Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
Not everyone chooses to benefit from modern commerce and information services. My parents, for example, don't want to live within eyesight of another human - that's their prerogative.
Trump FCC is doing away with net neutrality,
- Thread starter randys
- 262 comments
- 13,435 views
Not everyone chooses to benefit from modern commerce and information services. My parents, for example, don't want to live within eyesight of another human - that's their prerogative.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
Net neutrality doesn't directly dictate what service is available to them or others. It doesn't cause people to lay new wire to their homes, and it doesn't cause ripping up of wire from existing infrastructure. What it is, is an attempt to strongarm a company like comcast into giving wishlist service because the alternatives to comcast aren't quite as nice.
Yes, my parents cannot endlessly stream netflix (modern commerce and information services), it doesn't stop them from participating in society. They still have 3 high speed internet connections.
Last edited:
SincereDude
(Banned)
- 69
- Somewhere
- MercilessOne_
This pretty much sums it up:
- 2,272
- United States
- G_ASHER
My ISP started choking me when we were running over our allotted usage. I ended up getting a high speed internet bundle from the same company. Now, after my "deal" has expired they raised my monthly rate 25%. Plus, now they don't have any offers unless I add Dish TV to my package. We are running close to my 1tb data limit a month now, and it sure looks like I'm being choked again. I'm in the SF bay area of the US, but where I live I have a choice of only two providers. It's like dumb and dumberer.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,319
- United States
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Yeah that is pretty much my position and I won't disagree or tell you otherwise, we just have fundamental ideological differences. I fully support governments strong-arming companies like Comcast into giving wishlist service. I support strong-arming EMS, water companies, hospitals, electrical utilities, rail companies, industrial food manufacturers, private schools, taxi companies, restaurants, mail carriers, airlines, passenger rail companies, etc. into giving wishlist service. I'd be thrilled if tomorrow the Canadian federal government announced plans to nationalize our big 3 telecom companies.
It's kinda like the other GTP dead horse of monetary policy and inflation, part of what's interesting about fiat currency and inflation is it devalues capital from the past and values present innovation and labour. I think net neutrality works in a similar way for a natural monopoly/oligopoly like telecom service. Huge telecoms like Comcast are the unimaginably large corporations they are because over a century ago they were the first movers in building a network of phone lines, and they upgraded the lines (and were paid lots of public money to do it) as the internet replaced phone lines as the dominant communications technology. In 2017 the market position of AT&T or Comcast has little to do with any innovation or ingenuity from those firms and they are not providing any socially beneficial service by squeezing Netflix for more money or throttling traffic from a new Youtube competitor.
It feels a bit weird for me to be the socialist in the conversation and talk about ensuring a free market and sticking up for Uber/Amazon/Youtube and current tech start-ups but that is the biggest concern I have. I would much rather strong-arm telecoms into providing wishlist service and create the conditions for Youtube or Paypal to grow and flourish than allow them to even more egregiously cash in on decisions made over a century ago by late 19th century entrepreneurs.
I get a kick out of how many of life's necessities some of us willingly let for profit corporations decide what we will pay for them.
Yes, internet is a necessity, so is heat, oil, healthcare and for that matter even cell service.
Most people dont understand that what a corporation charges for a product is the most they can charge and still get the most sales, no matter what it costs to make the product. I call it the sweet spot".
This HDMI wire costs twenty cents to make in China and since we dont have rules protecting our manufacturers at home, we buy it in china for twenty cents. We then find that due to lack of competition, or in some cases BECAUSE of competition (price fixing, still happens) we are able to charge $9 for it because we dont lose consumers until we go to $9.01. Doesnt matter that after everything our mark up is 3000% or some ridiculous number like that, that this isnt reasonable. We can, so we do. Period.
Something like that.
By the way, there is a HUGE advantage to those with all the money to end net neutrality, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it.
And the only reason people want to argue with that statement is because of "who" is doing it. Crazy, I know.
In reverse, it reminds me of the time Michelle Obama came out with the idea that water was healthy and rightwingers attacked her for saying that.
I wont link the factual story here, you can google it. I dont want to break any rules. AS i recall among others Rush Limbaugh called it "command and control", on her part.
Sigh.
Yes, internet is a necessity, so is heat, oil, healthcare and for that matter even cell service.
Most people dont understand that what a corporation charges for a product is the most they can charge and still get the most sales, no matter what it costs to make the product. I call it the sweet spot".
This HDMI wire costs twenty cents to make in China and since we dont have rules protecting our manufacturers at home, we buy it in china for twenty cents. We then find that due to lack of competition, or in some cases BECAUSE of competition (price fixing, still happens) we are able to charge $9 for it because we dont lose consumers until we go to $9.01. Doesnt matter that after everything our mark up is 3000% or some ridiculous number like that, that this isnt reasonable. We can, so we do. Period.
Something like that.
By the way, there is a HUGE advantage to those with all the money to end net neutrality, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it.
And the only reason people want to argue with that statement is because of "who" is doing it. Crazy, I know.
In reverse, it reminds me of the time Michelle Obama came out with the idea that water was healthy and rightwingers attacked her for saying that.
I wont link the factual story here, you can google it. I dont want to break any rules. AS i recall among others Rush Limbaugh called it "command and control", on her part.
Sigh.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
Net neutrality doesn't change any of that. You have a choice of more than 2 providers, you just don't like your other choices as much as those two.
It's good that you recognize it.
Just nationalize all of it then. Why keep anything capitalist at all? It's only the system that is responsible for the rise of the internet in the first place, what harm could it do it kill it?
The question isn't whether they're going to get paid, but by whom. The only way you're truly going to increase competition in this market is to let consumer demand for it continue to swell. It's right about that time that people get lazy and look to their government to ham-fistedly "fix" it.
By the way, it won't really matter. Whether youtube is charging you for the cost that comcast is charging them, or comcast is charging you directly. Either way comcast gets paid. And, my side of the argument is also satisfied either way, consumer demand for alternatives increases.
The effect of this is basically the same either way. I pick the side I do out of principle.
You mean like food? Yea... crazy
Last edited:
Of course it isnt, I was pointing out the issue with a lack of competition with providers and the media, which is a big part of this.
If the internet is controlled by a small number of providers, net neutrality or not they have the ability to charge us whatever they can get away with using the capitalist system.
It is exactly the same with healthcare. A necessity that should have no for profit involvement other than the obvious areas. Hospitals should be not for profit, for example.
Actually my plan is quite a good one, we just do what the rest of the civilized world does for healthcare.
I see this thread was moved, I was nervous that I had it in the wrong place originally. I am sure I did. Not sure what the rules are about this forum as opposed to the gaming.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Quite. It is however a social concept that allows all information to move as freely as any other information with no importance hierarchy therein. It doesn't matter if that's data I've bought from Netflix, an email from my father (who always telephones anyway to say he's sent one) or the Wiki page on the US Constitution. Nobody's saying that all data should be free but one of the overriding founding principles of the internet is p2p egality.
- 24,638
- Anoka, MN
I fully support net neutrality, but can’t help but laugh at some of the “the sky is falling!” responses the prospect of it getting repealed has resulted in. It’s not like net neutrality has been around forever and it’s not like ISP’s have gotten any better since it took effect.
There is a ridiculous amount of money to provide food for people to the point that if you’re starving you are doing something wrong, those programs also won’t be going away any time soon. That’s for a different thread though.
There is a ridiculous amount of money to provide food for people to the point that if you’re starving you are doing something wrong, those programs also won’t be going away any time soon. That’s for a different thread though.
What confounds me are middle class, hard working people who dont mind if corporations take away their free access to something so vital. By free I mean the basis of what net neutrality provides within that framework. Actually access to the internet should be a nationalized program.
It is known as tribalism in the psychological world.
I started a new thread about why some of us trust corporations more than the government.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...le-class-americans-trust-corporations.369550/
Not this government, of course. I dont trust this one, for obvious reasons.
KungFury
(Banned)
- 273
- On the road
A control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. I'm confident that was the case in both examples.
I wonder who broke up The Bell System and for what reasons. We could argue what the meaning of is is for eternity but the fact remains The U.S. gov regulates these things and passes judgement good or bad. I happen to think it's a good idea but I still don't care about this net neutrality non issue.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,045
- Mile High City
...so... you're not... talking about net neutrality anymore?
No profit motive = no innovation motive.
...get on a waiting list?
We don't have free access to anything vital in the US, and it works out fine. Food, water, electricity, shelter, clothing... ok, human companionship, which is vital, is usually free. Internet is something humans have managed to live without for millennia. 20 years ago, 0.04% of the world had access to broadband. Now humans vitally rely on it? Tell that to the billions of people who don't have it right now.
Internet is not a human necessity. It's not free (at least not in the US, regardless of net neutrality). You have choices for ISPs if you live in the US.
I prefer my speeds headed in the upward direction thanks.
Your statement was that plenty of monopolies have existed. You can't name one. You've managed to name some anti-trust cases.... for which the bar seems low.
KungFury
(Banned)
- 273
- On the road
No, it is very real. Many inventions and advancements have no profit motive, including the internet.
Someone down the road finds a profit motive usually, sure. But people need to read some history books including about the internet and the people around it's creation.
Many inventions happened because people wanted to create something, not knowing about whether profit was involved at all, at first.
Wall street has sold us a lie, and we could do everything we now do without that lie. For instance that lowering the corp tax rate will help average people, it wont.
Well they will make it affordable to some extent to expand their customer base, but what they will also be able to now do is for instance Comcast is a very conservative company. Who believes they wont lower speeds to liberal sites if they can get away with it?
How about to Planned Parenthood sites?
What the trump people are doing is madness and it makes NO sense for a consumer to be on their side on this one, NO sense at all. Period
You cant name a single advantage the average person might get from this but you can name dozens on the other side. TRIBALISM is why there is disagreement here.
KungFury
(Banned)
- 273
- On the road
Possibly, one could use the Obama phone as an example to argue otherwise but only time will tell. It is also true that public schools provide free internet to students and most public libraries offer not only free net but also computers in which to use it. Don't forget sitting on your laptop at micky D's or a hotel or lowes or wherever else.
I really cant see this going bad for the average consumer, it makes me wonder why companies like centurylink are so set on signing you up to a life long contract where your price will never change(up? not according to them, down? not a chance I'm sure lol)
Joey D
Premium
- 47,516
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
While I agree that people would probably revolt, I'm not sure if Comcast would listen or even care to be honest. The core issue I have with any capitalist economic policy is that it relies on companies to listen to pressure from the consumer and then actively do something about it. When company X has a massive stake in a given area, there's not much room for competition, if it's allowed at all. Granted, it's better than socialism and having the government run everything, but it is an issue I struggle with.
As for a choice of internet providers, I do have a Verizon air card but it's fairly slow and makes trying to connect to my work's network an absolute PITA. When your job revolves around patient care, time is important. I'm not sure if DSL is available in my area, I've never checked, same goes for a T1 line. I guess I wish there was a choice in ISP with regards to broadband and that way the local market could decide which one is worth the money. If they were both horrendous, say Comcast and Charter, at least I'd be able to choose the lesser of the two evils.
Like I said, I'm not really for net neutrality on the principal it's the government mandating things, but I feel like before repealing it other things need to be looked at and either repealed or modified.
With that said though, I'm not sure about consumer protection laws in the US. If Comcast screws me, I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, I can actually do. For instance, they placed a cap on my internet without ever giving me a notice. I didn't know about it until I got a letter in the mail saying next time I went over my cap, I had to pay some ridiculous price per GB. I called them and got nowhere, tried again and still got nowhere, and finally just gave up after the third time because it wasn't worth the 45 minutes everytime I called. To me, that's screwing over the customer since when I purchased the internet plan I was told it was unlimited. I know they reserve the right to change it whenever they want, but at the same time doing so is just poor customer service.
I like giving Obama credit for what he deserves, there are almost 500 things
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
But the Obama phone was actually first a George W Bush phone...sort of
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
KungFury
(Banned)
- 273
- On the road
After a quick rethink I might agree, the poor will get it for free, the rich can afford it anyway, that leaves the sucker middle class that always carries the burden it seems.
Sad but true
To me Obama phone simply means free phone for the poor, it's a term like coke or kleenex. I don't fall for blaming or crediting the POTUS all alone, ever.
Similar threads
