Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Saturday Metaverse

View
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

9. Re: GodTube Nov 4, 2007, 14:50 DrEvil
 
propagandatube

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: GodTube Nov 4, 2007, 09:08 Ratty
 
Be scared be very scared....

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e842a039b2ee9e3f0517

Heh, I like this user comment:

I personally think that Darwin arrived at his theory from observing stages of embryo development through various abortions on factory floors.

 
Avatar 22908
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: No subject Nov 3, 2007, 21:57 Pigeon
 
I'm a little confused by your argument.

First let get a few things aside, 1. I am very well aware of the governments backing of the current monopolies (or at least their lack of want to do anything about them). 2. I understand the free-market isn't a place, but it still works on the principle of profit.

Okay now on to what i don't understand about your argument. To me it seems like you're saying we have no net-neutrality then companies that promised to to prioritize networks would rise up and take customers (who want net-neutrality) away from the big Monopolies (assuming they prioritize their traffic). Consumers win because they can go with an ISP that gives them what they want.

But in the next breath it seems like you say we don't have competition now because (government backed) monopolies won't allow competition. So how is competition going to rise up if the government doesn't pass net-neutrality laws? You see where I'm confused?

If there were no monopolies lack of net-neutrality wouldn't be such a bad thing. But there are, and in order to get ride of them the government would have to break them up, and then regulate things so no other monopolies sprung up. But then you're back to the corrupt and incompetent government regulating things.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. GodTube Nov 3, 2007, 20:19 Bone43
 


Be scared be very scared....

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=e842a039b2ee9e3f0517

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Said another way.. Nov 3, 2007, 19:54 MMORPGHoD
 
Getting the government more involved to manage usage of the internet is just giving them another reason to install an internet tax to fund their new internet regulating authority. Yup, the free market is in it for the money. Guess what? The government is in it for the money too and they'll screw you over a hell of alot more than any company will. I'm reminded by that each year I pay my income tax.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Said another way.. Nov 3, 2007, 18:01 LittleMe
 
The fact that people want an impartial (neutral) Internet provider shows that theres a 'market force' demanding this service. The reason why we might not get it, is because of two reasons that I can see now:

1. Cable and telcos have monopolies that are backed by the authorities and can, if they want to, manipulate traffic.
2. There is little choice/competition because of reason 1 so a choice, the sign of a healthy market, is not allowed to thrive.

A 'free market' is not in place. So if you bash free markets, citing Comcast as an example of why you don't like or don't trust free markets, you are creating a straw man argument. Our current cable TV/Internet system is an example of 'corporatism', not capitalism.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. No subject Nov 3, 2007, 17:42 LittleMe
 
Oh and as a followup to what I just said... IMHO Comcast may work Net Neutrality to their advantage. Remember that telecommunications services have had great partners in government agencies' willingness to turn a cheek to their monopolistic practices over many decades. AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Verizon, Comcast, these companies operate primarily by government supporting of their market control. So if you think that the government is going to rescue us and 'teach them a lesson', you're going to learn a hard lesson. Those in power want to keep their power and that goes far beyond traffic shaping, etc..

The best solution for an open internet is a truly open market. Educated consumers and a market that allows (not enforces) choice is what we need. Also, be patient: you can't have everything you want now but in time technologies improve and what was very difficult years ago can be commonplace now. The Internet is a dynamic entity, so if we etch in stone what is best only for now, it will come to shackle us later.

 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: No subject Nov 3, 2007, 17:31 LittleMe
 
Pigeon there is no free market presently. Comcast is a government-backed monopoly. I'm personally against net-neutrality because I don't believe that its possible. You can lead a camel to water but you can't make him drink, so to speak. I'm a believer that market forces are far more powerful than government regulations (net neutrality advocates regulations on Internet providers).

I'd much rather have the cable companies lose their monopolies than have the feds regulate and manage the Internet. If you look into how the feds operate with scrutiny, you'll see they are incompetent at just about everything they do. They promise the world, and deliver little except more problems. Congress is the last entity I want meddling with the Internet.

This comment was edited on Nov 3, 17:32.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. No subject Nov 3, 2007, 16:47 Pigeon
 
Most of the argument's/examples weren't really about violations of Net neutrality, but more like evidence the big ISPs aren't above messing with content going over their lines for their own agenda. I think its a valid point just one that needs to be clarified.

Also tired of people who use the free market as a cure-all. The free market works on what is most profitable, not necessarily what is good or right. Sometimes screwing over the consumer is the more profitable thing to do.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo