Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think anyone truly understands the implications of "net neutrality" but liberals want it as much as they want to impose taxes to "fight" global warming. That's enough of a reason to be against it.
I don't think anyone truly understands the implications of "net neutrality" but liberals want it as much as they want to impose taxes to "fight" global warming. That's enough of a reason to be against it.
Eh, I know a lot of libertarians who are in most ways more republican than almost any republican who are against repealing net neutrality since the tech world is filled with libertarians. I think it's pretty funny.
I guess if your whole thing was about partisanship rather than actual policy, then great.
Did you bother to read what his post actually says or did you just like the fact it seemed to agree?
We both agree that this whole thing is calculated and pre planned. There's no disputing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
No, I absolutely am not saying that, you would have to be trying hard to frame what I have said to resemble that.
I agree net neutrality is a form of regulation. The argument that all regulation is good or bad is silly, because it's completely contextual and that context shifts over time.
There is no particular reason why this shift to repeal is necessary or good for most, but there is certainly a very clear path for why the telecoms industry would want it. Can you also believe the idea that a private economic sector might not have in mind providing the best service for the best price if it's more profitable to do otherwise?
None of this is a particularly easy issue, and there are some potential issues with over regulation using Title 2 for net neutrality which while pretty much none of them have arisen, there was always still the hanging legal possibility. However, this repeal didn't actually try to fix the issues with Title 2 and offer a better solution. It blanket just got rid of it. What is wrong with actually trying to plan a better solution and then discussing it especially as the current system has worked quite well? Why push this vote with fairly limited discussion and no alternative in sight? If they wanted to hand it back to the FTC rather than regulate under FCC (which to me sounds silly), then why not enact provisions for FTC to actually work out a modern regulatory framework? Why go through with the vote, without delay, even while there has been evidence of a large operation of bots using people's identity to come out in favor of repeal?
The fact is, you don't say much in terms of directly addressing the actual policy change. It's pretty evident that you simply don't really know much, but you do seem to have internalized this as a liberal issue.
What is there for me to say? I'm not the one railing against it, just like I didn't make a big stink when the regulations were put into place.
It's a perfectly sound argument given what we've seen historically in this country. You're acting as if we haven't had numerous cases of some form of deregulation in the past. Don't be ridiculous. Whether or not you want to admit it, net neutrality on its basic premise is a form of regulation. Hell there are plenty laws that have been put in place that came about from outcries of some sort. Are you saying that we shouldn't change and adapt as needed?
Requiring Doctor's to have a license to practice medicine is a regulation
Criminal laws are regulations
Speed limits are regulations
Restaurant health inspections are regulations
Building codes are regulations
Content disclosures on food and OTC drugs are regulations
Most people understand that regulations are required in a large complex society, I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that, one thing for sure though.
AT&T and Comcast are not your friends. Comcast isn't even trying to conceal their plans for post NN, they removed this from their website after the FCC announced they were repealing NN "Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes"
I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the other poster and I agreeing. I don't care what you think quite frankly.
Well, you also quite frankly don't care if what you're saying is true or not or has any substance, so that's fine! I get it! First amendment rules!
Anyhow, for anyone else actually interested, I'm wondering if this then sets the framework for something larger. I'm guessing that if over time the telecoms industry finds it sufficiently profitable, they'll start throttling and various services will pay for traffic priority. If that's the case, and if this is in the context of much larger era of deregulation, then perhaps the most profitable thing for businesses that have a heavy internet traffic load would be to buy telecom companies and vertically integrate. We've certainly seen a recent signaling of massive vertical integration in the healthcare industry, so I don't think it's a stretch that this might happen in another sector as well.
The companies most reliant on this and have the resources to do this are basically Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon. Alphabet (Google) at one time tried to build its own limited physical broadband infrastructure, but basically stopped as it's pretty difficult to break into. However, simply merging or acquiring a major telecom doesn't seem that crazy to me. The major telecoms may have high revenues, but their market caps aren't nearly as large, and I wouldn't be that surprised if a move towards that vertical integration in the US ends up happening soon especially if efforts to reinstate net neutrality flounder. Not guaranteed, of course, but it makes economic sense and it makes stellar economic sense once you allow throttling (i.e. the content company no longer has to worry about getting throttled by the telecom and at the same time, owning the telecom means the legal ability to throttle competitor services). Another potential win for shareholders!
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-15-2017 at 01:20 PM..
Requiring Doctor's to have a license to practice medicine is a regulation
Criminal laws are regulations
Speed limits are regulations
Restaurant health inspections are regulations
Building codes are regulations
Content disclosures on food and OTC drugs are regulations
Most people understand that regulations are required in a large complex society, I'm not sure why you have such a problem with that, one thing for sure though.
AT&T and Comcast are not your friends. Comcast isn't even trying to conceal their plans for post NN, they removed this from their website after the FCC announced they were repealing NN "Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes"
When did I ever say that I was against regulations? I said I was against over regulation. There is a difference, and further more, just because you throw in some regulations doesn't mean all is well, or are you that gullible? One of the reasons I am so anti China is because regulations there are practically non-existent, so obviously I do support some form of regulation.
Can you also believe the idea that a private economic sector might not have in mind providing the best service for the best price if it's more profitable to do otherwise?
Past history of telcos proves they have been less consumer minded, and more profit minded. (While they'll talk a good game of providing better service, the record shows the service is usually worse, not better.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said I was against over regulation. There is a difference, and further more, just because you throw in some regulations doesn't mean all is well, or are you that gullible? One of the reasons I am so anti China is because regulations there are practically non-existent, so obviously I do support some form of regulation.
