Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Why Net Nuetrality is bad

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:33:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've not been following this all that closely, but I know that letting a bureaucrat regulate how much internet goes where won't help free speech. First, the companies providing internet are not interested in free speech. They are interested in money. They will give you products and services just so you will give it to them. Dastardly! So lets say GOOGLE has a streaming service, and they want it to outperform Netflix. They will pay more to the providers to provide more internet speed. Let's say it gets to the point that people REALLY like GOOGLE's new streaming service, so that is bogging the system down. The provider will allow Google to get even more bandwidth to deliver lag free Season 4 Ep. 12 Star Trek Voyager to their paying customers. But now Netflix is running out of bandwidth, even though they still have the same number of customers! Netflix customers revolt! "Netflix, why do you suddenly stink?" Hey provider! We pay you to get us bandwidth to our customers, but they're blaming us for your bottleneck! Get with the program, or we'll find someone else! Ok, Ok. Cut back on the Juggle traffic. DDO users revolt! Juggle? Why are you slow now? Juggle says "Provider, get your act together, or we'll find someone else!" Provider says, "Boy, internet demand is only increasing, and if our individual users and gamers and Bitcoin collectors start complaining, we'll have to lower our household rates." Logically, what do they do? Cut back on this or that continuously? They upgrade the infrastructure so everyone is happy! Why do they care if it's libertarian, liberal, or Star Trek? It's all money. When is the last time a provider complained about WHAT legal purpose you put to your 1's and 0's? Allowing the VERY politically motivated government to control who gets how much bandwidth is a guarantee to limit free speech. They already can monitor almost all of it.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:27:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:33:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've not been following this all that closely, but I know that letting a bureaucrat regulate how much internet goes where won't help free speech. First, the companies providing internet are not interested in free speech. They are interested in money. They will give you products and services just so you will give it to them. Dastardly! So lets say GOOGLE has a streaming service, and they want it to outperform Netflix. They will pay more to the providers to provide more internet speed. Let's say it gets to the point that people REALLY like GOOGLE's new streaming service, so that is bogging the system down. The provider will allow Google to get even more bandwidth to deliver lag free Season 4 Ep. 12 Star Trek Voyager to their paying customers. But now Netflix is running out of bandwidth, even though they still have the same number of customers! Netflix customers revolt! "Netflix, why do you suddenly stink?" Hey provider! We pay you to get us bandwidth to our customers, but they're blaming us for your bottleneck! Get with the program, or we'll find someone else! Ok, Ok. Cut back on the Juggle traffic. DDO users revolt! Juggle? Why are you slow now? Juggle says "Provider, get your act together, or we'll find someone else!" Provider says, "Boy, internet demand is only increasing, and if our individual users and gamers and Bitcoin collectors start complaining, we'll have to lower our household rates." Logically, what do they do? Cut back on this or that continuously? They upgrade the infrastructure so everyone is happy! Why do they care if it's libertarian, liberal, or Star Trek? It's all money. When is the last time a provider complained about WHAT legal purpose you put to your 1's and 0's? Allowing the VERY politically motivated government to control who gets how much bandwidth is a guarantee to limit free speech. They already can monitor almost all of it.

It is not an issue of government controlling who gets bandwidth. It is an issue of dealing with an industry that is non-competitive in nature due to the heavy infrastructure costs. As a result of not being competitive customer offerings are not market driven thus there are concerns that all the rich internet content gets squeezed out as big corporations buy all the bandwidth for their services.

Other than getting into satellite I only have AT&T and Time Warner as options for internet.

ps.
Trust me when I say this, the gov can monitor the internet whether there is or isn't net neutrality. the gov is not limiting freedom of speech in this case. They are actually promoting it, by not allowing the largest bidder to get the bandwidth.
Nevearo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:51:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:33:37 PM, Skynet wrote:
I've not been following this all that closely, but I know that letting a bureaucrat regulate how much internet goes where won't help free speech.
This statement seems to be pro net neutrality. Just replace bureaucrat with corporate executive. Net neutrality is about a lack of regulation on content. With net neutrality you pay for volume not content. All that matters is the bandwidth, the physical space your data takes up in the system that connects your point of connection to the Internet backbone.
About companies, you said "They will give you products and services just so you will give it to them."
This is not quite true. They are interested in money yes, but they are interested in getting as much money for the least amount of work. That is why the USA has regulations that are designed to prevent monopolies. In a healthy, well regulated (on a macro level) market you have stiff competition, and effort is what brings in larger cashflow. When top level regulations are lax, locking out competition allows larger cashflow with less work. Why then would an intelligent business owner NOT drive out competition using any means necessary? And why wouldn't they raise the price on critical services everyone must have as a way to increase their cash flow without increasing effort?

Net Neutrality is not about governments monitoring Internet traffic. That is a separate issue. Net neutrality is all about forcing providers to provide based on capacity taken up by data transfer instead of based on the value of the data transferred. OP, I promise you, based on how you spoke about this, the more you learn about net neutrality, the more in favor of it you will be. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it though, educate yourself about it. The guys who are really opposed to it rely on ignorance from people like yourself to allow it to happen. It isn't good for anybody except a very small group of individuals, and those who wish for an easily censorable Internet.
Nevearo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:56:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 11:27:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is not an issue of government controlling who gets bandwidth. It is an issue of dealing with an industry that is non-competitive in nature due to the heavy infrastructure costs. As a result of not being competitive customer offerings are not market driven thus there are concerns that all the rich internet content gets squeezed out as big corporations buy all the bandwidth for their services.
Net Neutrality is about connection of local markets to the backbones. Backbones remain common carriers. Any scarcity is an issue of local infrastructure for the purposes of what is being considered.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:03:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Government control ensures competition because high infrastructure costs is a barrier to entry into the market.

let me use energy markets

Company A owns all the hardware and energy transmission infrastructure to the house. It is in effect a monopoly because Company B is not going to put up the capital expense to put in their own infrastructure to compete with company A.

If a gov wants to control the quasi-monopoly they have to put in regulations such as rules around leasing the infrastructure to company B and ensuring when that infrastructure goes down that Company A who is responsible for repairing it does not ignore the issue to the detriment of Company B and their customers.

TX didn't have any competition in their energy market until they created rules that allowed companies to enter the market because the infrastructure was owned by TXU
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:33:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:03:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Government control ensures competition because high infrastructure costs is a barrier to entry into the market.

let me use energy markets

Company A owns all the hardware and energy transmission infrastructure to the house. It is in effect a monopoly because Company B is not going to put up the capital expense to put in their own infrastructure to compete with company A.

If a gov wants to control the quasi-monopoly they have to put in regulations such as rules around leasing the infrastructure to company B and ensuring when that infrastructure goes down that Company A who is responsible for repairing it does not ignore the issue to the detriment of Company B and their customers.

TX didn't have any competition in their energy market until they created rules that allowed companies to enter the market because the infrastructure was owned by TXU

Do you have any blue state examples? I can't help but feel this is a typical Fed grab for power's sake. I keep remembering the years of anti-trust regulations on Microsoft's IE browser all while technology raced ahead and made the entire discussion irrelevant. Slow Government can't keep up with technology as fast as the private sector. Do you really think Net Neutrality will be straight deregulation? All I hear is regulate this regulate that....
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:42:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:56:49 AM, Nevearo wrote:
At 11/13/2014 11:27:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
It is not an issue of government controlling who gets bandwidth. It is an issue of dealing with an industry that is non-competitive in nature due to the heavy infrastructure costs. As a result of not being competitive customer offerings are not market driven thus there are concerns that all the rich internet content gets squeezed out as big corporations buy all the bandwidth for their services.
Net Neutrality is about connection of local markets to the backbones. Backbones remain common carriers. Any scarcity is an issue of local infrastructure for the purposes of what is being considered.

I think local infrastructure was implied when I said, "competitive customer offerings are not market driven"
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.wired.com...

a great article. Look at the picture of what eveyone things the internet is and what it really is.

Snipit that lends credence to what I have been saying.

Even Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, will tell you that the fast lane idea isn"t what it seems. "The fast lane is not a literal truth," he says. "But it"s a sense that you should have a fair shot." On the modern internet, as Wu indicates, the real issue is that such a small number of internet service providers now control the pipes that reach out to U.S. consumers"and that number is getting even smaller, with Comcast looking to acquire Time Warner, one of its biggest rivals. The real issue is that the Comcasts and Verizons are becoming too big and too powerful. Because every web company has no choice but to go through these ISPs, the Comcasts and the Verizons may eventually have too much freedom to decide how much companies must pay for fast speeds.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:52:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:33:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:03:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Government control ensures competition because high infrastructure costs is a barrier to entry into the market.

let me use energy markets

Company A owns all the hardware and energy transmission infrastructure to the house. It is in effect a monopoly because Company B is not going to put up the capital expense to put in their own infrastructure to compete with company A.

If a gov wants to control the quasi-monopoly they have to put in regulations such as rules around leasing the infrastructure to company B and ensuring when that infrastructure goes down that Company A who is responsible for repairing it does not ignore the issue to the detriment of Company B and their customers.

TX didn't have any competition in their energy market until they created rules that allowed companies to enter the market because the infrastructure was owned by TXU

Do you have any blue state examples? I can't help but feel this is a typical Fed grab for power's sake. I keep remembering the years of anti-trust regulations on Microsoft's IE browser all while technology raced ahead and made the entire discussion irrelevant. Slow Government can't keep up with technology as fast as the private sector. Do you really think Net Neutrality will be straight deregulation? All I hear is regulate this regulate that....

Net Neutrality requires regulation. Supporting deregulation is the same as not supporting net neutrality.

Either one believes that the gov role is to regulate monopolies and non-competitive markets or one does not believe it has that role and does not care about what happens should barriers to enter a market creates non-competitive markets.

I think it is good for capitalism to have healthy competition and recognize that the free market does not support competition in certain environments such as extremely high capital costs to enter a market.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:05:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:52:32 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:33:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:03:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Government control ensures competition because high infrastructure costs is a barrier to entry into the market.

let me use energy markets

Company A owns all the hardware and energy transmission infrastructure to the house. It is in effect a monopoly because Company B is not going to put up the capital expense to put in their own infrastructure to compete with company A.

If a gov wants to control the quasi-monopoly they have to put in regulations such as rules around leasing the infrastructure to company B and ensuring when that infrastructure goes down that Company A who is responsible for repairing it does not ignore the issue to the detriment of Company B and their customers.

TX didn't have any competition in their energy market until they created rules that allowed companies to enter the market because the infrastructure was owned by TXU

Do you have any blue state examples? I can't help but feel this is a typical Fed grab for power's sake. I keep remembering the years of anti-trust regulations on Microsoft's IE browser all while technology raced ahead and made the entire discussion irrelevant. Slow Government can't keep up with technology as fast as the private sector. Do you really think Net Neutrality will be straight deregulation? All I hear is regulate this regulate that....

Net Neutrality requires regulation. Supporting deregulation is the same as not supporting net neutrality.

Either one believes that the gov role is to regulate monopolies and non-competitive markets or one does not believe it has that role and does not care about what happens should barriers to enter a market creates non-competitive markets.

I think it is good for capitalism to have healthy competition and recognize that the free market does not support competition in certain environments such as extremely high capital costs to enter a market.

High Capital Costs didn't stop companies and investors from laying wire into the ground, building railroad tracks, or setting up telephone poles. Infrastructure creation in the private sector had been done, can be done, and most certainly will be done regardless of entry costs. Historically, whenever the government seized control of private assets for the "good of the people" the end result was ALWAYS the same. The average consumer ended up paying a LOT more than before.

Even after Big Standard Oil breakup, oil was never as cheap for the average poor person. Ma Bell breakup caused a huge jump in rates. Let the markets have a chance to deal with this, just like they dealt with Microsoft's "monopoly."

In a country with big dreamers, don't use the inaccurate phrase "Too expensive to get into the business" as and excuse for more Fed grabs for even MORE Crony Capitalism/Fed schemes which infects this country with no end in sight.
slo1
Posts: 4,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 11:05:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:52:32 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:33:44 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:03:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Government control ensures competition because high infrastructure costs is a barrier to entry into the market.

let me use energy markets

Company A owns all the hardware and energy transmission infrastructure to the house. It is in effect a monopoly because Company B is not going to put up the capital expense to put in their own infrastructure to compete with company A.

If a gov wants to control the quasi-monopoly they have to put in regulations such as rules around leasing the infrastructure to company B and ensuring when that infrastructure goes down that Company A who is responsible for repairing it does not ignore the issue to the detriment of Company B and their customers.

TX didn't have any competition in their energy market until they created rules that allowed companies to enter the market because the infrastructure was owned by TXU

Do you have any blue state examples? I can't help but feel this is a typical Fed grab for power's sake. I keep remembering the years of anti-trust regulations on Microsoft's IE browser all while technology raced ahead and made the entire discussion irrelevant. Slow Government can't keep up with technology as fast as the private sector. Do you really think Net Neutrality will be straight deregulation? All I hear is regulate this regulate that....

Net Neutrality requires regulation. Supporting deregulation is the same as not supporting net neutrality.

Either one believes that the gov role is to regulate monopolies and non-competitive markets or one does not believe it has that role and does not care about what happens should barriers to enter a market creates non-competitive markets.

I think it is good for capitalism to have healthy competition and recognize that the free market does not support competition in certain environments such as extremely high capital costs to enter a market.

High Capital Costs didn't stop companies and investors from laying wire into the ground, building railroad tracks, or setting up telephone poles. Infrastructure creation in the private sector had been done, can be done, and most certainly will be done regardless of entry costs. Historically, whenever the government seized control of private assets for the "good of the people" the end result was ALWAYS the same. The average consumer ended up paying a LOT more than before.

Even after Big Standard Oil breakup, oil was never as cheap for the average poor person. Ma Bell breakup caused a huge jump in rates. Let the markets have a chance to deal with this, just like they dealt with Microsoft's "monopoly."

In a country with big dreamers, don't use the inaccurate phrase "Too expensive to get into the business" as and excuse for more Fed grabs for even MORE Crony Capitalism/Fed schemes which infects this country with no end in sight.

Microsoft being found in violation of antitrust regulations and forced to comply with federally derrived rules is REGULATION. You are not arguing deregulation but simply the best way to regulate.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 11:53:41 AM, slo1 wrote:
Microsoft being found in violation of antitrust regulations and forced to comply with federally derrived rules is REGULATION. You are not arguing deregulation but simply the best way to regulate.

You totally missed the point. Advances in the technological private sector outpaced any implemented regulations the government attempted to enforce. The private sector made the issue completely irrelevant. A useless gesture and waste of tax money. The next era in telecommunications will be the same old story, more excuses for the expansion of Crony/Fed capitalism
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:30:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only reason I can fathom such staunch support of the increase of Crony Capitalism in America is because these supporters fervently believe an Elite Oligarchy backed by an Army is the way to prosperity, not a free market controlled by free consumers and regulated by private lawyers.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 12:31:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Well, look at Slo1s post #9:http://www.debate.org.... Basically, you are assuming the laws of demand and supply apply. But what happens in the case of Comcast and Timewarner merging is that they effectively become the demand & supply. If you control the market you control the scarcity.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 12:31:49 PM, fazz wrote:
At 11/13/2014 2:40:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Government control won't promote competition. Scarcity in a free market, however, will. (over time)

Well, look at Slo1s post #9:http://www.debate.org.... Basically, you are assuming the laws of demand and supply apply. But what happens in the case of Comcast and Timewarner merging is that they effectively become the demand & supply. If you control the market you control the scarcity.

You can only control the market if you control the banks and/or the politicians.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:03:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So this is really about monopolies? Even if you think that government intervention is required, why do we need additional laws? This is already covered by anti-trust, right? Life, like that frozen deer those crows have been picking at for the last few days, might not find a way, but the free market can usually do it. So lets say we don't have a choice because GM and Ford and Chrysler control the market, and it's too expensive to start up as a competitor. Guess what, it's not for everyone. Elon Musk is proving that a better way can be made in automotive and space technology. Someone could have easily bought up Saturn and made a success out of it when dottering old GM finally ran into the inevitable. Oh wait, then the government bailed them out. So if your company supports large numbers of politically active constituents (UAW), keeping the monopoly is OK. If you don't, you're fodder for an election. (Verizon, Cable companies)
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.