Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Those examples you used Selene are not applicable. They are ones where the government stepped in to STOP a behavior that was already a part of the business. Polluting rivers was a major part of industry. The business model was based on easily getting rid of waste. The government disrupted the business model by ending the cheap method of waste removal thereby adding a new cost to the business in exchange for environmental protection. The net neutrality rules (the real ones) aren't getting in the way of any established business models. They are instead preventing that working business model from being changed. Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 You guys keep talking about fast lanes.Derek,Where?I haven't seen anyone talking about fast lanes.Are you really talking to us?Or to the little voice in your head that maybe won't let up about fast lanes?So who is the one who is really INSANE, to use your formatting? (I just couldn't resist that one. )btw - Here's an idea to help. The main issue on this thread is government control. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 Maybe its because you guys are older than me and you don't have the same connection to the internet that the younger generations do ....... I don't know, but you guys just don't see the impact that this will have on the future...Derek,You mean we can't see the future because we say the government fucks up things once it gets control?Think about your words with you think for others. Just a suggestion.btw - I agree that the ISPs, the ones making their play and in collusion with government protections, want to enjoy monopoly status so they can throttle speeds. I disagree that big government is the answer to them. Big government wants big control for its own reasons.Both want big guaranteed power.Let others come in and get the government out altogether. That's the answer. Glenn Beck is one person who has said in public that he would lay his own cables if they allowed it, but new guys can't get past the laws. Big government and big ISPs like that status.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Msk, I am on my phone so I can't quote and you are right no one specifically said "fast lanes" instead Jon and JTS on page one said "fees for fast" which in my opinion mean the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 MSK, your responses show that you understand the throttle problem. This can disrupt an entire new paradigm that the internet is becoming. Second I know that you guys problem is the government part. I said that in my second response. Third I said that I dont need government to be involved either. I said I don't care who enforced it but if no one else can then bring on the government. Also, how did telephone communications suffer when the government stepped in with its public utility spiel? Appears to me that that worked out fine for people like me (customers) maybe it didn't work out so well for the tel-coms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Hopefully we will be able to get internet over power lines soon. This will end this whole thing. Sorry for the multiple posts, again the phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 Derek,I figured your positions were those. Still, I'm evil when I get the chance. As for those who think the ISPs are being bullied by a violation of rights, once again I wonder what would my position would be if I owned a crapload of stock in them. That's not exact. I know what my position would be. I walked out of a symphony orchestra career in São Paulo because I could no longer live with the fact that the taxpayer in the street was paying my salary and almost none of those people went to concerts.If I had been able to tell myself a story where I was the good guy, though, things might have worked out differently...Some people take this stuff seriously. In their lives seriously.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Speculating about the Statist planning, regulation and intervention for the last several generations, it's impossible to guess what would be different now, if it had been absent. Most aspects would be running better - it's likely a few things would be running worse, for a while. First, who defines better and worse? Second, that's not the point. The point is freedom primarily, not efficiency. Any endeavor without government in it would release 10 or 100 times more individuals, those who presently have little chance to be heard and to carry out their ambitions, unaided or unrestricted by those helpful, controlling Utopian Statists.As we are well aware, efficiency would follow of its own accord, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 I can't resist using the Oliver quote again:If you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring.Like Obamacare, for instance.I know I keep quoting myself, but there is even another facet of this that is funny or tragic, depending on your point of view.I'm thinking about what the Internet would look like if the government did take more control of it.What could possibly go wrong?Then I can't get the image of the healthcare.org rollout out of my mind. How would that look on a worldwide scale on a provider level? One good thing that gives hope against further encroachment is companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, etc., own large chunks of the government. (And yes, I did say "own." Maybe not formally, but certainly in practice.)One of these mega-companies will not want more government unless that company gets an advantage over others by it. That's an inherent check and balance. The only way for more government control to happen and "take" is if all the mega-companies benefited by it at the same time. Not impossible, but it certainly limits the options.But don't think government people are stupid. (Not all, anyway. ) There are some seriously cunning brains working on how to increase the government's powers over the Internet and establish precedents with unintended consequences (but that are actually intended). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Corwell Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The silliness of his statement is only second to the nitwits who claim net neutrality means government can ban certain content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 The silliness of his statement is only second to the nitwits who claim net neutrality means government can ban certain content.If one is into big government, one never feels the government is a threat.In my experience, those who are into big government imagine themselves to be a part of it and consider the rest of humanity truly as nitwits.It's a choice. Certainly not mine. I can't stand empty vanity. And I don't like vain people ruling over me.Grubers of the world, unite! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Throttling vs. fee for fast is so much detail making no difference.The issue is private property and the right to decide the terms of use of property.The cure to the ills of cable monopoly is to end the gov'ts-granted monopolies, not to use their unjust existence to justify more of the same.It's quite ok to change the model. Just because a good or service has long been given commodity treatment doesn't mean anyone has any ongoing right to such treatment. I am used to a flat-rate ski ticket for unlimited resort access, for example, but there is nothing special about this tradition vs. some other -- a resort could charge per lift, or sell a lower-priced ticket that excludes certain premium trails. Either it's their property and therefore their decision based on their best business interests, or it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Ferrer Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Also, how did telephone communications suffer when the government stepped in with its public utility spiel? Appears to me that that worked out fine for people like me (customers) maybe it didn't work out so well for the tel-coms.For 70 years AT&T held a legal monopoly on telephone service in the United States. It worked just fine. If you didn't like your service, you cancelled and went without a phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Hardcore gamers would be overjoyed with the end of net neutrality. They would pay more for the ability to have an edge. Just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yeah, Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Hardcore gamers would be overjoyed with the end of net neutrality. They would pay more for the ability to have an edge. Just sayinThat's like saying that its okay and we would rejoice in the ability to "pay more" for sport enhancing drugs. No, the community would not like that the same as they try to weed out those who use cheat software to see through walls or give themselves invincibility. There are even restrictions on those who disconnect before they lose a match in order to prevent the loss from appearing on their record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yeah my son and I would be in an arena match and as soon as we were winning a match the surviving little biotch would miraculously "lag out". They need to make that crap count.Bottom line is when Obama tries to enforce his vision of fair net neutrality he should be reminded"You Didn't Build That!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 The cure to the ills of cable monopoly is to end the gov'ts-granted monopolies, not to use their unjust existence to justify more of the same.Jon,Amen.Not many are saying this out in the mainstream.And of those who do say it, not many are listening.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 No wonder America is fucked.Ok children net neutrality = enforced collectivism on the LAST bastion of freedom left on the entire planet. Get it?The fact that the most commie bastard president in the history of the world is pushing for this should have been your first clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Letendre Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The cure to the ills of cable monopoly is to end the gov'ts-granted monopolies, not to use their unjust existence to justify more of the same. Jon,Amen.Not many are saying this out in the mainstream.And of those who do say it, not many are listening.MichaelHi Michael. You're right. Their line is that since we're beholden to these pigs who "enjoy monopoly status," they must be "more robustly regulated, to ensure they serve the public interest."The truth is those are gov't created pigs. And by ending the monopolies, I don't mean ending the Comcasts, just their exclusive status.It just means that thousands of local gov'ts stop threatening people with fines and imprisonment for building things.How could things not start getting better right away?For some twisted reason, the above is actually controversial, usually treated like "some hair-brained, radical free market, right-wing madness." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Tracinski agrees with Mark Cuban and likens net neutrality regulation to earlier regulation of railroads (link). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This is all a plot to turn the internet into a government regulated utility, like the phone company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This is all a plot to turn the internet into a government regulated utility, like the phone company. I assume you mean that sarcastically. Because what you are saying is a conspiracy theory. It has no evidence to support it except lack of evidence. But it's probably true anyway.Net neutrality is a solution that won't work for a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McGowan Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Tracinski agrees with Mark Cuban and likens net neutrality regulation to earlier regulation of railroads (link).And I disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Them's fightin words where I'm from!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now