Net neutrality.

[rainfall]

I think this is a politic issue. While we're still able to, let's discuss.

[htb]

It may have faltered after a few pages, but another thread was begun a few months ago.


While we're still able toIf that's alarmist, it's unnecessary. The issue isn't "net neutrality" but a choice between price controls in favor of content providers and the current regulatory system, under which broadband providers may price services as they wish.

[rainfall]

So if this page loaded 3 times slower tommorow, that would be fine?

[htb]

So by "discuss," you meant "trade pro-regulation hyperbole"?

Does UPS routinely misplace or delay Ground parcels? ...No?

[rainfall]

No, just wanted opinions and thoughts. Are we losing internet, or at least the freedom it offered at first? Is it becoming a stricter medium, where your blog will load extremely slow because it's not corporate property? Is there something we could do? Does this matter at all?

Oh and thanks for being an idiot,htb.

[meshou]

If that's alarmist, it's unnecessary. The issue isn't "net neutrality" but a choice between price controls in favor of content providers and the current regulatory system, under which broadband providers may price services as they wish.1) They are creating a "service" out of thin air to pay for...

2) Supporting and building infrastructure they just got billions of dollars from the government (FOR FREE) to build and still have billions left over, but they want the new money to build more despite...

3) A few tens of thousands of "dark wire" which isn't even being used, and every single one of them turning enough of a profit to both support and build more infastructure while still making a profit.


This is not a pure capitalist system, it is a mixed system. We regularly support companies which would fail financially in oder to strengthen the economy, especially with conserctives in power. They just turn around and pretend it's capitalist again when it comes to protecting individual rights-- whoops, can't regulate THAT!

The internet is the main way we exchange information now. No, I don't think it's too much to expect companies which have happily leeched billions of dollars from us not to charge us for the same damn thing twice.

No, I don't think tyranny in the form of a hulking information monopolies (Hello, SBC and Time Warner!) is better than tyranny of a currently comparaiticely weak state.

There are four branches of government. The last is economic and needs checked.

[htb]

No, just wanted opinions and thoughts. / Oh and thanks for being an idiot, htb.Slight contradiction, there; you received several opinions and thoughts, one of them drawn from the suspicion that you weren't expecting people to disagree with you.


There are four branches of government.How does one mitigate government interference through more government interference?

We may as well talk about airline bailouts or automotive resuscitation. As long as the average number of local service providers increases, hypothetical blackouts are unlikely to withstand action by the state or an offending company's competition. Beyond that, "net neutrality" is groundless, since it's a prescription for the conjectural. If the word is deregulation -- by all means, let's have it.

[rainfall]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tonnz59uIs

[meshou]

How does one mitigate government interference through more government interference? My point was the economy is basically an unchecked political branch, and that tyranny is tyranny.


If the word is deregulation -- by all means, let's have it.I'd rather be assured companies wouldn't knock us over and take our money if we let them.

Contraty, to popular belief, capitalism rewards serving money, not serving consumers, and if they can take consumer choice out of the picture efficently, they will do so, and have done so in the past.