If The Internet Becomes A Public Utility, You’ll Pay More Taxes

dandragonrage said:
And it is NOT Capitalistic to allow corps like Comcast and Verizon to charge anyone a fee because there isn't Capitalism to begin with. Capitalism means no stupid regulations (again, providing service to poor areas) that prevent competition. Capitalism means competition. It does not allow for exclusivity contracts. If you have such a contract, you do not have Capitalism.

Anyone against all this BS should be pushing not against the idea of net neutrality, but against these non-Capitalistic regulations.

Imagine that roads were privately built and owned. The company that provides roads in your town signs a deal with Fedex so those packages get to you OK. But then they charge UPS and USPS ridiculous fees because they have no contract. All the while, you are paying fees to them for the roads to be maintained anyway. "Well, I'd just move," you might say. But what if the same company was in charge of nearly the entire country's roads because our government gives them exclusivity contracts nearly everywhere?

I can't understand these Ted Cruz-loving idiots who think that Comcast and Verizon are actually fighting for Capitalism here. Stand down.
Click to expand...

I agree, there is regulations, and there is corrupted regulations... Corporations LOVE corrupted regulations, they try to push and get them passed all the time.
It's starting to look like this corruption is going to take more and more of a toll on the economy, you know "3rd"-world style.
 
kac77 said:
Feel free to educate. I haven't met a libertarian yet where minimal to no government/regulation wasn't apart of the mantra.
Click to expand...

yes, we're pretty much against government regulation. The reason for this is simple: government is a coercive and violent monopoly on the legal use of force. Violence will always have, at best, unintended consequences, or at worst, the opposite of the desired effect.

To say that you are against the government against doing something is NOT to say you are against that thing being done. IN other words, yes - we're against government regulations, but that doesn't mean we're against regulation of the market by the participants, in a VOLUNTARY manner.

To take the statists favorite trope, just because I am against the government building roads, doesn't mean I want to drive around on dirt and gravel. It means I don't want money taken from my paycheck and given to buddies of the local mayor to build a substandard piece of junk that will have to be rebuilt in a year or two. The idea that if we don't extort money from the populace we'll go back to horse and carriage is pretty much insane and doesn't stand up to any degree of rational scrutiny.

When you argue for government regulation, you are saying there is no way for something to be done peacefully and voluntarily, so you are going to hire men with guns to do it for you.

TL;DR - just because libertarians don't want the government to do something, doesn't mean they don't want it done. They just want it done voluntarily and peacefully.
 
Uvaman said:
I agree, there is regulations, and there is corrupted regulations... Corporations LOVE corrupted regulations, they try to push and get them passed all the time.
It's starting to look like this corruption is going to take more and more of a toll on the economy, you know "3rd"-world style.
Click to expand...

all external regulations imposed by a violent authority will result in corruption, period.
 
spintroniX said:
all external regulations imposed by a violent authority will result in corruption, period.
Click to expand...

Corruption results from a public who refuses to think about anything and refuse to vote out politicians that introduce it. It is not the fault of regulation itself, but it is the case that the more regulation you have and the less oversight of politicians (again, by voters), the more opportunities for corruption.

Ultimately we need existing stupid regulations lifted (the same things I already mentioned on the previous page of this thread) but we do need a minimal amount of regulation involved with the lines themselves since it is not viable to expect any new corporation to run all-new lines. So we need a relatively amount of regulation involved in the lines themselves. We do NOT need regulation of things like prices, and that is not being proposed to begin with.

You are right in that we should not look only to regulation to fix the problems already caused by regulation. Continuing to add more regulation without removing the really bad ones is going to make the situation even worse. Existing regulations are so stupid that they literally prevent Capitalism from existing in this industry.
 
Skripka said:
Further....with gasoline, it is federal law that the quantity read out at the pump must equal what you get inside your take. You never see gas pumps that state:

"Gasoline as cheap as $2.99/gallon!!*
*Actual quantity of gasoline dispensed, and end-cost as measured per gallon, to the customer may vary greatly based on time of fill up .
**void where prohibited.
***For full terms and conditions please see were-raping-you-at-the-pump.com/TOS for Terms and Conditions"
Click to expand...

This is comedy gold (and true)! :D

My favorite that shows that "truth in advertising" laws are pure bullshit is:

UNLIMITED DATA! (Up to 3GB)

How the fuck is something "unlimited" up to a limit?!

spintroniX said:
LOL

statists gonna state
Click to expand...

Or, y'know, people living in a society gonna contribute. Either way.

OP20 said:
Corporations have to compete with each other for your dollar in a free market. They are accountable to their customers. Government has no competition and thus has no accountability.
Click to expand...

With the giant companies and our oligopoly, we have even less say with corporations. You have a board of directors made up of leaders of other mega-corps, all of whom have a vested, incestuous interest in keeping the status quo going. Even shareholders oftentimes have very limited rights.

spintroniX said:
TL;DR - just because libertarians don't want the government to do something, doesn't mean they don't want it done. They just want it done voluntarily and peacefully.
Click to expand...

Which is to say, unrealistically. Nature abhors a vacuum, and a leaders and strongmen will always step in. Having a system in place for checks and balances is what is needed.

Further, private businesses often leave unprofitable enterprises for the government to do. It makes the government in many ways look inefficient (which, truly they often are on top of it being unprofitable to begin with). What country has, ever, built a national railway system, highway system, etc, privately?
 
TwistedAegis said:
This is comedy gold (and true)! :D

My favorite that shows that "truth in advertising" laws are pure bullshit is:

UNLIMITED DATA! (Up to 3GB)

How the fuck is something "unlimited" up to a limit?!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never understood why companies are legally allowed to redefine words that are already clearly defined in their marketing. It should never, ever be allowed. The only reason for them to ever redefine words like that is, as you guys already said, to screw customers over. It's not like they are incapable of properly describing their service. They just don't want to.
 
I'm glad my ISP is truly unlimited. I pushed a couple TB in a few days when I first got it, just to see what it could do because I was so excited of having that kind of speed. :D (50/30)
 
I seriously doubt I will pay more a month in taxes than I do to my current internet provider.
 
spintroniX said:
TL;DR - just because libertarians don't want the government to do something, doesn't mean they don't want it done. They just want it done voluntarily and peacefully.
Click to expand...

Well it seems as though I'm not really wrong in my previous statement because a voluntary regulation isn't really a regulation because it's voluntary. That's like saying the law is everyone should stop at Stop signs. But not really you know it's just a suggestion.... you know whatever yield if you wanna.
 
Is the Net really using a lot of Coal and Nuke Power it will leave a lot of people with zero internet if they have added expenses.
 
The Net used to be a simple place now it's all $$$$$$ buy the latest thing that won't do it for you.
Pay for something that is more controlled then it already is.
 
6a015436047f92970c017743799053970d-800wi
 
misfitsfiend said:
I don't understand why everyone is so against taxes increasing. It's part of life. Do you want to drive on safe roads and bridges? Or would you rather save a dollar a month?
Click to expand...

Ultima99 said:
Someone needs to read up on the gas tax, not to mention have a reality check on the state of our infrastructure. It sucks that things cost money but in this case it's an investment.
Click to expand...

You both seem to assume that there is no waste in the budgets and that more spending on roads would require tax increases.

NY has some of the highest gas, income, property & sales taxes in the country, not to mention more fees and hidden taxes than you can shake a stick at, and yet the roads are some of the worst in the nation.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
You both seem to assume that there is no waste in the budgets and that more spending on roads would require tax increases.

NY has some of the highest gas, income, property & sales taxes in the country, not to mention more fees and hidden taxes than you can shake a stick at, and yet the roads are some of the worst in the nation.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there isn't waste (pretty much a guarantee that there is). But again, correlation =/= causation. It could potentially be the number of automobiles on the road? And the high cost of shutting down any of said busy roads to conduct construction?
 
dandragonrage said:
Could you just stop? Please, just stop. You've heard of net neutrality and automatically jumped to the assumption that the government wants to completely remove control of ISPs and make it government-controlled but that is not what is proposed. You're preaching to us about something you do not understand.
Click to expand...

you and everyone else refuse to answer the question... why not just tell me where there is competition between public utilities? once that happens there wont be any hence you cement a monopoly and lock prices which will not go down. how about this, has there been ANY innovation in public utilities? if so please tell me what that has been.
 
Autopia said:
you and everyone else refuse to answer the question... why not just tell me where there is competition between public utilities? once that happens there wont be any hence you cement a monopoly and lock prices which will not go down. how about this, has there been ANY innovation in public utilities? if so please tell me what that has been.
Click to expand...

What you are discussing has not been proposed and is not what people are asking for, so I am not going to answer your useless question.
 
We just need to put some kind of cap on company sizes. Look at the innovation and cost lowering that happened when Ma Bell was broken up. Chase, BofA and Wells Fargo are pretty much exactly the same, just different logos; they hardly compete with one another. Comcast, TimeWarner, almost exactly the same.

Ok, so maybe that's a bad idea. But there needs to be some type of caps on market saturation for different products. Like it used to be no single bank could have more than 10% of the nation's deposits. Oops, we allowed BofA to go over that. :(
 
It's as good as done...

Title II for Internet providers is all but confirmed by FCC chairman
Tom Wheeler says exactly what giant broadband providers didn't want to hear.

And what is that?

”We’re gonna have rules that say—we're going to propose rules that say, 'no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization,' and that there is a yardstick against which behavior should be measured, and that yardstick was 'just and reasonable,'" he said.
Click to expand...

The article states that this is unlikely to be the hybrid proposal some people were expecting, as it would be more friendly to ISPs. LOL, nope.
 
I don't think that hybrid proposal would have held up in court. Honestly, the ISPs screwed themselves a bit with that prior lawsuit; pushed the FCC to full Title II rather than their "lighter touch" approach they wanted to do.

Someone needs to send them a copy of Tropic Thunder.
 
pxc said:
Right now it's actually prohibited by many states, due to Internet and cable monopolies pushing through those laws, that other competitors cannot even get access to that public infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I remember the good old days before lobbyists paid enough politicians to get rid of telco regulations. I wanted to get DSL from Speakeasy and under current regulations at the time AT&T was forced to run a brand new copper line pair from their closest CO to my house dedicated exclusively for internet. It cost me a big fat ZERO and I gladly paid Speakeasy the $40 a month for 1.5M down/256K up ADSL which back then (late nineties) was the best residential connection your could get short of a T1.
 
It is sad that these scare tactics is the best they can come up with. If big business is so hell bent on keeping things as they are within 10 years they will get split up again as what happened decades ago with telephone market.

Nothing learned .......
 
spintroniX said:
TL;DR - just because libertarians don't want the government to do something, doesn't mean they don't want it done. They just want it done voluntarily and peacefully.
Click to expand...

Then go live somewhere without a government.. The US has had a government from it's inception. Go somewhere, form your own country with a system of suggestions people can follow if they want to, and create the most awesome Utopia, and show us that, if people don't have to do something, they'll want to do it more and society would be just peachy.
 
dandragonrage said:
What you are discussing has not been proposed and is not what people are asking for, so I am not going to answer your useless question.
Click to expand...

the article is If The Internet Becomes A Public Utility, You’ll Pay More Taxes, I focus on the public utility part which everyone over looks, public utility isn't going to help anyone other than the internet service provider that is in that area. it is to bad everyone is overlooking this part of the article.
 
Autopia said:
you and everyone else refuse to answer the question... why not just tell me where there is competition between public utilities? once that happens there wont be any hence you cement a monopoly and lock prices which will not go down. how about this, has there been ANY innovation in public utilities? if so please tell me what that has been.
Click to expand...

read the article, the 7th paragraph which is what I have been trying to express to everyone here.

"Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out this would reduce investment in infrastructure and lead to inferior service for consumers. Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service would also stifle innovation and restrict the openness of the Internet."
 
big government working arm in arm with big corporations. What could possibly go wrong.
 
Autopia said:
the article is If The Internet Becomes A Public Utility, You’ll Pay More Taxes, I focus on the public utility part which everyone over looks, public utility isn't going to help anyone other than the internet service provider that is in that area. it is to bad everyone is overlooking this part of the article.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Ted Cruz said it's "Obamacare for the internet." Just because someone says something doesn't make them right...
 
dandragonrage said:
Yeah, and Ted Cruz said it's "Obamacare for the internet." Just because someone says something doesn't make them right...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say, are you saying that obamacare is good? like i have asked please tell what innovation has a public service offered man, or have they been able to replace failing infrastructure, but you refuse to answer the question, is it because was you look into it you will find out public service is horrible?
 
You guys do realize that the cost of broadband only internet WILL increase as more cord cutters join the flock and there is less profit to be made on bundled TV packages right? Comcast can sell you a 50mb/$50month plan right now because they are still making half their profit or more from broadcast TV sales. In 10 years when nobody watches live TV or commercials anymore and 75% of their subscriber base are internet only users they then the avg price paid will probably be what a combo package is now. $100/month for broadband only service.
 
Autopia said:
read the article, the 7th paragraph which is what I have been trying to express to everyone here.

"Late last year, President Barack Obama waded into this contentious debate. He called for the Internet to be treated like a public utility. Critics of Obama’s position point out this would reduce investment in infrastructure and lead to inferior service for consumers. Reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service would also stifle innovation and restrict the openness of the Internet."
Click to expand...

A title II utility (which is what Obama called for) means controls and regulations for the utility, but it DOES NOT mean that the government takes it over.

Be careful what you read into things.
 
McFry said:
You guys do realize that the cost of broadband only internet WILL increase as more cord cutters join the flock and there is less profit to be made on bundled TV packages right? Comcast can sell you a 50mb/$50month plan right now because they are still making half their profit or more from broadcast TV sales. In 10 years when nobody watches live TV or commercials anymore and 75% of their subscriber base are internet only users they then the avg price paid will probably be what a combo package is now. $100/month for broadband only service.
Click to expand...

So, explain how community internet services can offer much faster speeds at much lower costs without relying on cable, and still pay for themselves? :rolleyes:
 
My major concern is similar to obamacare. Many of us support helping the elderly and children, provide proper care. Lets identify major issues such as rising insurance costs, rising deductables, rising prescription costs etc. THEN lets create 1000+pages of regulation, but end up not addressing those core issues for the majority.

Therefore I'm worried that although we hope for major improvements with a public utility we end up with the same/less speeds, higher costs and less options which does not resolve our issues that had us back the plan in the first place.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041344261 said:
So, explain how community internet services can offer much faster speeds at much lower costs without relying on cable, and still pay for themselves? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cuz then you don't have to account for 2 billion dollars of profit a year?
 
I'm all for competition and removing monopolies in business... However, I fear if the ISPs (cable, DSL) become public utilities, then any hope of winning privacy of web history are gone. The gov will then own the infrastructure to every internet pipe to every household. Yikes.
 
djstarfox said:
I'm all for competition and removing monopolies in business... However, I fear if the ISPs (cable, DSL) become public utilities, then any hope of winning privacy of web history are gone. The gov will then own the infrastructure to every internet pipe to every household. Yikes.
Click to expand...

Again.

No one is talking about a government takeover of the internet. Simply a reclassification as Title II public utilities. "Public Utility" here does NOT mean that it is publicly owned, simply that it is an important utility to the public, and as such it faces more regulation.

THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER IF THE INTERNET. CALM DOWN!
 
Zarathustra[H];1041344259 said:
A title II utility (which is what Obama called for) means controls and regulations for the utility, but it DOES NOT mean that the government takes it over.

Be careful what you read into things.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that the FCC was a private entity thank you for clarifying that for me.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041344261 said:
So, explain how community internet services can offer much faster speeds at much lower costs without relying on cable, and still pay for themselves? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They rely on bundled packages the same way major ISP's do. :confused:
 
Autopia said:
I didn't know that the FCC was a private entity thank you for clarifying that for me.
Click to expand...

The FCC isn't a private entity.

But under Title II, the FCC does NOT take over the utility it regulates. It simply gets more power to regulate it. The utility is still owned, controlled and operated by the private company it currently belongs to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top