'Net Neutrality'

[Nick R]

And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?

And I really think it's paranoia. There is no indication the end game is anything close to what people think it is. Landline telephones have been regulated for decades, and free speech on that hasn't been eliminated yet has it? [censored] people, you distrust government but trust big money grubbing corporations. Something is messed up here.


Point is, there is not going to be a big government takeover and censorship of the internet. It's complete and total paranoia. I love how a government agency does something that is in YOU AS THE CONSUMERs best interest and you refuse to take it. How do you live your lives living in constant paranoia that the gubbamint is out to get you and control your lives. Can we have just a MODICUM of common sense and reality here?

 

[pbm]

Back in the 1970's NYC (government) opened OTB (Off Track Betting) which eventually went BANKRUPT. The 'government' couldn't even make money as a bookie (ostensibly because of corruption). I'll take my chances with capitalism rather than
a nanny state.

PS: Did you know that Fidel and Raul Castro are two of the richest men in the world? Governing as been very good to them.


As far a Net Nuetrality goes....do your research and let your elected officials know how you feel....one way or the other...

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Back in the 1970's NYC (government) opened OTB (Off Track Betting) which eventually went BANKRUPT. The 'government' couldn't even make money as a bookie (ostensibly because of corruption). I'll take my chances with capitalism rather than
a nanny state.

PS: Did you know that Fidel and Raul Castro are two of the richest men in the world? Governing as been very good to them.


When the federal government is actually RUNNING an ISP, then come make that argument to me. This is the FCC passing pro-consumer legislation that prevents YOU THE CONSUMER from being exploited.

While I don't want the federal government running an ISP, I would be more than happy if they helped municipalities and towns offer their own high speed low cost internet services. There are many examples of this currently, and nearly all of them operate profitably while providing great service at low prices.

 

[brandini]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

***language

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: dishdude


So every website is supposed to start their own internet service?
Yeah, when they make up 35% of the bandwidth of the internet. http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/net...udy-1201360914/


So explain to me then, where the money that _I_ as a TWC customer pay, is supposed to be going? You are basically saying that it shouldn't go to improving the infrastructure.

here is the deal.

You, me, and everyone else pay their ISP a fee to provide access to the internet. PERIOD. We do not pay them a fee so that they can maybe if they feel like it offer us internet access. I pay $65 so they provide me a gateway to the entire internet. I should be able to use my internet connection for whatever I want. Whether that be streaming videos, downloading anime, posting on BITOG, chatting on IRC, or looking at pictures of cats. I, and millions of other customers pay our ISP to provide us that service. That is their JOB. TO PROVIDE INTERNET TO US, Why people think they should be allowed to take our money and pick and choose what we get based on what they feel is in their interests is beyond me.

 

[javacontour]

One could ask the converse, those who trust big government are paranoid of corporations.

I can fire a corporation. How do you fire the government? If you say elections, you are wrong. These programs and bureaucracies live on from administration to administration.

I see corporations as the less of the two evils. At least they have to provide something of value each day, competing to not get fired by the consumer. The public servant is set in the monolith that never seems go away or get better.

It may not be easy to fire a corporation, but it's far easier than dismantling an unneeded or unresponsive government agency.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?

And I really think it's paranoia. There is no indication the end game is anything close to what people think it is. Landline telephones have been regulated for decades, and free speech on that hasn't been eliminated yet has it? [censored] people, you distrust government but trust big money grubbing corporations. Something is messed up here.


Point is, there is not going to be a big government takeover and censorship of the internet. It's complete and total paranoia. I love how a government agency does something that is in YOU AS THE CONSUMERs best interest and you refuse to take it. How do you live your lives living in constant paranoia that the gubbamint is out to get you and control your lives. Can we have just a MODICUM of common sense and reality here?

 

[Y_K]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..

 

[Win]

Well, if "net neutrality" requires someone to pay more for less, so someone else can pay less for more, it's obvious the former is being exploited for the latter.

I take it you are OK with this type of exploitation?

I don't have a warm fuzzy about the recent govt takeover of healthcare. I see no reason to think government control and regulation of the internet will do anything other than greatly outweigh the small benefits it might, in theory, provide.

The last thing I want to see when I logon is a selfie of our current, or a future, dear leader.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
One could ask the converse, those who trust big government are paranoid of corporations.

I can fire a corporation. How do you fire the government? If you say elections, you are wrong. These programs and bureaucracies live on from administration to administration.

I see corporations as the less of the two evils. At least they have to provide something of value each day, competing to not get fired by the consumer. The public servant is set in the monolith that never seems go away or get better.

It may not be easy to fire a corporation, but it's far easier than dismantling an unneeded or unresponsive government agency.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?

And I really think it's paranoia. There is no indication the end game is anything close to what people think it is. Landline telephones have been regulated for decades, and free speech on that hasn't been eliminated yet has it? [censored] people, you distrust government but trust big money grubbing corporations. Something is messed up here.


Point is, there is not going to be a big government takeover and censorship of the internet. It's complete and total paranoia. I love how a government agency does something that is in YOU AS THE CONSUMERs best interest and you refuse to take it. How do you live your lives living in constant paranoia that the gubbamint is out to get you and control your lives. Can we have just a MODICUM of common sense and reality here?


But see, ISPs are immune to your logic there. I can't "fire" time warner. I have no other options for high speed internet. I could get centurylink, but the fastest speed they offer here is 7mbps- vs the 50 I receive now from TWC. And most other consumers are in the same place. If they can get cable internet at all, they usually only have one choice. Cable or DSL. A lucky few can get fiber. The people who are in the best shape are those who can get google fiber (run by a typically very pro-consumer company) or people who live in towns run by municipal governments.

Corporations in general don't care about the customer. As others have said, their goal is to make as much m oney as possible. This means that they have zero incentive to provide better service unless they are forced to, either through regulation, or competition (which as we've established does not exist in this industry). It's like airlines. One imposes baggage fees, now almost ALL of them have baggage fees. Because it's a way of helping pad the bottom line for shareholders without increasing visible ticket costs. They search for every way to gouge the consumer. And companies in a monopoly position can do this to their hearts content, because they have nothing to lose.

That is the situation now. And that is the reason that some level of regulation is necessary, to keep e level playing field, and be sure consumers aren't taken advantage of.

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
One could ask the converse, those who trust big government are paranoid of corporations.

I can fire a corporation. How do you fire the government? If you say elections, you are wrong. These programs and bureaucracies live on from administration to administration.

I see corporations as the less of the two evils. At least they have to provide something of value each day, competing to not get fired by the consumer. The public servant is set in the monolith that never seems go away or get better.

It may not be easy to fire a corporation, but it's far easier than dismantling an unneeded or unresponsive government agency.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?

And I really think it's paranoia. There is no indication the end game is anything close to what people think it is. Landline telephones have been regulated for decades, and free speech on that hasn't been eliminated yet has it? [censored] people, you distrust government but trust big money grubbing corporations. Something is messed up here.


Point is, there is not going to be a big government takeover and censorship of the internet. It's complete and total paranoia. I love how a government agency does something that is in YOU AS THE CONSUMERs best interest and you refuse to take it. How do you live your lives living in constant paranoia that the gubbamint is out to get you and control your lives. Can we have just a MODICUM of common sense and reality here?



This! I was going to say this about the paranoia comment. A business has to provide something the consumer wants in order to make money. The govt is under no such obligation.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..


And THAT my friend is the problem with publicly traded companies. Companies do not have to give two [censored] about the customer. As long as the shareholder is happy, they do not care one whit about how much their customers hate them.

But yes, it IS my business, because I pay THEM for my service. I wish to god I didn't have to, but sadly that is the case.

 

[javacontour]

I like it when my employer makes profits. Even obscene profits as someone may (wrongly) judge.

If you have a product that consumers want, I think you should be able to profit from it.

If you think an ISP should make less, start up your ISP an provide your service for less money, making less profit.

I'm 100% ok with you deciding how much profit you should make from your business.

I have a major problem with anyone telling another person that they are making too much.

It's not your business to tell another that they can't make so much. That's what freedom is about. You are free to seek a profit goal for your business. You are free to do business or not do business with other businesses. But none should be free to establish "fairness" for others.

If consumers think a companies profits are obscene, they are free to either not buy their goods or services, or get like minded folks to invest their own time, talent and treasure to offer the same or even better service for less.

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
Originally Posted By: javacontour
One could ask the converse, those who trust big government are paranoid of corporations.

I can fire a corporation. How do you fire the government? If you say elections, you are wrong. These programs and bureaucracies live on from administration to administration.

I see corporations as the less of the two evils. At least they have to provide something of value each day, competing to not get fired by the consumer. The public servant is set in the monolith that never seems go away or get better.

It may not be easy to fire a corporation, but it's far easier than dismantling an unneeded or unresponsive government agency.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?

And I really think it's paranoia. There is no indication the end game is anything close to what people think it is. Landline telephones have been regulated for decades, and free speech on that hasn't been eliminated yet has it? [censored] people, you distrust government but trust big money grubbing corporations. Something is messed up here.


Point is, there is not going to be a big government takeover and censorship of the internet. It's complete and total paranoia. I love how a government agency does something that is in YOU AS THE CONSUMERs best interest and you refuse to take it. How do you live your lives living in constant paranoia that the gubbamint is out to get you and control your lives. Can we have just a MODICUM of common sense and reality here?



This! I was going to say this about the paranoia comment. A business has to provide something the consumer wants in order to make money. The govt is under no such obligation.


But in converse, that is why it should be easier to trust the government with stuff like this. They don't stand to GAIN anything. ISPs stand to make less money. And as I've said REPEATEDLY, ISPS do NOT fall under the typical umbrella, as most consumers are STUCK with their ISP, and it's them or nobody. There is no choice, so they are free to provide as low quality service as they want, and there is minimal risk involved.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I like it when my employer makes profits. Even obscene profits as someone may (wrongly) judge.

If you have a product that consumers want, I think you should be able to profit from it.

If you think an ISP should make less, start up your ISP an provide your service for less money, making less profit.

I'm 100% ok with you deciding how much profit you should make from your business.

I have a major problem with anyone telling another person that they are making too much.

It's not your business to tell another that they can't make so much. That's what freedom is about. You are free to seek a profit goal for your business. You are free to do business or not do business with other businesses. But none should be free to establish "fairness" for others.

If consumers think a companies profits are obscene, they are free to either not buy their goods or services, or get like minded folks to invest their own time, talent and treasure to offer the same or even better service for less.

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..


The problem I have is when comopanies making these profits argue that upgrading their infrastructure is "too expensive" to do so. Like when TWC implemented their new modem lease fee. They didn't have to do that. They make more than enough money to buy new modems hundreds of thousands of times over. It was simply another way to gouge the consumer for money.


I simply don't understand people who think that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, screw people over as much as they want, and that's ok because capitalism!

 

[javacontour]

You don't have to pay them. No one holds a gun to your head and says, you have to buy from these folks.

Well, unless it's a government sanctioned monopoly. The only place where monopolies exist in the US are when the federal government steps in and says this good or service can be a monopoly.

So cable may be a monopoly, but you can get your TV from DirecTV or Dish. If you want internet, you can choose Cable or DSL in many areas. Or even wireless internet. (I'm posting using my MiFi hotspot as we speak.)

You complain about high costs and "obscene" profits, and then champion the very solution that makes that possible, government interference.

You are probably too young to remember the days before Ma Bell was broken up. It used to be you had ONE phone provider. Then companies like Sprint and MCI got into the long distance business.

Long distance phone rates dropped dramatically when you could switch from AT&T to another LD provider.

When they were a government sanctioned monopoly, who was competing to keep costs down?

Competition is good. Government supported monopolies are bad.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..


And THAT my friend is the problem with publicly traded companies. Companies do not have to give two [censored] about the customer. As long as the shareholder is happy, they do not care one whit about how much their customers hate them.

But yes, it IS my business, because I pay THEM for my service. I wish to god I didn't have to, but sadly that is the case.

 

[javacontour]

So what? If you don't like it, don't pay it.

Apparently, few consumers complained or dropped their service, so the market was OK with it.

You don't get to be judge and jury over what anyone would or should pay but you.

It's not your place to decide for anyone but yourself. If the new modem fee is too high, don't pay it.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I like it when my employer makes profits. Even obscene profits as someone may (wrongly) judge.

If you have a product that consumers want, I think you should be able to profit from it.

If you think an ISP should make less, start up your ISP an provide your service for less money, making less profit.

I'm 100% ok with you deciding how much profit you should make from your business.

I have a major problem with anyone telling another person that they are making too much.

It's not your business to tell another that they can't make so much. That's what freedom is about. You are free to seek a profit goal for your business. You are free to do business or not do business with other businesses. But none should be free to establish "fairness" for others.

If consumers think a companies profits are obscene, they are free to either not buy their goods or services, or get like minded folks to invest their own time, talent and treasure to offer the same or even better service for less.

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..


The problem I have is when comopanies making these profits argue that upgrading their infrastructure is "too expensive" to do so. Like when TWC implemented their new modem lease fee. They didn't have to do that. They make more than enough money to buy new modems hundreds of thousands of times over. It was simply another way to gouge the consumer for money.

 

[niero]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
And yet these same people who are paranoid of the government trust big corporations whose only incentive is to make as much money as possible without giving a single [censored] about the customer. In what way is that more appealing than the government?


Yes. This. And this is the problem. I think we're all afraid of tyranny / being ruled by a dominating, controlling force.

Typically, (and I'm oversimplifying) the right is usually afraid of being dominated/controlled by a strong central government, and so go the way of deregulation, more power to large corporations.
The left is afraid of domination by corporate interests, and more comfortable with a strong central government.

I know I sound a little "milquetoast centrist/happy, happy, joy, joy/let's all get along" here, but I think we miss workable solutions b/c we just argue back and forth, it's either "this way" or "that way," right/left, etc. Everyone is paranoid that if they give a little or compromise, then the other side will take over the situation. And so we all hold the line but don't get anywhere.


For those on here that say get the gov't out of the neutrality debate, is there a solution that you can think of to stop ISP's from raising prices at will, throttling connection speeds, etc., (a more lefty concern) but with less gov't involvement (a righty concern)?

 

[Nick R]

I don't pay for Television. It's pointless for me because nothing I watch is on American TV anyway. But yes, I have to pay them if I want internet. TWC is the only reasonable option for me. Why?

1. Speed. Nobody around offers as fast internet. I get 50mbps. The next best, Centurylink, offers 7 (for more money, I might add)

2. Data caps. You said mifi. Sure I could do that. And have a tiny data cap that is not even 1/10th of what I need monthly (I average 400-600GB monthly at least). So that's out.

But what you forget is what I'm arguing for is also municipal fiber services. Local governments providing high speed, low cost internet service. That is what I would really like to see. All one has to do is look at Kansas City and Austin, where companies like Google are forcing TWC to be competetive and raise speeds. My friend in texas, for less than I pay for 50/5, has 300/20 now. Competition IS good. The problem is in the ISP industry there is generally la complete LACK of it, and that means that inmost areas the ISPs have no incentive eto do anything for the econsumer.

 

[mcrn]

Exactly. Plus you can choose to buy your own modem and not pay them their monthly fee.

 

[javacontour]

Ahh, but you are wrong.


Look at how many are simply cutting the cord when it comes to cable TV. How many are dropping land line phones in favor of cell phone only?

How many are going to tablets and other wireless network devices?

You don't have to have an ISP. You can get a Mi-Fi device if you think the ISP/Cable company is not playing "fair."

Humanity has survived the majority of it's existence without ISP services. You don't NEED it. You want it, and you want it as cheaply as possible.

I get that.

But let's be honest, that's no more greedy than it is to want to get the most for your service as you can.

If it's too much, go to a coffee shop or library and use free wifi.

You have choices, if you think about it. No one OWES you cheap ISP services.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Nick R
But they already make obscene profits.

None of your business..


And THAT my friend is the problem with publicly traded companies. Companies do not have to give two [censored] about the customer. As long as the shareholder is happy, they do not care one whit about how much their customers hate them.

But yes, it IS my business, because I pay THEM for my service. I wish to god I didn't have to, but sadly that is the case.