Who else fell for the "net neutrality" meme?
It's just another example of over reaching government. We DO NOT need ENFORCED "net neutrality" - what we need is COMPETITION within the private sector. To increase competition we need less barrier to entry which entails less regulations and restrictions on startups. If we continue to let special interest groups create barriers for small businesses via the state then we will continue to have poor service! Regulation is bad for consumers.
>>52126157
Telco please go.
You're fucking retarded
Quality thread
>>52126181
>implying Telco gives a shit about some mongolian manga forum
>>52126191
authoritarian detected
>>52126157
Net Neutrality is one of the few times I support government regulation. Even the great stallman likes the idea of Net Neutrality
>>52126157
Back to the gas chamber with you, criminal scum!
>>52126157
wheres that picture of the ISP advertisement charging for different websites?
>>52126211
>Even the great stallman likes the idea of Net Neutrality
This surprises me somewhat. I took him to be a smart guy, but it's clear he has no consistency. The guy even takes dosh from the government.
>>52126233
>implying jews want less regulation
fuck off Shlomo
But american ISPs are a Oligarchy, it's not like people can choose a net neutral ISP.
It's meant to protect the free market though. So that big players cant drive all the little guys off the internet.
>>52126257
It's almost like regulation created the worst case scenario. The answer is less restriction.
>>52126266
>REGULATION protecting the FREE market
fuck off
>>52126200
Non neutrality is regulation, moron. It's corporations using their monopoly power to regulate through pricing.
"You have video streaming service? We're gonna charge you so much for bandwidth that you'll have to charge your customers $500/mo just to break even. Our own streaming service priced at $150/mo will look like a bargain in comparison!"
I'll take $10/mo Netflix instead, thank you very much.
>>52126157
>We need MORE startups
>>52126298
>Non neutrality is regulation, moron.
This is incorrect, don't fall for this bullshit, /g/. Net neutrality is regulation by definition, and the lack of regulation is NOT regulation.
>>52126318
I bet you're one of those people who complains about monopolies, too.
>>52126293
Ever heard of antitrust laws, dumbass?
Major ISP's don't compete, they simply don't. They have well defined regions where there are no other choices for Internet Service at any level. You either choose to pay the ISP in your region or go without. That ISP can charge what ever they fucking want because they know you can't go anywhere else. Comcast is the worst fucking offender due to their absolutely made up, arbitrary and pointless data caps
>>52126157
Enjoy your traffic shaping, retarded data caps, slow speeds and high costs. But hey, it's free market, you're free to switch to another ISP that doesn't jew on you too much, right? :^)
>>52126157
I think you fell for the "muh freemarket will fix it" meme
>>52126341
Yes, I have. It's just a way to obfuscate supply and demand in markets. The free market can handle fair competition.
>>52126368
I've already explained this in the OP.
>>52126378
Ass blasted marxist detected.
>>52126378
>>52126383
We should have laws against the free market and let the government regulate everything, we can't trust the free market to not fuck us over.
>>52126391
>we can't trust individuals to do the right thing
>so we should trust a group of individuals to do the right thing
Nobody is fooled.
>>52126383
I fail to see how neutrality kills free market... Anyways, it's already a fucking monopoly, that's the complete opposite of free market you dumbfuck.
>>52126422
>Anyways, it's already a fucking monopoly,
duopoly
>>52126422
>it's already a fucking monopoly
>>52126293
>>52126434
Still bad
>>52126437
>the duopoly was caused by net neutrality
Really?
>>52126466
>net neutrality is the only regulation affecting ISPs
Do you understand what you're saying? Do you know how to construct an argument? Get back to your intro to programming class, mate. Maybe you can learn some logic.
>>52126157
The telcos and corporate fuck-heads have certainly confused many people in the U.S. with their negative propaganda about Net neutrality. Watching it from afar is quite amusing and scary at the same time - it's like watching subjects being brainwashed in a lab experiment. Some critical thought would certainly help but sadly it's not taught in many schools.
>>52126348
This
>>52126383
enjoy the million dollars medical bills, my american friend
>>52126157
> what we need is COMPETITION within the private sector
Well, we're not getting it. It's been about 17 years since the rollout of cable modem / DSL service began, and competition has not improved at all.
So instead of talking about something that's never going to happen, let's take a cold, hard look at the reality: we have a system of service monopolies that's totally entrenched, and the politicians who let it happen have already been bought and paid for. So the only way forward is to regulate those monopolies, the same way we regulate all the other monopolies that provide us electric power, gas, telephone, and various other utilities that demand the privilege of a monopoly in exchange for building out expensive infrastructure.
Learn where capitalism works, and where it doesn't. Sure, capitalism is great for making sure we all can get cheap computers and cars and refrigerators. But profit-seeking capitalism is a poor system for massive infrastructure investment -- and so we either have government take over the infrastructure (like public roads, etc.) or else we allow monopolies and then regulate the hell out of them (like electric power, etc.). Pick one or the other -- either way works. But allowing unregulated capitalistic monopolies to abuse the motherfucking shit out of customers has never given us anything other than horrible results, and ISPs aren't going to be some magic exception to that rule. (Ever wonder why the USA has such crappy Internet speeds compared to a lot of other countries? Hint: It's not because we lack the technology.)
>>52126541
I'm not in America, but I wouldn't mind living there.
>>52126549
>lets settle for shit because it's TOO HARD to have a good system :(:(
Kill yourself, pinko.
>>52126549
This
Verizon came to my region with Fiber about 10 years ago, yea the speeds have gone up little by little but at the time we already had the ability for fiber to go beyond 100mb/s and far beyond that too. Now Fiber Quantum comes around and they charge more for what is only 50up/down
meanwhile time warner cable hasn't upgraded any of their internet service packages, its the same coaxial shit we've been using for over 30 years, the same stupid ass speed of 30down 5up which is slow as ass in comparison
>>52126549
>Hint: It's not because we lack the technology.
This post is so fucking right on the money it hurts.
>>52126157
>14 year old that just read Ayn Rand for the first time
>doesn't realize the important role of the rule of law to ensuring free markets
>doesn't understand what anti-competitive business practices are
>Has no idea what a natural monopoly is
Grow up.
>>52126573
we have a good system, but if we don't regulate it it will fuck us like it's been doing for the past 20+ years
>>52126616
Libertarians are basically the I got my money, go fuck yourself party. If we got a libertarian society, we would be living in a world where we had to pay to have fire department or police services, those who can't pay won't get any.
>>52126549
>>52126597
>>52126607
and the authoritarians come to show their true light. No different than SJWs and Fascists - except for the fact that you're moderates. You types basically lack conviction and consistency.
>>52126616
>laws ENSURING free markets
You don't know what you're talking about, may I suggest any economics text book?
>Has no idea what a natural monopoly is
I know what they are. They sure seem to show up quite often in a system with lots of regulation (i.e. any modern democratic country like Canada or the US).
>>52126661
>Libertarians are basically the I got my money, go fuck yourself party.
Not a libertarian, but it's pretty clear that you're straw-manning. Harm yourself, marxist.
i wonder if people only read/learned about the beginning of Wealth of Nations and concluded that this philosophy from the motherfucking 18th century is still relevant, not to mention the author himself disproves his own thesis and concludes that unregulated markets are a bad idea
>>52126692
You talk shit because you can't argue facts and reason. Full of ad hominem and baseless assumptions. You know nothing about much of anything which explains how butthurt you are. Get fucked.
But this regulation forces telcos to let in competitors are you retarded?
>>52126573
>muh impractical idealism
>muh all or nothing
Literally teenager mentality
>>52126157
Can you explain how net neutrality is a regulation/restriction that harms competition, creates barriers to entry, and hurts startups? If anything you would think it would benefit small startups since they won't be able to get partnerships with other companies as well as larger corporations in the business as they lack influence and funds.
Not all regulations and restrictions create barriers to entry, and not all regulations and restrictions are bad, you kike-shill cucklord.
>>52126157
YES, You're fucking retarded
>It's just another example of over reaching government. We DO NOT need ENFORCED "net neutrality" - what we need is COMPETITION within the private sector. To increase competition we need less barrier to entry which entails less regulations and restrictions on startups.
Explain to me how net neutrality reduces competition in the private sector. What aspects of net neutrality hurt small businesses? How does net neutrality lead to poor service?
Regulations are not necessarily harmful.
>>52126772
>Can you explain how net neutrality is a regulation/restriction that harms competition, creates barriers to entry, and hurts startups?
Finally, a post with a decent argument. Personally, I want the least amount of precedent for the addition of other regulations and restrictions. You have a great argument here, though.
>you kike-shill cucklord
>ii-if you disagree with me then ur a jew!
>>52126692
Actually, it is you that needs to read a few economics textbooks if you cannot even grasp the importance of the rule of law to the proper functioning of free markets.
Pro-tip: if you are to the right of Milton Friedman on a question of economics you are in lunatic land.
>>52126722
This
Fucker is running up against the biggest problem for net neutrality opponents- there's no good argument against it other than "I'm an ISP and want more money."
There is no meaningful competition in American internet service. I can't leave Charter because there's not another damn option and they know it.
Net neutrality keeps competition alive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron libertarian teenager.
>>52126907
>Pro-tip: if you are to the right of Milton Friedman on a question of economics you are in lunatic land.
Not an argument.
>>52126336
>I bet you're one of those people who complains about monopolies, too.
I never liked that game.
>>52127003
Me either. Promotes greed.
>>52126692
>>laws ENSURING free markets
>You don't know what you're talking about, may I suggest any economics text book?
People have a vastly different definition of what "free market" means. How it gets defined is strongly determined by political affiliations.
Some people interpret "free market" to mean: "companies are FREE to do whatever the fuck they want to their customer or competitors, and nobody -- especially the government -- has any right to interfere". That's a definition that capitalists can support.
Other people interpret "free market" to mean: "customers have the right to FREEly choose who to buy from, and must have FREE access to information so they can make informed choices". That definition is absolute poison to our current capitalist culture, and corporations fight as hard as they can to prevent that kind of free market from ever occurring.
So don't get all up on your high horse about the meaning of the phrase "free market". Different people use it differently, and economists acknowledge that they've essentially lost control over that term because it's degenerated into nothing but a political buzzword.
>>52126879
Saying that net neutrality regulations impede competition and hurt small businesses, is like saying that regulations against scam and fraud hurt small businesses. Non net neutrality is just a way for ISPs to bilk more money out of consumers and businesses without actually offering a better product.
>>52126513
Just look at what happened with discussions about adblockers.
You see people unironically telling you to not use adblockers because it would hurt the sites/youtubers/whatever.
http://harmful.cat-v.org/words/
uriel was right
>>52126928
You are right, I'm not arguing with you, since you are obviously trolling or an underage b& who just discovered libertarianism.
The very economics textbooks you point to refute your nonsense thoroughly enough that I don't have to waste my time.
>>52127143
>just discovered libertarianism.
As mentioned before, I'm not a libertarian. Nor am I an ancap.
>the assblasted poltard itt
>>52126249
This one?
>>52127570
>>52126879
>he doesn't shitpost in shitpostan threads
>not even a little
OP is clearly just a memer it's ok to meme it up a bit
>>52127616
>>>52126879 (You)
>>he doesn't shitpost in shitpostan threads
>>not even a little
>OP is clearly just a memer it's ok to meme it up a bit
What if I told you I am the OP?
More companies is a great idea, go find them first. Until you've found them don't propose we remove regulations designed to prevent anti-competitive behavior
>>52127869
Wait, so are we happy with the current system or not? Is there anti-competitive behavior or not? Either the system is fine and we keep regulation in place, or the system is bad and we remove regulations.
>>52126157
>muh government can do not good meme
enjoy your roads
I'm worried about people aged >18 who still fall for the "le free market will fix it" meme 2bh
>>52127924
System is fucked, net neutrality is meant to prevent the remaining companies from abusing their extremely favorable position in the market and keep out smaller competitors. Note that you don't have to remove net neutrality to let more companies in, when there's more competition the market begins to shape itself to be more neutral anyway. So net neutrality is basically harmless and only enforces what should be standard behavior anyway.
>>52128071
Also your argument appears to be a fallacy. You assert that we can either be extremely happy with the current system or extremely upset when in reality you can like some parts of it and hate others. For instance I like that some states have municipal fiber networks that kick the shit out of comcast/verizon/att/etc networks. But I also hate that those same giant companies basically own the federal government and use their influence to stop smaller companies from getting ahead in other states. I definitely do want to see these giant companies get broken up into hundreds of smaller companies but until that can happen letting them decide what competitors can compete with them is not how the free market is supposed to work. Net neutrality says Comcast is not allowed to obstruct a competitor's service to make their own service look good. Highly competitive private companies like Google aren't always available in areas so the free market does have its limits and that's where the government should step in. Also there's currently NOTHING stopping Google from becoming the next Comcast in 10-20 years time. Don't get too comfortable with Google fiber.
>>52126181
AT&T was one of the major pushers for "net neutrality"
>>52128518
Uh, didn't they mention something like net neutrality would put a dent to their fiber expansion?
>>52126157
America is a failed experiment. The balance is all wrong. Theres too much capitalism in all the wrong places and too much socialism in all the wrong places. I'm out of this motherfucker in 5 years, tops.
>>52126157
>>52129937
This is the only comment here that's in any way accurate.
Americans have no idea how beneficial government regulation is to the general public. The global economic meltdown that happened in 2008 is what happens when you let powerful and highly influential industries go un-regulated.
That's not to say everything needs to be regulated out the ass, but the right balance is so important. The constitution is a brilliant document in that it limits the powers of the government, but it completely failed to account for how influential privately owned corporations would become. You need a similar document that limits the power of corporations that become a certain size, because while the government has the ultimate say in how things are run, so many privately owned corporations are very much in control of certain aspects of the legal system and government operations. Just look at how rampant lobbying is in the States and you'll see.
The government isn't the big bad boogey man that it's made out to be and government regulation has it's benefits.
