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.
Letting the Big ISPs throttle content in favor of their own is not Free Market in action. it is Crony Capitalists choosing winners and losers.
Letting? Letting? Letting ISPs throttle is called property rights. Allowing more competition so we have choices that include ISPs not throttling is called the free market.
The big government that you want to regulate is the reason we don't have more competion since the entry costs to enter are high. The same entity you're feeding is biting you in the backside.
Quit reacting to symptoms and treat the cause. Get the government out since it raises costs, decreaces efficiency, and stiffles competition.
Letting? Letting? Letting ISPs throttle is called property rights.
The ISP has 100% control of the speed, amount of and cost for the 1's and 0's traveling across their network. What they can't do is charge different rates based on their order or source. It's really as simple as that.
Since it's been made abundantly clear you that "deregulation" in Texas's electricity market is almost exactly the same as NN are you now against it?
Letting? Letting? Letting ISPs throttle is called property rights. Allowing more competition so we have choices that include ISPs not throttling is called the free market.
The big government that you want to regulate is the reason we don't have more competion since the entry costs to enter are high. The same entity you're feeding is biting you in the backside.
Quit reacting to symptoms and treat the cause. Get the government out since it raises costs, decreaces efficiency, and stiffles competition.
I am very confused by your posts.
You do realize that abolishing net neutrality is anti-free market and causes less competition. That is the whole reason why these uncompetitive companies are lobbying. They want government to "legislate" them into existence instead of competing on a level playing field.
Just incase you are confused with the terms:
Quote:
In economics, a free market is an idealizedsystem in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority
Another analogy I am ruminating over is sports. There are basic rules that all follow (or, well, should anyways) to make the game fair. If you want a better chance at winning, you can exercise more, study strategies, etc. You don’t get to drug the other person/team with muscle relaxants so they slow down or otherwise perform worse.
Net neutrality is the basic gameplay rules. Taking it away would allow businesses to play dirty and essentially drug their competitors instead of working harder and smarter at being better than the others in an even playing field.
Bad analogy - ISPs are competing with each other not competing with the websites.
The NFL has salary ceiling caps. You'd be okay with Denver not being able to get a better internet because they can afford it but since other places cannot afford it we'll just have to limit Denver to roughly the same internet other places have. Denver cannot spend more to better their internet. You're okay with holding Denver back?
Look to the New England Patriots to learn to be successful. They have a track record of it. The government doesn't.
Letting? Letting? Letting ISPs throttle is called property rights. Allowing more competition so we have choices that include ISPs not throttling is called the free market.
The big government that you want to regulate is the reason we don't have more competion since the entry costs to enter are high. The same entity you're feeding is biting you in the backside.
Quit reacting to symptoms and treat the cause. Get the government out since it raises costs, decreaces efficiency, and stiffles competition.
The Big Corps Own the government.
They exist in a revolving door between their Corporate Offices and Washington DC
Killing the Big Corporations is the solution then using your analogy.
Ask someone who has a thought process maybe then you'll get it.
lol That's something you made up and is a horrible analogy.
It's about property rights and the free market and regulation. That you want to throw a hissie fit and deflect is on you. NN is also about privacy. Not that you care.
How is it a bad analogy it's spot on. There is a scenario that if enough people drop their provider, the free market would respond but more likely than not you will see collusion between the providers. I think eventually in the next 5 years you will probably see providers naturally lifting the restrictions due to market pressures but it v can be done easier and faster with top down regulations.
I am very confused by your posts.
You do realize that abolishing net neutrality is anti-free market and causes less competition. That is the whole reason why these uncompetitive companies are lobbying. They want government to "legislate" them into existence instead of competing on a level playing field.
Just incase you are confused wit the terms:
My posts are about getting government out of the internet business. Allow ISPs to exercise their constitutional property rights. Allow the free market to reign.
Recognize that government impeds competition by pricing others out of the internet business. That stifles competition.
Those are 2 reasons to keep government out. Does anyone actually think if government did not force internet companies to pay high start up prices, there would not be more competition and lower prices for the people? The high startup costs are passed onto the people. Eventually we pay for it.
Do I want throttling? No
Do I want government to make it illegal? No
You'd be okay with Denver not being able to get a better internet because they can afford it but since other places cannot afford it we'll just have to limit Denver to roughly the same internet other places have. Denver cannot spend more to better their internet. You're okay with holding Denver back?
I would not be OK with that and it has nothing to do with NN. To reiterate once again...... Pay very close attention. What tiers, rates, speeds or anything else that the ISP wants to offer their customer is entirely up to them. If the people of Denver can afford faster internet and the ISP wants to offer them faster speeds they can do that under NN. The only stipulation to that is they are going to provide equal service to all sites and services for the plans they offering to the People of Denver. .
You're understanding of NN is lacking to say the least.
In other words if I download 100MB @ 5Mbps from Netflix and the ISP is charging me $1 they have to charge the same rate at the same speed to download 100MB from CNN, Fox, etc etc.
Just so it's clear if Fox's or CNN's server cannot provide me with 5Mbps Neflix's content will still be delivered at @5Mbps.
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.
That's on you. 
