Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 70

Thread: Net neutrality is dead

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Another thing, by the time this law, or the fight over this law is done, technology could have left it completely irrelevent.

    For example, the "Fairness Doctrine." It was designed for a time when there were only 3 TV networks and no other form of mass media. It is worthless today in the age of internet. In fact, it provides the government a way to intrude into free flow in ideas and information.

    AT&T anti-trust law suit was during a time when there was only one form of communication. It is worthless now because we have cell phone plus the internet for instant communication. Does anyone still have traditional landlines? I have a landline but it's VOIP. It goes through a cable modem box that's beyond the reach of telephone company.
    None of this is relevant to the question I am asking : What do you think the Comcast/ Netflix deal is about?

    GN,

    When someone comes and broadly says "Assault rifles", you ream them out by getting into the specifics. I am asking you to look beyond the broad "government is bad" and actually see what the cable monopolies are doing.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  2. #32
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Feb 14
    Posts
    43
    Interesting article from the Verge if anyone's interested.
    The internet is fucked | The Verge

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,881
    Anyone else whats to claim the old canard that "competition" in broadband will "reduce prices" and "help consumers"

    Big Broadband has everyone firmly under their thumbs

    http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/03/21/t...e-country.html
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  4. #34
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    None of this is relevant to the question I am asking : What do you think the Comcast/ Netflix deal is about?

    GN,

    When someone comes and broadly says "Assault rifles", you ream them out by getting into the specifics. I am asking you to look beyond the broad "government is bad" and actually see what the cable monopolies are doing.
    What are the cable monopolies doing? To make a buck. If the price gets too high, someone else will enter the market and drive down the price again.

    Econ 101 says monopolies are bad because they cut down consumer choices and raise prices.

    Econ 401 says monopolies cannot exist in a free market unless there's barrier to entry or government interference.

    Net neutrality seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. All it will do is add cost to the consumers. We know that for a fact because government is involved.

    Can you give me a single example of government interference leading to lower prices without shortage?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    I can give you an example of a monopoly not being challenged.

    You wear sunglasses? Better yet, you live in Cali, where a lot of people wear them. That means 8 to 9 out of 10 people wear sunglasses made by one company.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  6. #36
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    I can give you an example of a monopoly not being challenged.

    You wear sunglasses? Better yet, you live in Cali, where a lot of people wear them. That means 8 to 9 out of 10 people wear sunglasses made by one company.
    I do wear sunglasses. One of the major reasons for getting Lasik.

    This is what I wear:

    Amazon.com: Flying Fisherman Maverick Polarized Sunglasses (Matte Black Frame, Smoke Lenses): Sports & Outdoors

    It's cheap so I don't care too much if I lose them. In fact, I did lose a pair and ordered the same exact pair to replace them.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I do wear sunglasses. One of the major reasons for getting Lasik.
    I can't wear any type of glasses since I get irritated. Thank God the sight is good so far. Only lately I have issues with huge bright objects or lots of snow.

    I didn't expect anything less from an Asian redneck

    It's cheap so I don't care too much if I lose them. In fact, I did lose a pair and ordered the same exact pair to replace them.
    IDK if Luxottica produces them, but chances are you bought your pair from them if you did it in a store and not online.

    The point was I see your 401 economy and raised it with sunglasses. I could have used Monsanto, too
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  8. #38
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    I can't wear any type of glasses since I get irritated. Thank God the sight is good so far. Only lately I have issues with huge bright objects or lots of snow.


    I didn't expect anything less from an Asian redneck


    IDK if Luxottica produces them, but chances are you bought your pair from them if you did it in a store and not online.

    The point was I see your 401 economy and raised it with sunglasses. I could have used Monsanto, too
    I really don't care who makes them. They are affordable and I don't see a need for government regulation. If this is really a case of monopoly, I don't see any downside of it. Additional government interference will only drive up the cost. In fact, ANY government interference will drive up the cost. We must weigh the cost imposed by the government vs. the cost imposed by the monopoly and see which is more. I am willing to bet government interference has a stronger impact on prices. The problem is never a single regulation on a single product. The regulation creates a bureaucracy to oversee it. This bureaucracy has to justify its existance. There will be continued pressure for further regulation both up and down the supply chain.

    This usually leads to another complication. We all hate money in politics. We want to get money out of politics because money is evil and corrupts people. Why is money in politics in the first place? Someone wants to buy someone else's influence. One only bribes another if there is a gain. No one ever bribes me because I can't do anything for them. Money buys power. What is the ultimate power in a society? The government. It's the only absolute monopoly anywhere in the world, by the power of brute force. The more force it has, the more corrupt it is. Every single little legislation that we implement to regulate something gives the government that much more force. With it, someone will seek to influence this force for a gain.

    It is in our best interest to keep the government as small as possible and to regulate as little as possible. That's how we get money out of politics, by stripping away power.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    What are the cable monopolies doing? To make a buck. If the price gets too high, someone else will enter the market and drive down the price again.

    Econ 101 says monopolies are bad because they cut down consumer choices and raise prices.

    Econ 401 says monopolies cannot exist in a free market unless there's barrier to entry or government interference.
    Real life is not Econ 101
    Broadband is not Econ 101.

    No one can simply spin up a Broadband business, there are huge entry costs. The current players do everything they can to shut out competition. And this is after they have pocketed tax subsidies meant to expand service across the US, which they did not do.

    Georgia's Internet Uprising | Free Press
    http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodge...gersReport.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Net neutrality seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. All it will do is add cost to the consumers. We know that for a fact because government is involved.

    Can you give me a single example of government interference leading to lower prices without shortage?
    In the field of broadband? Municipal networks
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  10. #40
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Real life is not Econ 101
    Broadband is not Econ 101.

    No one can simply spin up a Broadband business, there are huge entry costs. The current players do everything they can to shut out competition. And this is after they have pocketed tax subsidies meant to expand service across the US, which they did not do.

    Georgia's Internet Uprising | Free Press
    http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodge...gersReport.pdf
    I agree. There is a huge cost barrier to entry in the field of broadband. This creates an opportunity for monopoly to exist. Is that so bad?

    What is the alternative? Government mandate there NOT be a monopoly. The barrier to entry is the same. There must be 4 players in the market. Instead of taking advantage of economy of scale, the government has actually increased the cost to consumers by mandating multiple players in a market space with high cost to entry, by spliting up the pool of consumers into smaller batches.

    These players will either have to charge a high price, or get government subsidies, to stay in business. If they all charge high prices, then are they really better than a monopoly charging the same price, or even lower?

    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    In the field of broadband? Municipal networks
    How does this municipal network stay in business? Who or what pays for the salary of the clerks and cable workers who maintain this network? How does this network overcome the high cost to entry barrier faced by private service providers?

    Government by definition does not generate a profit. It has to lose money. When it does, it is "made whole" by tax subsidies. The cost is borne by the entire population. Nothing is free.

    We can see that from mass transit systems all over the world. They are pretty affordable. That's because they are all subsidized by tax dollars. Europeans have cheap high speed railways because the people pay $8 to $9 per gallon of gas to finance them.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I agree. There is a huge cost barrier to entry in the field of broadband. This creates an opportunity for monopoly to exist. Is that so bad?

    What is the alternative? Government mandate there NOT be a monopoly. The barrier to entry is the same. There must be 4 players in the market. Instead of taking advantage of economy of scale, the government has actually increased the cost to consumers by mandating multiple players in a market space with high cost to entry, by spliting up the pool of consumers into smaller batches.

    These players will either have to charge a high price, or get government subsidies, to stay in business. If they all charge high prices, then are they really better than a monopoly charging the same price, or even lower?



    How does this municipal network stay in business? Who or what pays for the salary of the clerks and cable workers who maintain this network? How does this network overcome the high cost to entry barrier faced by private service providers?

    Government by definition does not generate a profit. It has to lose money. When it does, it is "made whole" by tax subsidies. The cost is borne by the entire population. Nothing is free.

    We can see that from mass transit systems all over the world. They are pretty affordable. That's because they are all subsidized by tax dollars. Europeans have cheap high speed railways because the people pay $8 to $9 per gallon of gas to finance them.
    Europeans subside your gas price, too.

    Imagine if we all consumed US levels of gas per capita. Before you mention huge sparce spaces US has, looking on the 'at night maps', I believe east coast is the similar population density as Europe.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I agree. There is a huge cost barrier to entry in the field of broadband. This creates an opportunity for monopoly to exist. Is that so bad?
    When the entry barrier is due to laws and operational hurdles, put in there by lobbyists? You bet there is

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    What is the alternative? Government mandate there NOT be a monopoly. The barrier to entry is the same. There must be 4 players in the market. Instead of taking advantage of economy of scale, the government has actually increased the cost to consumers by mandating multiple players in a market space with high cost to entry, by splitting up the pool of consumers into smaller batches.
    In the Broadband market it is the opposite. There are entry barriers put in place by the government, working for broadband industry lobbyists.


    These players will either have to charge a high price, or get government subsidies, to stay in business. If they all charge high prices, then are they really better than a monopoly charging the same price, or even lower?

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    How does this municipal network stay in business? Who or what pays for the salary of the clerks and cable workers who maintain this network? How does this network overcome the high cost to entry barrier faced by private service providers?
    And if the population under this municipality is ok with this tax, then what is your or mine problem? What gives the corporations the right to stop their entry, especially when they are not willing to expand their services themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Government by definition does not generate a profit. It has to lose money. When it does, it is "made whole" by tax subsidies. The cost is borne by the entire population. Nothing is free.
    And when they provide a essential service that private industry cannot or will not provide, I say that this it fine. you can keep quoting the constitution here if you want, but just like water and electricity, broadband and telecom are utilities and need to be treated as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    We can see that from mass transit systems all over the world. They are pretty affordable. That's because they are all subsidized by tax dollars. Europeans have cheap high speed railways because the people pay $8 to $9 per gallon of gas to finance them.
    Have you been to Europe? I would take their train service to the US Aeroplane based service any day, twice on weekdays. And I am not convinced that they finance that through gas dollar. Europe has a lot more things than the US to finance than just mass transit.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Have you been to Europe? I would take their train service to the US Aeroplane based service any day, twice on weekdays. And I am not convinced that they finance that through gas dollar. Europe has a lot more things than the US to finance than just mass transit.
    73bn for rails subsidies. Aviation gets then 1/3 - 1/2 of that.

    http://www.dfld.de/Downloads/EU_0703...uerVerkehr.pdf
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    73bn for rails subsidies. Aviation gets then 1/3 - 1/2 of that.

    http://www.dfld.de/Downloads/EU_0703...uerVerkehr.pdf
    Given that transport is a necessity, I can live with that. Imagine what would happen if there were no London tube, Paris metro or NYC subway
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Given that transport is a necessity, I can live with that. Imagine what would happen if there were no London tube, Paris metro or NYC subway
    A private entity would have build them? Or maybe those cities wouldn't reach that many inhabitants.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Net Neutrality
    By juggernaught in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 15 Oct 14,, 20:35
  2. "Fake Net Neutrality" Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom,
    By Blue in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04 Dec 10,, 00:42
  3. Canadians want neutrality in Mideast policy:Poll
    By smilingassassin in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 13 Aug 06,, 16:51
  4. Assault With A Dead (yes, dead) Weapon
    By THL in forum International Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08 Jun 06,, 22:12

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •