The End of Net Neutrality

[thesometimesaint]

Net Neutrality is more complex.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I was using antisemiticism as an example demonstrating hiring practices in and of itself is a poor indicator of nonracism, especially if it looks more like token hiring or stereotyping  

Not accusing Trump of antisemitism..  Perhaps you don't believe that exists in most places.  Or that token minorities and women were hardly uncommon in the past.

Hiring someone is not a perfect sign of lack of prejudice.  or the reverse...

You assume too much about me. But to each her own. Long live the the token minorities. No doubt that’s why Trump appointed Pai.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No. Monopolization throws a monkey wrench into that idea.

The internet had a monopoly? Who knew? How *did* net neutrality safeguard against monopolies?  And don’t forget about free data offerings. That stuff’s dangerous to society. Appke, facebook, and Google still control virtually everything. Anazon too. 

[pogi]

On 11/22/2017 at 3:57 PM, Calm said:

"The market always does a better job than the government at providing services."

Then why did the market not provide drugs I got elsewhere because of government subsidizing and therefore I was saddled with older drugs that aggravated my disorder and turned me into a compulsive eater?  The company said there wasn't a large enough market to justify pushing it.

 

On 11/22/2017 at 6:37 PM, The Nehor said:

Always? So we should privatize all roads and allow the owners to charge whatever they wish for their use? If someone buys up all the land around my home and thinks I am ugly and decides to put up a 50 foot high wall topped with barbed wire around it that should be allowed? Privatize the military and hope the owners do not turn on us? Farm out all our diplomacy to lobbying firms? Privatize the police? The courts?

Most libertarians I have met (there are a few exceptions) seem to have taken Econ 101 where as a starting point for economics they describe perfect markets where everyone behaves rationally and conclude that markets are perfect. Then they leave class to run off and become libertarians before they learn about monopolies, oligopolies, externalities, assymetric information, that you have to adjust because people are not rational, and much much more.

 

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Pogi, are you advocating privatizing the US military, police, and judicial system again? You are so kooky at times I tell ya’. 

As for roads, no, let’s keep the, as they are and let local governments keep building tolls on them so that well after the roads are paid for they can affectively create slush funds for the personal interests of whatever politicians are in charge. Don’t even think of privitizing the roads. 

(Note: I do not really think roads should be privatized but doing such is a novel idea. There are, I think, some merits to doing so). 

Ok, “always” was a bit of hyperbole.  I am not an anarchist - more of a minarchist.  

[pogi]

On 11/22/2017 at 4:56 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You couldn't just sum up the good arguments for both sides?

He already knows the arguments for his side.  I thought what I pasted was a concise summary - better than what I could have done.

some want more info, some want less...you can’t please everyone!

[pogi]

On 11/22/2017 at 9:25 PM, Gray said:

Libertarianism is just as unrealistic and naive as communism.

Nice ad hominem.

I stand in good company with the US founding revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith and the “classical liberals” of the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You assume too much about me. But to each her own. Long live the the token minorities. No doubt that’s why Trump appointed Pai.

I haven't assumed anything about you except you made a faulty logic argument.

I am merely pointing out no one can draw solid conclusions about the presence or lack of racism in Trump based solely on the one fact of Trump hiring Pai.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Nice ad hominem.

I stand in good company with the US founding revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith and the “classical liberals” of the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

That's an interpretation - modern libertarianism starts in the 20th century.  But I find it helpful to ask the same question to both communists and libertarians - where can I find an example of a successful, thriving nation founded upon your ideals?

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, Darren10 said:

The internet had a monopoly? Who knew? How *did* net neutrality safeguard against monopolies?  And don’t forget about free data offerings. That stuff’s dangerous to society. Appke, facebook, and Google still control virtually everything. Anazon too. 

No. Certain ISP's want to form a monopoly.

[pogi]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

That's an interpretation

Everything is an interpretation.  My interpretation of libertarianism may not be the same as yours, or that of the libertarian next door.  And my interpretation of different founding fathers may differ from yours.  All I can say is that from my perspective, my interpretation and version of modern libertariansmism more closely resembles the writings of the founding fathers and the constitution, than any other modern party.  I believe that if Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and others were alive today, they would chose to be modern libertariansm, or at least that is what their ideals would most closely align with.  History is complicated though and I don't pretend like modern libertariansim is an exact replica of their ideas.  For example, they probably would not have been pro-gay marriage or anti-slavery.   

11 hours ago, Gray said:

modern libertarianism starts in the 20th century.

Yep, but its roots are much deeper. 

12 hours ago, Gray said:

But I find it helpful to ask the same question to both communists and libertarians - where can I find an example of a successful, thriving nation founded upon your ideals?

First of all you have to define "successful" and "thriving".  I would not classify the US in its current financial state as "successful and thriving".  The economy itself is only sustained by confidence and nothing more.  We live on monopoly money.  Ron Paul predicted the last economic crash and nobody listened...  He has predicted another, and no body is listening again 

The united states is founded upon the ideals of individual liberty rather than collectivism and socialism, limited government for the protection of individual rights (rights not granted by the government, but natural rights protected by the government). and the foreign policy of non-interventionism.  The founding fathers would have laughed at the idea of the Federal reserve and subscribed to the gold standard which limits government spending. 

Jefferson said, "if we determine that a Dollar shall be our Unit,  we must then say with precision what a Dollar is." The Coinage Act of 1792 declared each dollar worth "371.25 grains of pure silver or 24.75 grains of pure gold."

Quote

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
—Thomas Jefferson

Quote

I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.
—Thomas Jefferson

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No. Certain ISP's want to form a monopoly.

What a joke!  Do you really think that imposing heavy-handed regulations on ISPs is going to foster competition in the market place!? 

It is municipal governments and their exorbitant prices for use of publicly owned rights of way that are responsible for the so called "monopolies" and lack of healthy competition that we have today.  When we see municipal governments (like Provo) work out favorable agreements, we see an increase in competition.  Get government out of the way, and we see healthy market competition.  Read all of this, but especially number 7: http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler

Net neutrality will actually inhibit competition and growth, and it is the small and start up ISPs that will have the most limited political bargaining power.  And it is the small ISPs that will be most affected by the "onerous burdens" of net neutrality regulations.  As Nobel-prize-winning economist Douglass North noted that regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power: "Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules." https://mises.org/blog/net-neutrality-strengthens-monopolies-invites-corruption

In April, 22 small cable providers signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking for the end of net neutrality, writing that the policy imposed “onerous burdens” on their businesses.

Here is what Pai says about that: “Heavy-handed regulations are especially tough on new entrants and small businesses that don’t have the armies of lawyers and compliance officers that large, well-established companies do,” Pai said just one day later. “So if we want to encourage smaller competitors to enter into the broadband marketplace or expand, we must end Title II.”

Now, why would small ISPs and start-ups also be against net neutrality if it is supposed to help them compete?  What a load of crap!

 

[thesometimesaint]

 The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians.They were Constitutionalists.

SEE http://www.frumforum.com/the-founders-were-no-libertarians/

 

[thesometimesaint]

Talk about jokes. Over one million comments to the FCC were from Russian Trolls.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians.They were Constitutionalists.

SEE http://www.frumforum.com/the-founders-were-no-libertarians/

Re-read my post. I never said that they were libertarians, I said that their ideals were more closely aligned with modern libertarianism than with the other big two modern political parties.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Talk about jokes. Over one million comments to the FCC were from Russian Trolls.

???  What does this have to do with anything I said?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 The Founding Fathers were not Libertarians.They were Constitutionalists.

SEE http://www.frumforum.com/the-founders-were-no-libertarians/

 

I am not a Libertarian but do agree with many libertarians ideals. Overall, Libertarians speak the political language closer to the Founders than do any other political  group, even Conservatives, which is what I'd be considered. 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What a joke!  Do you really think that imposing heavy-handed regulations on ISPs is going to foster competition in the market place!? 

It is municipal governments and their exorbitant prices for use of publicly owned rights of way that are responsible for the so called "monopolies" and lack of healthy competition that we have today.  When we see municipal governments (like Provo) work out favorable agreements, we see an increase in competition.  Get government out of the way, and we see healthy market competition.  Read all of this, but especially number 7: http://www.dailywire.com/news/18613/7-reasons-net-neutrality-idiotic-aaron-bandler

Net neutrality will actually inhibit competition and growth, and it is the small and start up ISPs that will have the most limited political bargaining power.  And it is the small ISPs that will be most affected by the "onerous burdens" of net neutrality regulations.  As Nobel-prize-winning economist Douglass North noted that regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power: "Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules." https://mises.org/blog/net-neutrality-strengthens-monopolies-invites-corruption

In April, 22 small cable providers signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking for the end of net neutrality, writing that the policy imposed “onerous burdens” on their businesses.

Here is what Pai says about that: “Heavy-handed regulations are especially tough on new entrants and small businesses that don’t have the armies of lawyers and compliance officers that large, well-established companies do,” Pai said just one day later. “So if we want to encourage smaller competitors to enter into the broadband marketplace or expand, we must end Title II.”

Now, why would small ISPs and start-ups also be against net neutrality if it is supposed to help them compete?  What a load of crap!

 

True enough. When government picks the winners and losers in business, monopolies are virtually guaranteed. 

[The Nehor]

I find myself in awe that there are actual people opposed to net neutrality that aren't stolen identities being used in mass to give weird feedback to the FCC to provide political cover for this absurd move.

Okay, allow me to amend my plea.

Will all the SANE people on this board who do not believe libertarian magic dust will solve all problems please contact their congressional leaders to fight back against this dangerous move?

[pogi]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I find myself in awe that there are actual people opposed to net neutrality that aren't stolen identities being used in mass to give weird feedback to the FCC to provide political cover for this absurd move.

Okay, allow me to amend my plea.

Will all the SANE people on this board who do not believe libertarian magic dust will solve all problems please contact their congressional leaders to fight back against this dangerous move?

Gees Nehor, for as much as you hate Trump, it is remarkable how much you sound and act just like him. 

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

Gees Nehor, for as much as you hate Trump, it is remarkable how much you sound and act just like him. 

Not a chance. I used polysyllabic words and did not lie once with superlatives about how awesome I am. Nothing like him.

Edited November 28, 2017 by The Nehor

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not a chance. I used polysyllabic words and did not lie once with superlatives about how awesome I am. Nothing like him.

No, it wasn't the self aggrandizement, it was more the resorting to ad hominem personal attacks when you are slugged with substantive arguments and reason.  It is just like Trump to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "insane", even if they are Nobel winning economists.  Now that I think about it, dismissing reasonable people who disagree with you as "insane" is a form of self aggrandizement. 

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, it wasn't the self aggrandizement, it was more the resorting to ad hominem personal attacks when you are slugged with substantive arguments and reason.  It is just like Trump to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "insane", even if they are Nobel winning economists.  Now that I think about it, dismissing reasonable people who disagree with you as "insane" is a form of self aggrandizement. 

I am not calling you insane because you disagree with me. I am calling you insane because you actually think your cut and paste rebuttal  constitutes substantive arguments and reason are on your side in this discussion and you are turning the keys of the internet, one of the great propagaters of liberal (in the classical sense) ideals and freedom throughout the world, over to corporations and oppressive governments in an oligopolistic. That is why you are insane. Glad we could clear that up.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by The Nehor

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not calling you insane because you disagree with me. I am calling you insane because you actually think your cut and paste rebuttal  constitutes substantive arguments and reason are on your side in this discussion and you are turning the keys of the internet, one of the great propagaters of liberal (in the classical sense) ideals and freedom throughout the world, over to corporations and oppressive governments in an oligopolistic. That is why you are insane. Glad we could clear that up.

I only had one cut and paste post.  I have supplied the rest of my arguments with references from credible sources.  What argument have you made besides your ad hominem attacks?  And no, this is not just a libertarian issue, I have supplied arguments from Nobel winning economists, the tech industry, libertarians, republicans, and yes, even liberal leaning media sources like the Washington Post and the New York Times, and most importantly from small and start-up ISPs .  I guess we are all "insane" though. 

What is really stupid is throwing a bunch of oppressive regulations at start up ISPs to try and incentivise competition!  News alert, the small ISPs don't want the regulation either!  It is NOT in their favor, because it limits their ability to compete in the market place.  Good thing the government got involved, because the 2014 internet was a mess!   Since 2015, investment in infrastructure has decreased significantly and the rural markets are the ones who are going to be hurt the worst by this regulation.  Now, if you would like to address these substantive facts and arguments, I am all ears, but when you chime in with your ad hominem insults, it just makes you look like you have lost the debate and don't have anything substantive to say. 

I am turning the internet over to "oppressive governments"?  No, no, sir, that is all you.  And what made the market oligopolistic in the first place?  Oppressive municipal governments with their exorbitant prices for use of public rights of way.  It has made it impossible for start ups to compete.  Now, add to that more oppressive regulation with their "onerous burdens" to small ISPs and you have a permanent oligopy sleeping with their crony representatives (puppets) in the government.   

[thesometimesaint]

Bullpukey.

“Net neutrality,” of course, is a sleeping pill of a phrase. The subject is technical and can be boring. So it is worth hearing Wu explain key terms like “Title II” and “fast lanes,” without losing the big point. Net neutrality protects the internet we have today, “as an experiment in free speech."

Ajit Pai wants to end the experiment to help boost the quarterly profits of Verizon and Comcast.

SEE Title two of the Telecommunications act of 1934. https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bullpukey.

“Net neutrality,” of course, is a sleeping pill of a phrase. The subject is technical and can be boring. So it is worth hearing Wu explain key terms like “Title II” and “fast lanes,” without losing the big point. Net neutrality protects the internet we have today, “as an experiment in free speech."

Ajit Pai wants to end the experiment to help boost the quarterly profits of Verizon and Comcast.

SEE Title two of the Telecommunications act of 1934. https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

 

Bullpukey back.

You can pretend like Pai is a single rogue agent all you want, but you have yet to offer substantive arguments against anything I have said.  It is not just Pai, but economists, Republicans, Democrats, libertarians, techies, etc, who are against this too.  This is not an experiment in “free-speech”, nobody has made that argument, that is a straw man.  You are right about one thing though, this is more complicated than a “free speech” issue.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by pogi