- 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 8:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why? The government doesn't do this in any other market.
This is where we will get side tracked and I'm sure I'll get made fun of and called an idiot, but whatever here it goes:
Because, in my opinion, the internet is different. The internet is a completely unique market that cannot be treated the same as any other product. I don't even consider the internet a product. It's a revolutionary and infant new technology and we should be careful how we choose to foster its growth or the risks we choose to take with its development.
I do not lightly argue that the government should ensure this protection. I have some major issues with our government and it massively oversteps its bounds and it susceptible to corruptions. I know that.
And i am aware that this might not be what you believe. And I respect your right to have other opinions, but to me the protection of a free and open internet is something I hold as important to society right up there with the protections for things like free speech. If I rewrote the constitution today, I'd argue for the protection of an open and free internet in the bill of rights.
A free and open internet where anyone can create content and reach anyone without any barriers to entry revolutionized the world. It has the ability to keep governments in check and to connect people in ways never dreamed of a century ago.
Stripping that freedom and that power and selling it to highest bidder or trusting it to the richest corporation is in my opinion a completely indefensible negative to society.
I look and argue and ask for a debate everyday to change my mind. Everything in me hates arguing for regulation and power given to the government, but I just can't justify in my mind refusing to protect the internet from censorship and open access.
You can't compare the same principles and economics to the internet that you do to the markets such as automobiles and produce because they are absolutely not comparable. The internet is different and unique.
And allowing the small errosions that can lead to massive problems is a slippery slope I will not choose to support.
And before ShortyRob comes running in here claiming the monopolies are a red herring and support regulation no matter what, if there were multiple ways the access the internet, or multiple internets then the government protections might not be needed and that may be the case in the future, but for now, in the current system, with the current state of the ISP market, the government needs to ensure that the internet remain open and free.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 8:54 pm to Breesus
quote:Very highly unlikely given how content is produce and how unprofitable it is. No offense, but you don't understand the marketplace.
They don't charge the consumer. They charge the content creator.
quote:Nah. Their customers will just stop subscribing. This isn't really a hypothetical. There's industry data to support that. People are cheap skates when it comes to ISP--because they hate the providers so much.
Comcast can just tell Google and Yahoo or Netflix and Hulu: one of you will pay me for exclusive rights to my customers and the other will die.
quote:RIght. Just like FritoLay buys shelf space to keep Zapps off the market. Or Kraft keeps ANY other macaronni off the shelf?
Or Netflix can approach Comcast and offer a million dollars a month in exchange for all of their streaming service to go through at ultra high speeds and all competitors to buffer for and hour and then broadcast in nonHD.
quote:You're confusing "free" with "fair". The market isn't "fair". But it doesn't have to "fiar" to be free.
Both of these represent a problem for me that is not solvable and is not a free market it's an artifical market.
quote:that's not true. They are charging different prices for delivering content of differing value. As above Netflix has a desirable product. Little Teedy Blogger... not so much. No reason these things should be priced the same.
while they also charge the content creators acting both as a gate keeper and the market itself without any possible push back from the consumer because they operate as a monopoly.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 8:58 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Twitter has allowed Trump to completely bypass the media (that if it could have, would have, censured him) That. Is. Significant. And banning him would have been significant as well
If they ban him he can snapchat story everyday, Facebook live, instrgam, etc... His opinions. Thanks to a free and open internet he could just start his own form of Twitter with minimal effort and get his thoughts out that way because Twitter cannot silence him and the pay monopoly ISPs to also silence him.
quote:
Twitter has killed off several startups. Already mentioned Vine. But there are others.
Twitter didn't kill those startups. The business owners decided to sell. A subtle but important difference. Twitter has been taking alot of heat lately for their censorship. Other platforms may emerge to challenge it. There's nothing they can do to prevent those platform start ups with NN. Without NN those startups never enter the market and Twitter censors information with no other possible way for that information to get out.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 8:59 pm to Breesus
quote:That's where you're wrong. It's a product/service just like anything else. Believing it's immune to the laws of trade and economics is fairy tale land.
Because, in my opinion, the internet is different. The internet is a completely unique market that cannot be treated the same as any other product.
I get it. I really do. I have clients in the solar business that think they shouldn't have to pay their bills on time because they are "saving the world". Everyone is exceptional. Except they aren't.
quote:Why. The commerce provisions cover it quite well. It's trade just like anything else.
If I rewrote the constitution today, I'd argue for the protection of an open and free internet in the bill of rights.
It's funny to read your comments. You sound very similar to those in 1934 felt about broadcast radio. About how it had to be regulated or else we were all going to die. The arguments are eerily similar because -- at the end it's just economics and trade.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:06 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Very highly unlikely given how content is produce and how unprofitable it is. No offense, but you don't understand the marketplace.
You think it's highly unlikely that Comcast would try to charge Google or Amazon or whoever for access to their subscribers that they hold a monopoly over? They're an immovable middle man between content and consumer.
quote:
Nah. Their customers will just stop subscribing
You're saying people will quit using the internet?
quote:
RIght. Just like FritoLay buys shelf space to keep Zapps off the market. Or Kraft keeps ANY other macaronni off the shelf?
Right but you can go to another grocery store or buy from a private seller etc.....
There are tons of chip companies and tons of grocery stores and plenty of competition in either of their markets.
Also, the value to society makes them different. The brand chip you eat doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's not something worth government protection because the free market will work for it and a single chip company ever did get big enough to completely dominate the market there are monopoly laws in place to knock them down a peg.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:06 pm to Breesus
quote:
If they ban him he can snapchat story everyday, Facebook live, instrgam, etc...
Two of these three are owned by one company. There's way more ISP diversity in ISPs than social media. quote:Nope. Vine did not sell to be shut down. I personally know someone at a startup (not Vine) that got bought. Absolutely no indication of future liquidation was ever discussed. It was supposed to be investement into growth.
Twitter didn't kill those startups. The business owners decided to sell.
quote:Uhh... yeah, they can. They have. And it had nothing to do with NN. I've given you a rather obvious example, but there are plenty more out there.
There's nothing they can do to prevent those platform start ups with NN
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:08 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
As above Netflix has a desirable product. Little Teedy Blogger... not so much. No reason these things should be priced the same.
Monetarily I agree with you. The perceived monetary value is different. But the net societal gain from the free and open exchange of ideas and content accross the internet dictates the need for more protections than simple economic evaluations.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:13 pm to Breesus
quote:Google, probably not. How many subscribers would have Comcast if they shut off gmail? Otherwise they aren't a major content producer. Amazon is a bit different. Small content producer, but... they also have AWS.
You think it's highly unlikely that Comcast would try to charge Google or Amazon or whoever for access to their subscribers that they hold a monopoly over?
Not sure about "whoever". You might want to look into what all Comcast owns. AT&T as well. quote:You ever try to buy a car directly from GM?
They're an immovable middle man between content and consumer.
Guess what... you can't. quote:Yep. Or willingly pay. It's their choice. Like I said, no one forces them subscribe.
You're saying people will quit using the internet?
They're an immovable middle man between content and consumer.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:13 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
That's where you're wrong. It's a product/service just like anything else
This is where we have a fundemental disagreement and why we will never convince the other person to change their mind.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:19 pm to Breesus
quote:No perceived about it. Can Little Teddy Blogger attract an audience of milions at $10/month or not?
The perceived monetary value is different.
quote:Why does the ISP have to provide that?
But the net societal gain from the free and open exchange of ideas and content accross the internet dictates the need for more protections than simple economic evaluations.
They aren't responsible for providing "societal gain". Nor is anyone else. If you want to talk about value to the collective... go ahead. But dont' for a second hide behind "I want a free market". Collective social value provided at the expense of producers is the very definition of what communists and socialist are after. This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:28 pm to Breesus
quote:Well, I mean. Other than declarations based upon emotion, it literally is just another product.
This is where we have a fundemental disagreement and why we will never convince the other person to change their mind.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:28 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Collective social value provided at the expense of producers is the very definition of what communists and socialist are after.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Collective social value provided at the expense of producers is the very definition of what communists and socialist are after.
Collective producer profits regardless of the expense to social value is exactly what extreme capitalism is after.
Why do we have to choose one or the other? Can we not take the positives from both systems to create something new?
Who doesn't like the word comrade?
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:36 pm to Breesus
quote:False. You're making the same strawman assertion communists and socialist make. Good company? If you're going to use their words, their arguments, and want the same things... don't be surprised when people call you a lefty, commie, socialist rat, etc... it shouldn't be such a surprise.
Collective producer profits regardless of the expense to social value is exactly what extreme capitalism is after.
quote:Sure. Just like you can be a little bit pregnant.
Why do we have to choose one or the other? Can we not take the positives from both systems to create something new?
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:41 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
If you're going to use their words, their arguments, and want the same things... don't be surprised when people call you a lefty, commie, socialist rat, etc... it shouldn't be such a surprise.
I'm not a rat.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:43 pm to Breesus
quote:I didn't accuse you of anything. Just noted you're using their arguments. Only you know what's in your heart.
I'm not a rat.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:47 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Only you know what's in your heart.
Like blood and tissue and stuff?
To be fair, in a perfect world. Communism wouldn't be so bad. But we live in an imperfect world.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:48 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
False. You're making the same strawman assertion communists and socialist make. Good company? If you're going to use their words, their arguments, and want the same things... don't be surprised when people call you a lefty, commie, socialist rat, etc... it shouldn't be such a surprise.
Ding
quote:
Sure. Just like you can be a little bit pregnant.
And ding.
He should probably just admit he's liberal at this point. Or at least come to terms with it.
Posted on 5/17/18 at 9:52 pm to Breesus
quote:only if you're below average (at best). For everyone on the right hand side of the bell curve, communism is a loss of opportunity. Sorry, i see no merit in forced mediocrity.
To be fair, in a perfect world. Communism wouldn't be so bad.
quote:Doesn't seem to jive with expecting the government to fix it.
But we live in an imperfect world.
This post was edited on 5/17/18 at 9:54 pm
Page 33 of 34
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News