jonny5
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2012
- Messages
- 27,581
- Reaction score
- 4,664
- Location
- Republic of Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I have more power over the government than I do Comcast, actually.
I am opposed to any kind of throttling on traffic outside that (apart from the limitations of the internet hardware itself).
..
Me too. Problem is that the telecommunications industry does not operate in a free market--not even close. The telecommunications industry is a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare. Why you would allow a government created nightmare to do whatever it wants and then criticize efforts to make it less horrible is puzzling to say the least.Because I trust the free market more than I do govt.
Me too. Problem is that the telecommunications industry does not operate in a free market--not even close. The telecommunications industry is a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare. Why you would allow a government created nightmare to do whatever it wants and then criticize efforts to make it less horrible is puzzling to say the least.
The best solution is getting rid of the government created nightmare and allowing a free market to exist. But that isn't on the table unfortunately, so the next best thing is to regulate it so it's government-granted privileges cannot further reduce competition.I dont see how the solution to a government created corporatist, monopolistic nightmare is more govt. Shouldnt it be less?
You're on the wrong track. Think of the frog that is slowly boiled to death. Bye the time he realizes things have gone terribly wrong, it's too late.
The best solution is getting rid of the government created nightmare and allowing a free market to exist. But that isn't on the table unfortunately, so the next best thing is to regulate it so it's government-granted privileges cannot further reduce competition.
That's a nice platitude, but doesn't change anything. If net neutrality does not get encoded into law, the political and corporate elite are not suddenly going to say "you know what, let's end the special privileges for the telecommunications industry and make it a free market." Only a fool would believe such nonsense. The result will be the greater of two evils, when progress could have been made towards a lesser one.The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I don't know... Of course, we need to watch out for the government not to expand it power too much, but in this particular case...
I've been watching this debate for some time, and as far as I understand, for once in a while our government is doing the right thing. It restricts the companies from making the user to pay not only for the Internet access, but also for access to certain sites. Just imagine you were forced to pay extra if you wanted to access Youtube, for example. Or this forum...
Slippery slope is called a fallacy for a reason.
If lightbulbs are the best you've got, we're a long way from tyranny.
So you're saying to save money you accept the throttled speed, because higher speed would be way too expensive.Obviously you've never had to be a satellite ISP user. Removing throttling would increase my monthly bill by 10 times. No thanks. I'd rather manage the throttling.
It's not the light bulbs, it's the fact the the federal government is all the way down into our lives so much as to ban a light bulb. The fact that you are pointing out that light bulbs so insignificant actually bolsters the case.
You are the frog.
This doesn't save you from paying for Youtube, this will leave the ISPs having to issue blanket cost increases to cover their lack of QoS controls which are the bedrock of consumer internet cost controls.
No, the fact that you are pointing out light bulbs bolsters my case. If you had something real, you wouldn't be talking about lightbulbs.
Energy efficiency standards are a reasonable method for ensuring the public has continued access to reliable, affordable electrical power without requiring massive infrastructure upgrades, and that's why Republicans signed the light bulb thing into law.
That's a nice platitude, but doesn't change anything. If net neutrality does not get encoded into law, the political and corporate elite are not suddenly going to say "you know what, let's end the special privileges for the telecommunications industry and make it a free market." Only a fool would believe such nonsense. The result will be the greater of two evils, when progress could have been made towards a lesser one.
We are debating the proper decision. What a stupid comment. You can keep your head in the clouds, but back here on planet earth stopping net neutrality means expanding government sponsored monopolies. That's reality, like it or not.It doesnt change that Im right. This is a debate forum, not a decision forum. I dont have to be realistic. I can be idealistic. Govt sponsored monopolies are wrong, and so is govt control. I dont have to endorse or vote for either.
So you're saying to save money you accept the throttled speed, because higher speed would be way too expensive.
But is that expense based on the costs of the system? OR on the company that owns it wanting to make more profit?
We are debating the proper decision. What a stupid comment. You can keep your head in the clouds, but back here on planet earth stopping net neutrality means expanding government sponsored monopolies. That's reality, like it or not.
Okay. Whatever you think.Enabling net neutrality means expanding govt monopolies. Youll see.
Okay. Whatever you think.
This government lies about everything, how could anyone but a goosestepping blind follower trust anything they say? Kiss your 1st amendment rights goodbye on the internet if they somehow muscle this through.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?