Author Topic: Net neutrality shenanigins are happening.  (Read 27000 times)

ah, yes
I forgot we pay so much already TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE FORCEFULLY ENTITLED TO GET CHARGED MORE
THANKS FOR REMINDING ME CORDERLAIN THAT REALLY HELPED REFRESH MY MEMORY!!!

No one is making you pay for internet.

so the only form of betterment that exists is to physically protect people?

funnily enough, that would still include universal healthcare

No it is the opportunity not the promise.

i dont know enough about this to have the kind of discussion you want. in my eyes, one side believes in one thing, the other side believes in something else. if i was engaging in conversation about this with someone, i would naturally say "whats your opinion on it?" because if either side was factually or objectively right, there wouldnt be as massive of a debate as this. i feel its important to consider the feelings of the other side as well, because i feel like a lot of this net neutrality debate stems from some kind of feeling people are having. not necessarily the calculated numbers
I understand, and it's entirely possible for someone to believe something that's false, I'm sure we all do believe something that's false without knowing it, and that's what debate is for. It's the same as saying an opinion can be wrong. Sure, in most cases it's not really possible as most opinions are about fundamentally subjective things (ie. music, art, food, other personal preferences), but occasionally there is a topic in which those who hold opposing opinions are either being disingenuous themselves or are simply misinformed, which isn't a bad thing (Some examples could be 9.9999999... = 10 and so called "sovereign citizens"). I'm simply saying that this is one of those cases, and that having the truth on your side is an absolute defense against accusations of being disingenuous.

This is really spurred on by a lack of basic understanding on what a person is entitled to.

No one is making you pay for internet.
Can I ask you a question? Are you able to use common sense? I am saying that they shouldn't force us to pay if we want to use our favorite sites and stuff

Yeah keep quoting yourself maybe one time it will actually make a 0.00000000000000000000000001% difference to someone's mind

Can I ask you a question? Are you able to use common sense? I am saying that they shouldn't force us to pay if we want to use our favorite sites and stuff

Then use a different ISP you loving mook. That's why they're deregulating. More diverse competition

Then use a different ISP you loving mook
well in this world everyone is gonna do it
dont call me a loving mook too
thats rude af :(
gr8dayseth, I choose you!


okay, so at this point you've stated that:
1. the government has no right protecting peoples' mental health
2. the government has no right protecting peoples' emotional health
3. the government has no right protecting peoples' rights from other people
4. the government has no right protecting peoples' physical health directly, but can protect the opportunity to protect physical health! which is basically meaningless

you're starting to sound like a loving ancap at this point

Then use a different ISP you loving mook. That's why they're deregulating. More diverse competition
pfft implying that most people actually have a choice in ISP
and implying that the loss of net neutrality would somehow cause more ISPs to exist, when in fact it will probably lead to the opposite, since competitors could target new ISP's services

goverment cant real... as a father i can confirm this.

That's why they're deregulating. More diverse competition
😏

Then use a different ISP you loving mook. That's why they're deregulating. More diverse competition

Cox is the only ISP where I live.

Cox is the only ISP where I live.
durr going back to how it was three years ago is obviously gonna make new ISPs suddenly show up

yeah i was going to an entrepeneur and start my own ISP, but then I decided not to because I wouldn't have the ability to choke sites to death and hamper free speech

It's title 2 regulations. Same reason where there are so few utilities companies. Remove the regulations. Free up competition. Not a hard concept.

It's title 2 regulations. Same reason where there are so few utilities companies. Remove the regulations. Free up competition. Not a hard concept.
For that to happen, the regulation has to actually loving hamper competition in the first place. This is not one of those regulations. Not a hard concept.

The reason there's so few ISPs and utility companies are because they're what's called a "natural monopoly," not because of net neutrality (and frankly I have no clue why you think net neutrality is harming competition, except some bizarre mindset where all regulation is the spawn of Satan). They have high start-up costs, and having mutliple competitors would involve redundant infrastructure.

From Investopedia:
"A natural monopoly, like the name implies, is a monopoly that does not arise due to collusion, consolidation or hostile takeovers. Instead, natural monopolies occur when a company takes advantage of an industry's high barriers to entry to create a 'moat' or protective wall around its operations.

The utilities industry is a good example of a natural monopoly. The costs of establishing a means to produce power and supply it to each household can be very large. This capital cost is a strong deterrent for possible competitors. Additionally, society can benefit from having a natural monopoly like this because multiple utility companies operating in the same industry overleverage the available resources."

Of course, it doesn't help that the ISP industry is also full of "collusion, consolidation and takeovers" in addition to being a natural monopoly.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 09:47:46 PM by TristanLuigi »

It's title 2 regulations. Same reason where there are so few utilities companies. Remove the regulations. Free up competition. Not a hard concept.
so how come competition was no more present before these regulations mr. economist