FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

BlueFireIce said:
Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
Click to expand...

The best part about this wall of text is that none of it is actually relevant to net neutrality. So, good job attempting to derail the thread!
 
this is some high level bullshit. right up there with Pai paving the way for right wing mega corp sinclair media to gobble up as many stations as it wants.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
Click to expand...

God you're naive. Corporations have only one objective. That's to make as much money as possible. They will do just about anything to achieve that. They will lie, cheat, and steal to achieve that. Common sense regulations are the only thing keeping them from running around basically unchecked.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
Click to expand...

Wheeler brought about net neutrality the easiest way they could. Removing net neutrality will not change anything you wrote for the better. Its a horse shit argument to trick people into thinking net neutrality is bad. NN has absolutely nothing to do with ISPs having monopolies and you know that and are just spewing FUD and horse shit. NN is the best thing for 99.99999% of the US. The only people it hurts is the ISPs that want to turn the internet into packages like cable and charge you extra to not have your site traffic throttled. And do not start with the throttling politician speak, throttling is anything that slows the traffic whether it is at the packet/software level or the hardware level, if it has the same result it is the same damn thing.
 
travisty said:
Everyone should petition their local governments for city run fiber. F all the telecoms.
Example: Longmont Colorado's Nextlight Fiber Internet. $50 / month for 1 gig up/down.
https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/de...ngmont-power-communications/broadband-service

It's a hard fought battle that's totally worth it in the end!
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that a town in NC created their own municipal service with cable, telephone, and Internet a few years ago. Everyone loved it, but the local providers took them to court and won.
 
Good Net Neutrality is about giving all content an even shake. People will gravitate to the best content.
 
kamikazi said:
I'm pretty sure that a town in NC created their own municipal service with cable, telephone, and Internet a few years ago. Everyone loved it, but the local providers took them to court and won.
Click to expand...

I think that depends more on state law application, in the NC town's case. Chattanooga, TN has rolled their own ISP to great effect. I do not foresee any of Colorado's laws preventing Fort Collins from making their own.
 
Master_shake_ said:
Your friends represent 33 million people?
Click to expand...

It wasn't my experience either. While perfectly correct that a handful of anecdotes do not completely represent 33 million, that does not substantiate your "6 months to a year" claim. It's very possible that someone did wait 6 months to a year for health care, I just don't know anyone who did. (And I know quite a few people in Canada. Also, I lived there.)

I'll tell you what I do know: five of my friends (in their 20s and 30s, no less) have had to declare bankruptcy here in the states because of medical expenses. That does not happen in Canada.
 
dj_spanmaster said:
It wasn't my experience either. While perfectly correct that a handful of anecdotes do not completely represent 33 million, that does not substantiate your "6 months to a year" claim. It's very possible that someone did wait 6 months to a year for health care, I just don't know anyone who did. (And I know quite a few people in Canada. Also, I lived there.)

I'll tell you what I do know: five of my friends (in their 20s and 30s, no less) have had to declare bankruptcy here in the states because of medical expenses. That does not happen in Canada.
Click to expand...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-care-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718

these good enough to satiate my claim?
 
mavrocket said:
And after they do, I want to see all the whiny girls here and all over the nets that have a religious like devotion to the sky is falling regarding NN notice absolutely nothing change.

*Raises shields, prepares for impact.
Click to expand...

I suppose the one consolation I have when this crap actually passes is the people who thought it was "No big deal" or they "couldn't be bothered" are going to be getting screwed just as hard. At least I can take solace in that I stood up against this kind of garbage..you on the other hand will have to live with the knowledge that you supported it.
 
Master_shake_ said:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-care-wait-times-hit-20-weeks-in-2016-report-1.3171718

these good enough to satiate my claim?
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes, based on the Fraser reports. They represent some pretty seriously challenged surveying, not to mention that they release biased reports with politically influential intent. Also, their methodology is scurrilous at best:

"The Fraser report is very deceptive because they add to the time between scheduling a procedure and completing a procedure the time for the routine request by a generalist for a consultation, and the time for the specialist to complete the full evaluation before deciding on the specific management. If you separate these out, most of the intervals are quite reasonable. The 19 week wait reported by Fraser has little meaning, since it does not represent the time between scheduling a procedure and completing it."​
 
dj_spanmaster said:
Agreed, while the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did a lot of good, it was outdated pretty quickly (in fact, the telecom lobby had much to do with that, thanks to the 90's Republican Congress and President Clinton). Among many things it did wrong (media consolidation, barf), those ISP contracts that lead to regional monopolies/duopolies. That is the very antithesis of free market business. Once Comcast had competition, their service was much more affordable.

But it's unclear how you intended this to apply to Net Neutrality. Treating all network traffic as equal is not the same as only allowing one competitor in a market.
Click to expand...

You do understand that this would change ISPs to title II, the same that allowed Ma Bell to become the monster that it was? You talk about understanding that the problems we have now are due to past and current regulation that allows them extra-market control such as IP, FCC licensing, antitrust law, big business favoritism etc. The mob that is the greatest threat to online privacy freedom, and rights will protect us? Whats that saying? Oh, right, “We’re from the government. And we’re here to help.” it is another example of the state’s creating a crisis and using this as a justification to seize more power under the pretense of saving the people from the crisis that it caused.

Also, one of the first big impacts shown by NN rules was not even positive, but the pressure on T-mobile and it's offering given services to not count to data caps, allowing you to stream them for free. But nope, thats not fair, cant allow evil people to give stuff away free.

dj_spanmaster said:
I understand the reasons just fine. My time at the Public Service Commission and utilities were pretty informative. We are both saying how monopolies and oligopolies are problems. But you don't make those things go away by removing all rules and regulations.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, as the only monopolies that have existed have ALL been due to government enforcement. If you wish to ignore history, that is your choice.



dj_spanmaster said:
say it's fine actually, and I know so because I've lived in Canada and the EU. I don't buy those conservative talking points.
Click to expand...

Again, you link to "fun tours" of politicians who have vested gain to come from this, but no actual statistics on service, wait times, levels of service or costs. You also ignore the rationing of service, the top quality doctors leaving to work in other countries (for better pay), and the new rules coming out of the EU on more and more things that will not be covered because wow, they are now just figuring out that medical care, just like any other service is scarce. If you wish to go more into this, PM me as it's way off topic.



dj_spanmaster said:
Well, no, it's because we have different market forces at work, due to having more disposable income.
Click to expand...

So because you said so, got it.


dj_spanmaster said:
To be fair, I did say it was an outlandish analogy, designed to illustrate the natural monopoly that exists in our landline internet markets. Granted, I cannot stop you from rejecting that analogy on the basis of it being my agenda. I am the debbil after all.
Click to expand...

And how exactly did that show anything to do with the mobile data plans? Other than trying to twist it a FULL 180 from what is happening? I reject it for being a lie, not just a bad analogy, but a straight out lie.

I mean good GOD, you are taking a company that was first posted as being the pinnacle of evil un-regulated markets, because just like here, they failed to understand what is actually going on. When I correct that, to show that it is a cheaper option being given that can be turned off at will, and that their data plans are cheaper than ours to even start with, you come up with some story about how they are somehow abusing people by giving them more and cheaper options? I am serious, how does that even work or come together in your head?

ZacharyS said:
The best part about this wall of text is that none of it is actually relevant to net neutrality. So, good job attempting to derail the thread!
Click to expand...

If you think that, it would seem you understand very little about NN and regulation.

percydaman said:
God you're naive. Corporations have only one objective. That's to make as much money as possible. They will do just about anything to achieve that. They will lie, cheat, and steal to achieve that. Common sense regulations are the only thing keeping them from running around basically unchecked.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that companies are not out to make money? That is the whole point, it's not a charity, nor should it be. What government regulation allows is regulator capture that allows large companies the ability to capture a single regulator rather than trying to convince an entire market it's service is worth having over someone else. This "common sense regulation" is the EXACT same thing people said when they were pushing to let government own and control ROWs, which is what ALLOWED companies to lock out other ISPs, the very thing they claimed would happen (even though it wasn't) is exactly what happened when that market was handed over to government. As above, the government creates a crisis (even if the original idea for it is good) and then uses that crisis to grab more control of the market, when all it has to do is allow the system to go back to how it was before, that was working just fine. To understand nothing of the history and how this always works, but to call me naive....

The difference in us is not that I like corporations, but rather you like the State, while I trust neither.
 
Yeah, I know, this is way off topic from NN. I'm a Liberal who is quite willing to interact with Republicans for furthering the greater good of our country. (USA, for those who reside elsewhere.)

I'm sure that there are quite a few Hardforum folks who support President Trump, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. One of the best things about America is that we can disagree about things without fear of repercussions.

Having two parties is ridiculous. Why should it be My way, or Your way? It's a fucked up political mindset. I know I sound naive. But I do understand the corruption of our government, both parties. Having former lobbyists running federal organizations is an amazingly horrible idea. Just like letting high-ranking military officers retire and then instantly start working for defense contractors.

Corruption.

Most politicians don't give a fuck about their constituents. They don't "represent" anybody. They just want to be re elected. To be clear, that's both parties.

Even Obama, I think he was a great president, even though he was born in Siberia, just to be nominated by his party, he had to make so many promises to so many groups, and people, once elected, like every president before him, he was hamstrung.


And now we have President Trump.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Yes you do, as the only monopolies that have existed have ALL been due to government enforcement. If you wish to ignore history, that is your choice.
Click to expand...

That is quite literally all I needed to know. On this, you are completely backwards and wrong. You illustrate complete ignorance of the actual histories of unregulated monopolies in our country, many of which reinforced the Gilded Age's issues. Breaking up those monopolies is the whole reason why many of our regulatory commissions exist.
 
Wyodiver said:
Having two parties is ridiculous. Why should it be My way, or Your way? It's a fucked up political mindset.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed. It's actually a control mechanism by the parties on top, an oligopoly (either explicit or tacit) enforced by the first past the post voting system we have. CGP Grey's done a great job at illustrating the impossibility of an nth party playing any significant role until our voting mechanism changes. Maine tried getting a new voting mechanism via grassroots methods, and wouldn't you know it, their government halted that initiative.
 
And, let's not forget, the vast majority of Americans who actually do take the time to vote are knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who believe that everything on Fox News/MSNBC is 100% true. Too many Americans have lost the ability to think for themselves.
 
Wierdo said:
I'm ok with this, it mostly affects rural areas and central states, I think don't they need any of the high tech jobs the bigger states control, they should stick to their freight services expertise while automation is being worked on. /s
Click to expand...

So, basically, "we're okay, but it fucks everyone else over"? I hope you choke on the next cock you gobble.
 
TAP said:
I have friends in Canada and they have never experienced that.
Click to expand...

I live in Alberta. I was told 3 months minimum for my wife to see an Ob-Gyn for chronic ovarian cysts. Its been 4 months so far and they haven't even given us an appointment yet and won't expedite it because they are busy. She had to book 1 year in advance for a allergen specialist and finally got to one a few months back. I was diagnosed recently with RA and have been told to expect 6 months to a year to see an RA specialist after the 6 months and countless visits to various GPs (and an internal specialist) and numerous tests to get that diagnosis.

Anyway, off topic. I'm sorry OP
 
TAP said:
I have friends in Canada and they have never experienced that.
Click to expand...
I did. Got out 30 years ago and glad as hell I did.

Yeah, if you live in a Mega City like Greater Toronto or a capital city things might be ok. If you're not living where dropping medical facilities makes you big political gains, you're fucked.
 
Wyodiver said:
And, let's not forget, the vast majority of Americans who actually do take the time to vote are knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who believe that everything on Fox News/MSNBC is 100% true. Too many Americans have lost the ability to think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Well I hate to tell you but people like you who act like fox news and msnbc are equally full of it are a giant part of the problem and you empowered the loonies into becoming mainstream.
 
kamikazi said:
I'm pretty sure that a town in NC created their own municipal service with cable, telephone, and Internet a few years ago. Everyone loved it, but the local providers took them to court and won.
Click to expand...

Colorado law prohibits that once the city's citizens vote to allow the establishment of a locally-run company.
 
Capitalism only worked for a time while society's morals were stronger and common sense reigned. Now, government is in bed with companies, companies will use ANY and ALL possible tactics to manipulate consumers, and the money system itself is completely unlinked from the labour force and supply/demand - trillions of dollars around the world are either sitting idle or being recycled through endless permutations of investment systems, and what remains is being spent on war and social programs for incurables and people who don't want to help themselves.

BTW, if what I'm saying sounds contradictory to the typical left/right paradigm, that's because it is. I'm a technocrat. I support intervention from a government that sees everything from an apolitical, scientific viewpoint. If we utilized the world's labour and material resources to the fullest possible extent, we would have fiberoptics, maglev trains, hypersonic air travel, and sustainable farming everywhere and actual enforcement of all laws, all of the time. All that optimism of the 50s and early 60s wouldn't be a pipe dream.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Yes you do, as the only monopolies that have existed have ALL been due to government enforcement. If you wish to ignore history, that is your choice.
Click to expand...
Okay, here's one I'm not sure how the government created it: How did Microsoft become a monopoly for the desktop OS because of government enforcement? They've controlled over 90% of the desktop market for decades. That's a de facto monopoly. They wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do now on the desktop if they had serious competition. I always thought they rose to power by doing smart business and having ruthless tactics. I'm unaware of the how the government propelled them into a monopoly position. Can you explain it for me?
 
Vicinity said:
So, basically, "we're okay, but it fucks everyone else over"? I hope you choke on the next cock you gobble.
Click to expand...

I don't take pleasure from benefiting from this as it's bad for the country itself, but the fact is that it does affect me less than those that wanted it. From my perspective, if you, the rural voter, pushed for this then why should I try to save you from yourself? I just have to respect your wishes.

I was always against it for someone else's sake, my conscience is clear, sorry if respecting the choice of others hurts your feelings.

On a related note:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...the-fcc-is-coming-after-your-broadband-plans/

"The FCC voted 3-2 to scale back the federal Lifeline program that lets poor people use a $9.25 monthly household subsidy to buy Internet or phone service. The FCC proposed a new spending cap that potentially prevents people who qualify for the subsidies from actually receiving them. The FCC is also taking steps to prevent resellers—telecom providers that don't operate their own network infrastructure—from offering Lifeline-subsidized plans."

"Over 70 percent of wireless Lifeline consumers will be told they cannot use their preferred carrier and preferred plan," Clyburn said. "On top of that, they may not have a carrier to turn to after that happens."

Having said that, I do currently work around rural areas and debate these topics constantly with my peers, so yes I'm gonna voice my displeasure at such developments whenever it comes up anyway... even if it feels like swimming upstream.
 
Last edited:
BlueFireIce said:
Actually its about choice and better prices. Those who do not favor more regulation understand markets and how it works, along with knowing history of what happened with Ma Bell. The only monopoly that has happened has been due to government regulation, not lack of it. People, like yourself act as if NN is turn over it's all going to go to hell all of a sudden, even though we have been without NN and all their claims never happened to start with. We can however see what government regulation does with allowing ISP monopoly in the regulation of ROWs, you know back when the government said it NEEDED to control them because if it didn't some ISP was going to come in and buy up all the land and not allow others to install lines into it? The exact same land that the government now refuses to let other ISPs install lines into? Research this issue with Google wanting to bring super cheap fiber into areas. An ISP goes into an area and makes a agreement with the local government, which allows them and maybe one other ISP access to install cable, making it a government enforced monopoly or duopoly. To get into these areas takes huge sums of money and a large legal team, something Google has, so it was able to force it's way into many areas. They were sued however by a number of others trying to stop them, Google bought up a smaller wireless gigabit company to service last mile without installing cable to get around these government controlled ROWs, at which point Google was then sued and the other ISPs went to the government to get this type of service regulated as still using the ROW, to block them from supplying service to people. This is how government regulation is used in the real world, it is called regulator capture.

One of the cities Google forced it way into, Comcast was claiming it was to expensive to upgrade the current system and that current lines were maxed already and nothing could be done. Google goes online with its fiber service and within the week, Comcast dropped prices AND upped speeds to current and new subscribers. You want better service and prices with more options? Tell the government to stop this ROW regulation, rather than just trying to use what you see as a "moral" high ground without understanding the situation and how we got here.
Click to expand...

I live in BFE, Google Fiber will never come here. My current ISP is AT&T, they own DirecTV. If they decide that me watching Netflix is contrary to the bottom line of DirecTV, then they just block Netflix from reaching my router.

Now this might sound like innovation and a better option and all that, sounds like a big ol' ass fuckin' to me.
 
iNViSiGOD said:
And Enron? That's was a great example of deregulation.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. Enron was one of the best examples of statism in recent history. Enron was also not a monopoly. And depended in large part on government handed deals, after all they were a large political donator to Clinton who returned the favor by handing them a number of multi billion dollar contracts to keep them afloat. They also banked on regulation, which was trading permits for carbon dioxide emissions, which would have been based upon the existing permit system for sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning electric power plants. When the Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, however, Enron was left out in the cold, had this gone into effect, Enron would have grown even more as they would have new regulation to abuse. Enron is an example of what happens when the Fed pushes massive credit expansion (Greenspan bubble), plays crony-capitalism and supports a company is risky investment and expansion, when the Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto treaty Enron knew it was in deep shit, as it was stacking itself that more government regulation would give it massive support and control, when that didn't happen they actually went to the Bush administration to be bailed out, something Clinton was doing to keep them afloat with contracts and deals, but they were denied. Which is one of the few good things I can say about the Bush administration.

Enron also involved out right fraud, which is already covered on the books and laws in place and nothing else was needed for prosecution. However, even with this, and the information widely available, the government NEVER NOTICED, or maybe they chose to not notice since they were big political backers, so even though everything was there for the SEC to catch this, it was a private hedge fund manager James Chanos who ended up exposing it, as after looking at the company's financial reports and immediately realized that they were deceptive. However the SEC failed to act for years, even though it had the exact same information as Chanos, if not more. The agency failed to review Enron's public filings for four years! Complaining that they were too complicated to understand. Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act, Enron was required to provide the SEC details of its various investments, holding companies, and off-balance sheet financing transactions, this law was mysteriously waived by the SEC in 1994, one of the many government mishaps that prevented discovery of Enron's fraudulent practices.

"As a result of negligent oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the credit rating agencies and the investment banks, Enron was enabled by failed oversight, manipulation, and deceptive practices of these organizations.

Initially, much of the finger pointing was directed at the SEC, which the U.S. Senate found complicit for its systemic and catastrophic failure of oversight. It was determined that, had the SEC reviewed any of Enron’s post-1997 annual reports, it would have seen the red flags and possibly prevented the enormous losses suffered by employees and investors. The credit rating agencies were found to be equally complicit in their failure to conduct proper due diligence before issuing an investment grade rating on Enron’s bonds just before its bankruptcy filing."

You can only conclude Enron was due to deregulation if you ignore every single thing that happened. Including the ruling that the Senate said the SEC was even complicit! What was it I said? Oh yeah, regulator capture.

dj_spanmaster said:
That is quite literally all I needed to know. On this, you are completely backwards and wrong. You illustrate complete ignorance of the actual histories of unregulated monopolies in our country, many of which reinforced the Gilded Age's issues. Breaking up those monopolies is the whole reason why many of our regulatory commissions exist.
Click to expand...

Such as? Ma Bell? Thats a great one right there.

tetris42 said:
Okay, here's one I'm not sure how the government created it: How did Microsoft become a monopoly for the desktop OS because of government enforcement? They've controlled over 90% of the desktop market for decades. That's a de facto monopoly. They wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do now on the desktop if they had serious competition. I always thought they rose to power by doing smart business and having ruthless tactics. I'm unaware of the how the government propelled them into a monopoly position. Can you explain it for me?
Click to expand...

"Monopoly is a market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."

MS does not control or restrict this, and you are free to use other products, as a matter of fact, you picked a market that has a number of FREE options, that people still actively pick MS, this includes most people on this forum who know full well about the other OS options. You are speaking in a general sense and not in a legal sense, which is being talked about here, and in regulation monopoly is meant in the negative of those in market position to control price and supply.

Dullard said:
I live in BFE, Google Fiber will never come here. My current ISP is AT&T, they own DirecTV. If they decide that me watching Netflix is contrary to the bottom line of DirecTV, then they just block Netflix from reaching my router.

Now this might sound like innovation and a better option and all that, sounds like a big ol' ass fuckin' to me.
Click to expand...

So you picked a place in the middle of no where (or Bum Fuck Egypt in your own words) knowing that supply of services, including sewer/water etc will probably not be available, but now want to complain because someone doesn't want to spend $500,000+ to run a line a few miles to your single house? And because of this you want to impose regulation for something that doesn't have any actual examples of happening? And the one example posted in this thread was not even in this country and was the exact opposite of that?
 
BlueFireIce said:
Such as? Ma Bell? Thats a great one right there.
Click to expand...

You'll note that I didn't say that monopolies cannot exist even with government regulation. Failed regulations do happen. I suggest you study this topic further on your own, it's not my job to educate you.
 
BlueFireIce said:
"Monopoly is a market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."

MS does not control or restrict this, and you are free to use other products, as a matter of fact, you picked a market that has a number of FREE options, that people still actively pick MS, this includes most people on this forum who know full well about the other OS options. You are speaking in a general sense and not in a legal sense, which is being talked about here, and in regulation monopoly is meant in the negative of those in market position to control price and supply.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. So under your definition, you're ignoring de facto monopolies, like Microsoft for the desktop OS, Google for search engines, Youtube for hosted video, etc.

Yes, I'm free to choose another OS for my desktop, because say I don't like MS's policies, and now I'm also free not to run over 2/3 of my games as a result. Such choice for a PC gamer! Or I'm free to host a video anywhere else besides Youtube, because say I have a problem with how they treat people creating videos, now I'm free to get literally 20x less traffic since they're 20x bigger than the next biggest competitor. Again, freedom!

See me, I call 90% or more of the marketshare being maintained for decades without a realistic and practical alternative a monopoly. It's a de facto one, so that even if it technically doesn't fit the textbook definition, in real world practice, it acts practically the same.

So yeah, I'll give you that. If you COMPLETELY IGNORE de facto monopolies (and oligopolies for that matter) and act like that's not also a problem, then government is to blame for all monopolies! Down with government!
 
dj_spanmaster said:
You'll note that I didn't say that monopolies cannot exist even with government regulation. Failed regulations do happen. I suggest you study this topic further on your own, it's not my job to educate you.
Click to expand...

I have, for some years now, and have countered every single thing you have mentioned?

tetris42 said:
Ah, okay. So under your definition, you're ignoring de facto monopolies, like Microsoft for the desktop OS, Google for search engines, Youtube for hosted video, etc.

Yes, I'm free to choose another OS for my desktop, because say I don't like MS's policies, and now I'm also free not to run over 2/3 of my games as a result. Such choice for a PC gamer! Or I'm free to host a video anywhere else besides Youtube, because say I have a problem with how they treat people creating videos, now I'm free to get literally 20x less traffic since they're 20x bigger than the next biggest competitor. Again, freedom!

See me, I call 90% or more of the marketshare being maintained for decades without a realistic and practical alternative a monopoly. It's a de facto one, so that even if it technically doesn't fit the textbook definition, in real world practice, it acts practically the same.

So yeah, I'll give you that. If you COMPLETELY IGNORE de facto monopolies (and oligopolies for that matter) and act like that's not also a problem, then government is to blame for all monopolies! Down with government!
Click to expand...

Ahhh, I see. You want someone to make a product how YOU want it for the price YOU want it and if they don't, get government to compel them with force.

I take it you are also against de jure monopoly as well, such as that for salt, sugar, electrical, water, sewer, roads, etc etc?

Google is where it's at because it is the best option for most people, you are 100% free to use the many, MANY other options. You however are not content with that, no, you want to force them to provide a free service exactly how you want them to. You however seem just fine with government controlled monopoly where there is zero choice and you take it exactly how they provide it.
 
BlueFireIce said:
So you picked a place in the middle of no where (or Bum Fuck Egypt in your own words) knowing that supply of services, including sewer/water etc will probably not be available, but now want to complain because someone doesn't want to spend $500,000+ to run a line a few miles to your single house? And because of this you want to impose regulation for something that doesn't have any actual examples of happening? And the one example posted in this thread was not even in this country and was the exact opposite of that?
Click to expand...

Nope, I have sewer, water, trash collection - hell, we even got 'lectricity! Just no real competition in the ISP area. And while I don't think I'm getting a tremendous internet connection speed via AT&T, it is reliable. I don't expect them to do anything to increase my speed, and I get what I pay for. What I will complain about is if, after Net Neutrality ends, they start blocking/throttling any content I currently receive. Just get a different ISP, you say? OK, even if there was one, what's to keep them from blocking/throttling content that they don't want to host?

As for monopolies - My electricity provider is a monopoly. But that electricity will run lights, computers, stereos, welders, whatever I plug into it. Now if my electricity provider said I could run lights, stereos, but no computers or welders, that would be the end of Juice Neutrality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top