Obama ruins the internet

Upchurch said:
It isn't. Network neutrality preserves competition among web properties and allows greater opportunities for innovation.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality is what allows me to use a Magic Jack for local phone service and pay just over $3 a month instead of buying the $20 a month bundled phone package from my cable company or paying even more to the local phone company.
 
Kestrel said:
Net neutrality is what allows me to use a Magic Jack for local phone service and pay just over $3 a month instead of buying the $20 a month bundled phone package from my cable company or paying even more to the local phone company.
Click to expand...

Which is why those companies are against net neutrality.
 
Upchurch said:
As opposed to the increased cost of services like Netflix without network neutrality, which will also be paid for by consumers.

But, even before that, consider the source.
Click to expand...

Even though they are correct, you still add "consider the source"

Is this why you libs are so terribly uninformed!
 
Upchurch said:
As opposed to the increased cost of services like Netflix without network neutrality, which will also be paid for by consumers.

But, even before that, consider the source.
Click to expand...

Someone should start a thread about all the ways Fox News lies to their viewers.
 
Francesca R said:
The thing is, it might still be true.

At least I think it is more likely to be true than the reverse.

Given that, I am not going to support NN just because certain soundbites are "easier to grasp"

ETA--And there isn't actually any implication that fairness (distribution of gains) is impaired.
Click to expand...


Would you support it because the solution you prefer is politically untenable? Kind of the way I support the ACA, not because it's the solution I prefer, but that it is simply the best that can get through?

It isn't like support NN means you have to stop advocating for your solution too does it?
 
Net neutrality is being presented as a change, but in fact it is the status quo. One might expect conservatives to support the existing system and be suspicious of change. But the modern right wing is driven more by hatred of government ans worship of corporate power.

Here is a free clue. Dumping net nutrality will make your cable provider or phone company even more arrogant and greedy than they are today. Web services could end up packaged in bundles just like TV channels.
 
Kestrel said:
Net neutrality is being presented as a change, but in fact it is the status quo. One might expect conservatives to support the existing system and be suspicious of change. But the modern right wing is driven more by hatred of government ans worship of corporate power.
Click to expand...


I, for one, look forward to our new corporate overlords. At least, that is, if we're under the Energy Corporation's control since we'll have the Houston rollberball team led by the amazing Jonathan E!
 
Kestrel said:
But the modern right wing is driven more by hatred of government ans worship of corporate power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those morons. They should be driven by hatred of corporations and worship of government power!
 
Upchurch said:
As opposed to the increased cost of services like Netflix without network neutrality, which will also be paid for by consumers.
Click to expand...
It is incorrect to suggest (as you may be doing) that all changes in costs that businesses face get passed on to consumers.

About as incorrect as suggesting (as some do) that the cost of all minimum wage increases are passed on to customers, or corporate income tax increases are all passed on to consumers.
 
Because costs (or changes in costs) are shared out between shareholders (divvys / price change), customers (prices), employees (remuneration), government (tax receipts) and even suppliers (prices) in varying proportion depending on each agent's price elasticity and bargaining power.
 
Francesca R said:
Ha ha.

Funny how people say competition is the issue though. So it's the issue but you don't want to fix it.
Click to expand...

My first post in a long time. I read through this thread.

Francesca. After reading this thread, this issue has been addressed. Over and over again, many times. The issue of "Lack of competition" is twofold:

First, Comcast generally has monopolies in many different local areas. There is not a whole lot of options, if any, for people to go to a different ISP. And a new ISP startup would be very difficult, very expensive, and very impractical. It has been pointed out that there would be a whole set of brand new lines just for that new ISP.

"But you can implement the UK and NZ way of doing things."

No. We cannot. This, too, has already been explained on many different occasions throughout the thread.

In the UK and NZ, the GOVERNMENT (meaning, the taxpayers) built the infrastructure. They government then allowed private ISPs to obtain those lines, with the idea that they allow other competitors to also utilize those lines on "the last mile." In the NZ, ISPs failed to uphold their end of the bargain, and the government had the right to take the infrastructure back. The infrastructure is not something the ISPs spent their own cash on building. Therefore, it was never theirs to begin with!

Here in the USA, the ISPs are the ones who lay out the lines. Those are what people keep telling you that they "own." It is not legal for the government to just up and "take" that infrastructure from them!

There is eminent domain. But again, this has already been explained. First of all, the politicians who utilize eminent domain will be utterly demonized in major ad campaigns: "The mean old evil dictator commie stole the equipment that we paid for!" Then turn around and raise their prices on their customers using that as an excuse.

The other, main problem is that; if the government did attempt to use eminent domain, private ISPs would still be allowed to use those lines for their own profits. Eminent domain only works if the "taking" of private property is deemed for the public good!

Eminent domain cannot be used if you are taking private property from one business, so that other businesses can profit off the infrastructure.

Here are two examples in order to illustrate the difference between "legal" and "illegal" eminent domain:

A. You own a restaurant. The local (or state) government decides to upgrade the road your restaurant is on into a major arterial highway. This highway would be used by virtually anyone who owns a vehicle. Not necessarily for the purpose of large corporations to make a profit off of. It benefits virtually everyone.

B. You own a restaurant. The local (or state) government decides that your restaurant rests above a major gas deposit that is perfect for drilling. The government decides to attempt to use eminent domain, and give your piece of land to another company to make their own profits. This illegal, because your land would ultimately only be used for the purpose of another private business to make money. Not for everyone (meaning all taxpayers) to freely use.

See the difference? The USA, remember, has completely different laws from NZ. You must understand those laws, if you are going to debate those points.

So no. The USA cannot do what you have stated. Or rather, it can. But it would cost the nation billions, besides being highly impractical, to build a duplicate infrastructure all over the continent that private companies have already built! And no government in America; local, state, or federal; has the right to just "take" that privately-built infrastructure (assets) from private companies. Not to mention, it would literally be political suicide if anyone even tried.

Francesca R said:
And ISPs do not have to own their own set of local wires either.
Click to expand...

But they DO! You have not yet demonstrated how, exactly, to make it so that they don't own those local wires!

Because we cannot just up and say: "Oh! There should be more competition!" The next best thing, would be to implement rules that the monopolistic ISP cannot throttle back your access (that YOU already paid for) to any particular website.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom