|
|
#21
12-06-2006, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I just disagree. Perhaps there is a little pinko commie inside of me or something. I view internet access much like a utility. Like electricity, you need x amps, get get x amps. It doesn't care what you use it for. I dont like the fact that internet content could be affected by somebody's or some company's agenda. [/ QUOTE ] If you are really worried about content being influenced by interest groups then the last thing you want to do is give government the reins to the internet. The FCC says hi. [/ QUOTE ] I've seen some pretty seedy [censored] on the 'net that definately wouldn't pass FCC muster. I just want hands off, both sides with regard to content. Sell a bigger pipe. 
|
|
#22
12-06-2006, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
1) We the people who give them the right to incorporate, put up and use telephone polls everywhere, allow them to have monopolies here and there and give them tax breaks/incentives do not want them to. [/ QUOTE ] I allow you to live rather then going to your house and shooting you. You now have an obligation to do whatever I want you to do. [ QUOTE ] 2) It would make everything less efficient, more expensive, and way more annoying [/ QUOTE ] This is an argument AGAINST net neutrality, right? Iron, Thanks a ton for the link!
|
|
#23
12-06-2006, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you have some sort of right to other people's services at conditions of your choosing? [/ QUOTE ] bingo It's fundamentally a moral issue. The government should not be telling companies what they can and can't do with their own bandwidth. [/ QUOTE ] It's not a moral issue, its a policy issue. The government already says a company can be the sole provider of cable broadband for this area (monopoly of service), alrady gives it the right to incorporate. Like it or not, but government and regulation control the industry and will always. The question is HOW not whether. Netneutraility is the simplest way to provide the most benefit for the most people.
|
|
#24
12-06-2006, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) We the people who give them the right to incorporate, put up and use telephone polls everywhere, allow them to have monopolies here and there and give them tax breaks/incentives do not want them to. [/ QUOTE ] I allow you to live rather then going to your house and shooting you. You now have an obligation to do whatever I want you to do. [/ QUOTE ] Get over yourself. Their very existence is due to things like eminent domaine (you think that you have the right to keep that guy wire off of your lawn... well, you don't). You are effectively arguing that no matter the public might concede to a telco, that telco can do whaterver the [censored] it wants whenever. That's not how it has ever been, that's not how it should be and hopefully that is not how it will be. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 2) It would make everything less efficient, more expensive, and way more annoying [/ QUOTE ] This is an argument AGAINST net neutrality, right? [/ QUOTE ] Of course not
|
|
#25
12-06-2006, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 2) It would make everything less efficient, more expensive, and way more annoying [/ QUOTE ] This is an argument AGAINST net neutrality, right? [/ QUOTE ] How does a bunch of companies paying another bunch of companies a bunch of money to give them preferential service over another bunch of companies EVER translate into a good deal for the consumer where it is more efficient and less expensive? Are you looking at this as a souce of revenue for the ISPs to invest in better 'tubes'? Because it so doesnt sound like that is the case.
|
|
#26
12-06-2006, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
1) We the people who give them the right to incorporate, put up and use telephone polls everywhere, allow them to have monopolies here and there and give them tax breaks/incentives do not want them to. [/ QUOTE ] This is fairly convoluted, not the least because "we the people" basically did none of these things. Our government did these things. And to the degree which government has given telecoms special privileges (limited liability etc.) it should stop. But that's no reason for it to violate the property rights of these companies. [ QUOTE ] 2) It would make everything less efficient, more expensive, and way more annoying. [/ QUOTE ] Efficient - I doubt it. Where bandwidth is scarce, net neutrality would prevent it from being allocated to those people/companies that could make the best use of it. Surely that would hamper efficiency. More expensive - well, maybe for those who need the most bandwidth or require the most stability, but for the most part I doubt much would change - bandwidth is fairly cheap. Also with markets come the incentives to innovate and make internet service faster and more stable, while such incentives would be stifled by net neutrality. Annoying - same arguments above apply here.
|
|
#27
12-06-2006, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
I view internet access much like a utility. [/ QUOTE ] How does that make it any better? The monopolies government gives out for "utilities" is the reason Comcast's customer service is so terrible that I can't stand dealing with them and thus don't have cable.
|
|
#28
12-06-2006, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I view internet access much like a utility. [/ QUOTE ] How does that make it any better? The monopolies government gives out for "utilities" is the reason Comcast's customer service is so terrible that I can't stand dealing with them and thus don't have cable. [/ QUOTE ] It may be part of the reasons but it is not the reason. All customer service in this country is terrible. Look at AOL. It's not because of the monopoly, it's because of the service structure we have come to permit (or accept). And they basically already are like a utility, and this would not be impacted by repealing net-neutrality laws.
|
|
#29
12-06-2006, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
Get over yourself. Their very existence is due to things like eminent domaine (you think that you have the right to keep that guy wire off of your lawn... well, you don't). [/ QUOTE ] Actually I DO have that right, it's just that the governent doesn't recognize it and violates it. [ QUOTE ] You are effectively arguing that no matter the public might concede to a telco, that telco can do whaterver the [censored] it wants whenever. That's not how it has ever been, that's not how it should be and hopefully that is not how it will be. [/ QUOTE ] I'm effectively arguing for no regulation whatsoever. Government provided monopolies is one of those.
|
|
#30
12-06-2006, 11:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WOW just saw the anti net-neutrality \"mumbo jumbo\" ad
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I view internet access much like a utility. [/ QUOTE ] How does that make it any better? The monopolies government gives out for "utilities" is the reason Comcast's customer service is so terrible that I can't stand dealing with them and thus don't have cable. [/ QUOTE ] It may be part of the reasons but it is not the reason. All customer service in this country is terrible. Look at AOL. It's not because of the monopoly, it's because of the service structure we have come to permit (or accept). [/ QUOTE ] This is just flat-out false.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
