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

quote:

---

You want to give that power to the government.

---

No. We don't. We want to keep that power out of everyone's hands. No one should be able to discriminate access to the internet based on content. Not private companies. Not the government. No one

quote:

---

No. We don't. We want to keep that power out of everyone's hands. No one should be able to discriminate access to the internet based on content. Not private companies. Not the government. No one

---

No. You want to prevent anyone from censoring, but you are doing it (knowingly or not) by giving the government the power to do just that.

quote:

---

The others weren't doing that.

---

That's not true.

quote:

---

Thet already charge more for premium speeds

---

Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about content. NN absolutely is about what consumers pay (or don't pay) for the content ISPs deliver.

quote:

---

No one here is arguing for fixed costs.

---

You are. The fact you don't realize it--doesn't make it true. By arging for NN you're fixing the price of content delivered to you at $0. That's just a fact. It's by definition what NN is.

quote:

---

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?

---

Why is a "massive company" not a market participant? This happens ALL THE TIME in the marketplace. Twitter bought Vine... and shut it down. Microsoft if FAMOUS for buying up companies and divesting them. But it's not just "massive companies". Even small mom& pop valve companies in the O&G companies do this.

quote:

---

Is that a free market to you?

---

Umm. Yea! "Massive companies" have rights too. Being massive doesn't mean you surrender the ability to participate in teh market. To bar them from doing so... is the opposite of freedom.

My question for you is... why should "freedom" be means-tested against wealth? That sounds like a terrible idea to me.

quote:

---

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.

---

That simply isn't true.If it were true, ISPs would charge everyone $1,000,000 per month. Think of all the money they could make!! And they wouldn't even have to provide any content. What a deal!

quote:

---

That simply isn't true.If it were true, ISPs would charge everyone $1,000,000 per month.

---

That's exactly my point and that's exactly why we need NN.

You know who cannot afford a million dollars a month for access to the internet? Regular people.

You know who can? Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc...

quote:

---

The idea that government will regulate something in such a non-biased manner is even more naive. Especially when it comes to the FCC. Do you have ANY idea how corrupt the commission has been?

---

As best as I can tell we are stalemated at the opposite ends of the same coin. But I understand where you're coming from.


The idea that the free market in terms of ISPs and complete deregulated internet will allow for continued freedom of content is the exact counter point to government regulation.

I say the government should ensure that all content is allowed on the internet, its the actual internet that is the market and content is the products. that market should remain free and open. You say that the government is too corrupt to trust with that responsibility, it will over step its bounds and end up worse than it is now.

You say that the ISPs and the gateway is the market and the internet is the product. The free market will dictate an open internet or atleast it will listen to the consumers. I say that large corporations will just run the internet the way they see fit with no ability for the consumer to fight back and it'll end up worse than it is now.

As for your "corporations are people too who have the same rights as any individual argument", I firmly disagree with you. Corporations are definitely not equal to one person and when they step out of line or dwarf the wants of the consumer or artificially change the flow of the market, then someone has to be able to hold them accountable or in check. You think the free market will always hold them in check, I think they can manipulate that market and need an outside actor. Again, stalemated at opposite sides of the argument.

But I appreciate your points. And I understand where you're coming from.

I don't view all markets the same. For a market that already has plenty of competition or plenty of room for growth the government isn't and shouldn't be needed to protect that market. For a market where consumers stand an actual chance at voicing their opinions or self regulating again the government isn't needed.

For a market such as ISPs where there are almost insurmountable barriers to entry and a massive possibility of an artificial market that individual consumers stand no chance of regulating themselves, the government needs to step in to keep the market in check. Even if that stepping in is only temporary until the market is competitive.

quote:

---

Unfortunately this is childish naivete. This doesn't exist in any market place.

---

Ding a fricking ding

quote:

---

this is also a bit puzzling. Because I've seen MANY (who are proponents of NN) calling for Twitter to ban Trump. Even more calling on ISPs to ban "white nationalisits".

---

First of all, I hate social media.

Second of all what a content provider does within its own voluntary content distribution platform I could care less about.

I find both Facebook and Twitter and most of their users retarded so I don't use them.

But there's plenty of competitors in the social media arena. I don't care if Twitter buys every new social media start up. And I don't care if 100 new companies start up and fail and Twitter stays on top as the most popular. That's a free market at work. People can just keep creating those companies. These are choices the consumers make within a market and they happen over in different markets across the country.

I do care if Twitter has the power to kill those startups arbitrarily before the market has a chance to weigh them. There is a subtle but very important difference there.

quote:

---

I'm sorry (and I realize you aren't speaking for everyone) but there are many that support "net neutrality" that are PERFECTLY OK with ISPs silencing others. 

---

You don't have to apologize. Those people are called hypocrits. And there is a special place in hell for hypocrits.

quote:

---

That's exactly my point and that's exactly why we need NN.

---

quote:

---

You know who cannot afford a million dollars a month for access to the internet? Regular people.

---

Indeed. So an ISP that charges $1,000,000 will have how many customers vs. one that charges $50? Which will make more money?

quote:

---

You know who can? Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc...

---

A 3-customer ISP won't last long. Ironically one you list is an infrastructure provider already.

quote:

---

I say the government should ensure that all content is allowed on the internet, its the actual internet that is the market and content is the products.

---

Why? The government doesn't do this in any other market.

quote:

---

You say that the government is too corrupt to trust with that responsibility, it will over step its bounds and end up worse than it is now.

---

No. I'm saying the government not only could... but already has. Again... I don't understand the point of view that says... corporations are too big and can dominate the market. But somehow they are too small to dominate the government.

In fact the opposite is true. The consumer has WAY more power with their pocket books than they have at the voting booth. It's not even close.

quote:

---

TA has yet to call me retarded or refuse to explain his points because I could never grasp them and he has answered my questions and countered my points logically while providing examples for his positions and intellegently responding to mine

---

Well. You did open by assuming my posts weren't real and that i didn't believe them. And, well. Do we really need to go back and check for your high minded approach at the outset with me?

You probably won't like it.