC did he bidding of the cable companies and terrestrial briadcasters and kept the technology off the market until 1994.
What does this have anything to do with net neutrality?
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:39 pm to kingbob
quote:Thats as anti-free market as one could get.
The purpose is to create the outcome the market would demand if the market had the leverage to demand it.
The ultimate problem is there is no demand for better ISP services. Sure everyone wants better faster service.... until they have to pay for it.
The desire for NN proves this. Consumers don’t want to pay for it as is. Much less additional for better service.
Just for laughs... I’d ask some of you to put together a package and take it to a VC firm for a high speed ISP Service and see how far you get. Just be ready to be laughed at.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:40 pm to kingbob
quote:Why wait? Especially when regulation chases capex way like the plague.
Step 3: de-regulate at the federal level once competition has been restored.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:46 pm to Breesus
quote:
What does this have anything to do with net neutrality?
Dear lord. Do you really not understand that the FCC under the same set of regulation conspired to protect cable companies’ monopolies at the expense of consumers for nearly 3 decades? And only relented after the cable companies bought up most of the DBS infrastructure?
All in the name of “protecting community content delivery” so everyone could be free! FREEDOM!!!
The fact you can’t see any parallels at work here tells us just how dangerously naive you are.
It’ll be different this time is a terrible strategy.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 6:47 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why wait? Especially when regulation chases capex way like the plague.
Deregulation at the federal level won't do much except hurt consumers. They need to regulate states and in turn municipalities to force them to deregulate at the local level..
1) bring in stakeholders and begin drafting legislation to give an agency enforcement power for violations of NN principles
2) require states and in turn municipalities to deregulate by creating and passing federal rules effective on X date
3) roll back title II classification as it would now be outdated by modern legislation
4) steps 1-3 all become effective on the same X date
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:53 pm to Breesus
quote:Thats a cheap way out. It you’re arguing your point, it’s up to you to be convincing. You aren’t. Sorry.
But it's only enjoyable when that person has a knowledge of the issues and the ability to intellegently debate them.
The entire basis of NN is wrong. The idea is that ISPs will charge more for premium services. While simultaneously holding that people do not want to pay for such premium service. Which is it? It can’t be both.
If people are willing to pay more—you can’t say that consumers are being forced into anything. No ISP can take money from you against your will. Simply not possible And forcing ISPs to underprice their services below market value is NOT market freedom. It’s price fixing.
If people aren’t willing to pay extra, the premium services will disappear. No vendor is going to offer something people are unwilling to pay for—just for fun.
The basic misunderstanding you and others are demonstrating is that even in monopolistic markets consumers have choices. They are not compelled to act out of force.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 6:57 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
The basic misunderstanding you and others are demonstrating is that even in monopolistic markets consumers have choices. They are not compelled to act out of force.
We absolutely have choices. NN isn't about price.. it's about content access and delivery and a reality where allowing fast lanes is allowing an ISP to offer a pay for play service where they throttle your competition
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 7:00 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 7:03 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Thats a cheap way out. It you’re arguing your point, it’s up to you to be convincing. You aren’t. Sorry.
At least I explain myself and my reasons for my beliefs. I will say that you, TA have attempted to explain yourself and your positions using examples. I appreciate that. The others weren't doing that.
quote:
The entire basis of NN is wrong. The idea is that ISPs will charge more for premium services. While simultaneously holding that people do not want to pay for such premium service.
That's not the idea. Thet already charge more for premium speeds or multiple access points. No one has a problem with that and it has nothing to do with Net neutrality.
quote:
And forcing ISPs to underprice their services below market value is NOT market freedom
No one here is arguing for fixed costs.
quote:
If people aren’t willing to pay extra, the premium services will disappear. No vendor is going to offer something people are unwilling to pay for—just for fun.
What if people are willing to pay extra but a massive company can pay more than the people to kill that service? Is that a free market to you?
quote:
The basic misunderstanding you and others are demonstrating is that even in monopolistic markets consumers have choices. They are not compelled to act out of force.
Your misunderstanding is that the consumer would still have a choice. Without net neutrality the choice disappears. The monopoly kills the competition before the choice ever hits the market.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 7:05 pm to Breesus
Holy hell I remember this thread being 2 pages wtf
Page 31 of 34
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News