Against Net Neutrality - GoFuckYourself.com

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

In recent years the ?Net Neutrality? movement has gained steam. This is an effort by various statists, interventionists, do-gooders, meddlers, and techno-ignoramuses who seek to have the government forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use?for example, to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network. Of course, as I noted on A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality, the network neutrality movement is unlibertarian. There is nothing wrong with price discrimination or with charging different prices for different levels of service. As some anti-corporatist types are only too eager to point out, without state intervention the major telcos might well not have as much monopolistic power as they currently do. But it doesn?t make much sense to urge that the state engage in further intervention to fix the problem of previous state intervention. It is state intervention that is the problem.

Quote:

A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality

The cool, hip techno-pundits are usually reliably Obama-liberal/libertarian-lite types. A bit California-smug, engineer-scientistic, anti-principle, anti-?extreme.? But okay overall. A soft, tolerant, whitebread bunch.

On the last This Week in Tech, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the always interesting Jason Calacanis voice support for nuclear power; and even more surprised to hear soft-liberal host Leo Laporte echo mild agreement with this. Good for them!

But then they had to revert to form when they, along with Natali Del Conte and Patrick Norton expressed unanimous disapproval of McCain?s Internet Freedom Act, since they are all??of course??in favor of net neutrality rules imposed by the FCC. McCain?s proposed statute would block the FCC?s proposed net neutrality rules, which would forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use.

Got that? The techno-pundits are against regulation (by cable companies) ? so they favor regulation (by the FCC) of the cable companies ? so they oppose government legislation regulating a government agency. They sit there fuming about how disgusting McCain?s draft legislation is. So they see that the state is terrible. Yet it doesn?t occur to them that it might be a bad idea to trust the government to oversee the Internet. They are against regulation of the Internet, so they support ceding power to the government to ? decide how and whether the Internet should be regulated. It doesn?t occur to them that we should simply favor property rights, individual freedom, and the free market. The closest any of them come to this position is John Dvorak, who has a libertarian and contrarian streak, and who often observes on TWIT that there?s nothing wrong with tiered pricing?charging more for a fatter pipe, etc.Is ?no regulation of network providers? the libertarian position? It clearly would be if the network providers were purely private. In the libertarian view private property owners determine how their property may be used. There is no ?right? to access the Internet. A private network provider ought to be able to offer service on whatever terms he wants; and consumers to accept or reject it. Tiered services, deep packet inspection, prohibition of certain types of uses or even certain types of content?that?s up to the providers and customers and whatever deal they agree to. We libertarians believe in ?capitalist acts between consenting adults,? to use Nozick?s phrase (see Rothbard?s earlier formulation).

But because of various degrees of corporatism?state favors and protectionism, tax funding of infrastructure, etc.?the service providers are arguably not 100% private. But the solution is not to regard them as essentially part of the state and thus fair game for regulation, but to pair our call for no state regulation of the Internet (no net neutrality regulations) with a call for the abolition of all forms of corporatism, such as various laws that work out protecting larger companies (tax funded subsidies, IP law, wage and hour legislation, mandatory worker benefits, labor union legislation, minimum wage, incorporation statutes [note: this does not mean I think that limited liability is a privilege conferred by the state on corporations], and so on).

This is my take, anyway. I am not aware of much informed libertarian analysis on the net neutrality issue. Kevin Carson pointed me to Jim Lippard as ?one of the better libertarian writers on net neutrality??I?ll have to take a deeper look, but from a quick glance I?m not sure he?s a libertarian; here he writes, e.g., ?providers shouldn?t be able to block access to competitors? services??should be able? This seems to presuppose the legitimacy of an overarching state regulation, which is certainly not libertarian.

by Corynne McSherry:

Quote:

Is Net Neutrality a FCC Trojan Horse?

On Thursday, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to unveil draft rules aimed at imposing network neutrality obligations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the excitement surrounding the announcement, however, many have overlooked the fact that the this rulemaking is built on a shoddy and dangerous foundation ? the idea that the FCC has unlimited authority to regulate the Internet.

Genachowski has announced that the draft regulations will require ISPs to abide by the "Four Freedoms" set forth in the FCC's 2005 Internet Policy Statement, as well as the additional principles of nondiscrimination and transparency. EFF strongly believes in these six principles. Our work speaks for itself: we are developing software tools to Test Your ISP in the wake of uncovering Comcast?s meddling with BitTorrent traffic, seeking a DMCA exemption to let you run applications of your choice on your mobile phone, and fighting Hollywood?s efforts to force DRM restrictions into your television.

But Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality. In place of explicit congressional authority, we expect the FCC will rely on its "ancillary jurisdiction," a position that amounts to ?we can regulate the Internet however we like without waiting for Congress to act.? (See, e.g., the FCC's brief to a court earlier this year). That?s a power grab that would leave the Internet subject to the regulatory whims of the FCC long after Chairman Genachowski leaves his post.

Hence the danger. If ?ancillary jurisdiction? is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won?t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC "Internet Decency Statement." After all, outgoing FCC Chairman Martin was a crusader against "indecency" on the airwaves and it was the FCC that punished Pacifica radio for playing George Carlin?s ?seven dirty words? monologue, something you can easily find on the Internet.

.

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 11:08 AM

the telecoms are a state supported oiligarchy so thinking that letting them dictate the internet will result in a free market is sheer fantasy.

there will never be any free libertarian markets as there will never be any pure form of marxism or communism. that shit if for teenagers or fanatics.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 11:12 AM

charge people more who use more bandwidth. that would be fine. they do that here in canada. i don't see a problem. what i do see a problem with is dictating which sites load faster than others. THAT is total bullshit and if any provider i used did that, i would drop them so fast and encourage all that i knew to do the same.

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

charge people more who use more bandwidth. that would be fine. they do that here in canada. i don't see a problem. what i do see a problem with is dictating which sites load faster than others. THAT is total bullshit and if any provider i used did that, i would drop them so fast and encourage all that i knew to do the same.

That's the free market at work right there. If a company starts doing something you don't like, you stop paying for the services they offer.

Amputate Your Head · 12-26-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

That's the free market at work right there. If a company starts doing something you don't like, you stop paying for the services they offer.

all fine & dandy unless they force you into a contract with ETFs.

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:22 AM

The only organization powerful enough to force us to do anything is the State. So people should be very careful wen they call on the state to regulate things and give it more power...

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

That's the free market at work right there. If a company starts doing something you don't like, you stop paying for the services they offer.

the telecoms are an oligopoly. if you read their internal documents they are working together and are on the same page as far as fees, access and goals.

there is no fantastical other competitor out there in a mythical free telecom market to turn to if you don't like what they demand/offer.

who gives a fuck about theory. but but but ....

if that net neutrality bill is weak or collapses all the minor players (everyone on this board) is going to get fucked.

you would have as much chance as surviving in the new internet market as you would have starting your own television network.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

That's the free market at work right there. If a company starts doing something you don't like, you stop paying for the services they offer.

if all the telco's band together, where do you go though? not to mention the average citizen doesn't know anything about this and would assume its business as usual and who loses? people like us..

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

The only organization powerful enough to force us to do anything is the State. So people should be very careful wen they call on the state to regulate things and give it more power...

that is absolutely absurd and naive about corporate power. they crush citizens on regular basis often through force even hiring businesses like blackwater to do the job.

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

if all the telco's band together, where do you go though?

You're forgetting they are competitors and that sooner or later, one of them will lower it's prices, relax its filter etc in an attempt to gain a bigger market share.

Also, if the big telco's filter content and ask high prices, that leaves more room for smaller and new companies to fill the gap.

If you are dealing with companies, organizations that want to make money, you have a chance to influence them by choosing how you spend your money. If you give the State the power to regulate the internet, you essentially give up every chance of ever being able to control or influence what will be decided.
Who has the biggest incentive to listen to 'the people'? A company that could go out of business if people decide to stop buying its services or government bureaucrats that get paid no matter what and have the power to grant special privileges to their friends?

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:47 AM

00:00 to 00:40 (Murray Rothbard on Government intervention and how government regulations supposedly aimed at breaking up cartels actually keep cartels in place.):

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:51 AM

From 2 years ago:
"FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is still considering a proposal to create a free, porn-free Internet, according to today's Wall Street Journal"

Do you really want to risk giving someone who is opposed to porn the power to regulate the internet?

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

You're forgetting they are competitors and that sooner or later, one of them will lower it's prices, relax its filter etc in an attempt to gain a bigger market share.

Also, if the big telco's filter content and ask high prices, that leaves more room for smaller and new companies to fill the gap.

If you are dealing with companies, organizations that want to make money, you have a chance to influence them by choosing how you spend your money. If you give the State the power to regulate the internet, you essentially give up every chance of ever being able to control or influence what will be decided.
Who has the biggest incentive to listen to 'the people'? A company that could go out of business if people decide to stop buying its services or government bureaucrats that get paid no matter what and have the power to grant special privileges to their friends?

one my main concerns is the lack of understanding the average citizen has of the issue. will they know they can go elsewhere? will they even realize these have been put in place? will enough people bother to leave to make enough of a difference, ect. i'm not sure how it is in the US but here in canada all of the lines are owned by the big telco's and the smaller companies are just resellers, so the big companies can change the rules on them any time a contract is due. i am not for government regulation but corps are all about profit by any means these days so who do you turn to for help?

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

one my main concerns is the lack of understanding the average citizen has of the issue. will they know they can go elsewhere? will they even realize these have been put in place? will enough people bother to leave to make enough of a difference, ect. i'm not sure how it is in the US but here in canada all of the lines are owned by the big telco's and the smaller companies are just resellers, so the big companies can change the rules on them any time a contract is due. i am not for government regulation but corps are all about profit by any means these days so who do you turn to for help?

Of course big corporations want to make money... I'm a small business owner and i also want to make money... so does the baker on the corner of the street and so does the guy building cars in factory and so does the farmer etc... There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money.

The problems start when the State starts regulating things and eventually those who make up the 'rules' always end up taking the advice of the larger corporations (officially because they are so called 'experts' because they have a big market share. in reality of course because they made the right contributions to the right politician).

If YOU don't like what a company is selling or doing, no one is stopping YOU from trying to convince people to stop buying from that company. Especially in this day and age, we have more means then ever to get the word out.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Of course big corporations want to make money... I'm a small business owner and i also want to make money... so does the baker on the corner of the street and so does the guy building cars in factory and so does the farmer etc... There's nothing wrong with wanting to make money.

The problems start when the State starts regulating things and eventually those who make up the 'rules' always end up taking the advice of the larger corporations (officially because they are so called 'experts' because they have a big market share. in reality of course because they made the right contributions to the right politician).

If YOU don't like what a company is selling or doing, no one is stopping YOU from trying to convince people to stop buying from that company. Especially in this day and age, we have more means then ever to get the word out.

you reply didn't address what i was really getting at. they are already making money hand over fist by charging people for things that cost them nothing. if they all band together people will be helpless and its only a matter of time before they go even further and they have the power to totally squash the resellers because they own the lines! i guess you won't mind if these changes put you out of business. hey, they need to make money, even if its at the cost of your job.

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 12:10 PM

First of all that crooked situation is a direct result of State intervention in the market. More State intervention won't make things any better.

Second of all, nothing is stopping smaller companies from building their own network. Over here, several smaller ISP have already put their own fiber network in place. They usually start with 1 town at a time, but in the end that's all it takes.

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

You're forgetting they are competitors and that sooner or later, one of them will lower it's prices, relax its filter etc in an attempt to gain a bigger market share.

that is absurd. there are countless examples of corporations or businesses banding together to keep prices artificially high for long periods of time without some mythical competition to bring prices back to a realistic level.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

First of all that crooked situation is a direct result of State intervention in the market. More State intervention won't make things any better.

Second of all, nothing is stopping smaller companies from building their own network. Over here, several smaller ISP have already put their own fiber network in place. They usually start with 1 town at a time, but in the end that's all it takes.

lol yeah. maybe in 20 years they'll have 7% of the market...

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 12:15 PM

Agent: Please list a couple and explain why in your opinion State intervention was the solution to that 'problem'.

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Who has the biggest incentive to listen to 'the people'?

maybe those who need votes to get elected?

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

lol yeah. maybe in 20 years they'll have 7% of the market...

Let's say someone gains a very big share of the market by keeping his prices low and delivering a product people are willing to pay for. That person gains a let's say 80% share of the online porn market. Should the State step in and divide up his sites so small webmasters have a better chance at gaining a bigger share of the market?

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

maybe those who need votes to get elected?

now who's being naive?

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Let's say someone gains a very big share of the market by keeping his prices low and delivering a product people are willing to pay for. That person gains a let's say 80% share of the online porn market. Should the State step in and divide up his sites so small webmasters have a better chance at gaining a bigger share of the market?

there is a difference between porn and a utility that a country depends that also has an absurdly high cost of entry. can't compare the two.

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 12:25 PM

have do some errands while evading the tentacles of the state. back in a bit.

bronco67 · 12-26-2010, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

charge people more who use more bandwidth. that would be fine. they do that here in canada. i don't see a problem. what i do see a problem with is dictating which sites load faster than others. THAT is total bullshit and if any provider i used did that, i would drop them so fast and encourage all that i knew to do the same.

This makes sense to me.

Does the electric company charge the same for power to a mansion, as it does to a small condo?

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

there is a difference between porn and a utility that a country depends that also has an absurdly high cost of entry. can't compare the two.

Why not? Are you saying people somehow have the right to access the internet or...? Please elaborate on what you are trying to say.

$5 submissions · 12-26-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

00:00 to 00:40 (Murray Rothbard on Government intervention and how government regulations supposedly aimed at breaking up cartels actually keep cartels in place.):

Von Mises Institute FTW

As for dudes saying that the market needs SHIT TONS more regulation:

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Why not? Are you saying people somehow have the right to access the internet or...? Please elaborate on what you are trying to say.

there is a huge difference. for example, i don't need to join a paysite to manage my finances online but i do need an internet connection to do that. there are many public services offered online, should the people who need these services be marginalized because of this?

Spudstr · 12-26-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

From 2 years ago:
"FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is still considering a proposal to create a free, porn-free Internet, according to today's Wall Street Journal"

Do you really want to risk giving someone who is opposed to porn the power to regulate the internet?

creating a second "porn free internet" is like telling everyone to cut over to ipv6. No one is going to want to invest the money, datacenter space and related into it.

Basically if this happened you could take all the daacenters in the world and immediately double them, servers and all for this to be effective and work.

And that is simply just not going to happen period.

Vendzilla · 12-26-2010, 01:52 PM

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress….But then I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain

Giving any power to a government agency over the net is not the way to go

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

there is a huge difference. for example, i don't need to join a paysite to manage my finances online but i do need an internet connection to do that. there are many public services offered online, should the people who need these services be marginalized because of this?

So you have a right to manage your finances online? you have a right to access the internet? Just because certain services are offered online, it doesn't mean people have a right to get online. Some products are sold in a store, should everyone have free transportation to get to that store so they can by the products that are being sold there? Should everyone get free transportation to get to the bank so they can manage their finances?

There's no such thing as a "need to manage your finances online". Most people will think it is easy and convenient to manage their finances online, but that doesn't give them the right to do so.

If you want to manage your finances online, you need a computer, an internet connection that allows you to access your bank's website and a bank account at a bank that allows you to manage your finances online.

What about people who don't own a computer or can't afford a computer? Should the State buy them a computer so they can manage their finances online?

What about retail stores that don't have a website or web shop, should the State force them to make their products available online, so people can buy them online because it's more convenient?

These days people think they have a right to get this or that or do this or that, just because they think it's is convenient or easy. You have a right to your body and your property. You have the right to use your property. You can sell it, use it, buy property, trade property. But you don't have a right to violate other people's property rights.

Once you start inventing new 'rights' like the right to manage your finances online, you reduce the concept of 'rights' to something that can be invented, assigned and taken away. Once you start inventing 'rights' like the right to access the internet, the right to manage your finances online, the right to this or that product, it means someone must provide you with those things... after all, those are your rights... things you are entitled to....

And once you go down that road.... well, ask FA Hayek where it ends

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Giving any power to a government agency over the net is not the way to go

Agreed. And here is what Albert Einstein said about using State intervention to fix problems that have been caused by state intervention:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

DaddyHalbucks · 12-26-2010, 03:31 PM

Net neutrality: a "solution" in search of a problem.

baddog · 12-26-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

the telecoms are a state supported oiligarchy

Proof or banned.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

So you have a right to manage your finances online? you have a right to access the internet? Just because certain services are offered online, it doesn't mean people have a right to get online. Some products are sold in a store, should everyone have free transportation to get to that store so they can by the products that are being sold there? Should everyone get free transportation to get to the bank so they can manage their finances?

There's no such thing as a "need to manage your finances online". Most people will think it is easy and convenient to manage their finances online, but that doesn't give them the right to do so.

If you want to manage your finances online, you need a computer, an internet connection that allows you to access your bank's website and a bank account at a bank that allows you to manage your finances online.

What about people who don't own a computer or can't afford a computer? Should the State buy them a computer so they can manage their finances online?

What about retail stores that don't have a website or web shop, should the State force them to make their products available online, so people can buy them online because it's more convenient?

These days people think they have a right to get this or that or do this or that, just because they think it's is convenient or easy. You have a right to your body and your property. You have the right to use your property. You can sell it, use it, buy property, trade property. But you don't have a right to violate other people's property rights.

Once you start inventing new 'rights' like the right to manage your finances online, you reduce the concept of 'rights' to something that can be invented, assigned and taken away. Once you start inventing 'rights' like the right to access the internet, the right to manage your finances online, the right to this or that product, it means someone must provide you with those things... after all, those are your rights... things you are entitled to....

And once you go down that road.... well, ask FA Hayek where it ends

why do you view the internet as a product? i view it more as a utility...you can't 'buy' the internet, just access to it. like someone else said does a mansion pay a higher rate for electricity than a small condo? charge people for usage and be done with it. if the telco's get their way on this, what will be next? i can only assume you think consumers should have no rights and be at the mercy of whatever corps want to do.

u-Bob · 12-26-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

why do you view the internet as a product? i view it more as a utility...you can't 'buy' the internet, just access to it. like someone else said does a mansion pay a higher rate for electricity than a small condo? charge people for usage and be done with it. if the telco's get their way on this, what will be next? i can only assume you think consumers should have no rights and be at the mercy of whatever corps want to do.

Like i said, you have a right to use your own property. You can sell and buy things and you can choose what not to buy. If you don't agree to the terms/conditions of sale or don't like the quality of the product... don't buy that product. Just because you consider a certain product or service to be a 'utility', to be 'essential' or 'convenient' or... doesn't give you the right to violate other people's property rights by dictating how they should sell their product or what product they should sell or at what price they should sell their product. If an ISP wants to sell "email-only" packages or "youtube only" packages, than that is their right... their property = their choice. if you don't like those products, then don't buy them.

If you don't want to be at the mercy of big corporations, then why do you want the state to regulate things? It's the big corporations that tell politicians what laws and regulations to make... By allowing the State to regulate things, you are eventually giving the big corporations powers they wouldn't be able to gain in a free market.

Agent 488 · 12-26-2010, 05:15 PM

there are no transcendent "rights." we create them. your whole foundation is built on sand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Like i said, you have a right to use your own property. You can sell and buy things and you can choose what not to buy. If you don't agree to the terms/conditions of sale or don't like the quality of the product... don't buy that product. Just because you consider a certain product or service to be a 'utility', to be 'essential' or 'convenient' or... doesn't give you the right to violate other people's property rights by dictating how they should sell their product or what product they should sell or at what price they should sell their product. If an ISP wants to sell "email-only" packages or "youtube only" packages, than that is their right... their property = their choice. if you don't like those products, then don't buy them.

If you don't want to be at the mercy of big corporations, then why do you want the state to regulate things? It's the big corporations that tell politicians what laws and regulations to make... By allowing the State to regulate things, you are eventually giving the big corporations powers they wouldn't be able to gain in a free market.

CYF · 12-26-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

That's the free market at work right there. If a company starts doing something you don't like, you stop paying for the services they offer.

unless you're like almost everyone else in North America, and you only have a choice between a shitty cable provider and a shitty DSL provider. There's no free market right there, and net neutrality is needed.

BlackCrayon · 12-26-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Like i said, you have a right to use your own property. You can sell and buy things and you can choose what not to buy. If you don't agree to the terms/conditions of sale or don't like the quality of the product... don't buy that product. Just because you consider a certain product or service to be a 'utility', to be 'essential' or 'convenient' or... doesn't give you the right to violate other people's property rights by dictating how they should sell their product or what product they should sell or at what price they should sell their product. If an ISP wants to sell "email-only" packages or "youtube only" packages, than that is their right... their property = their choice. if you don't like those products, then don't buy them.

If you don't want to be at the mercy of big corporations, then why do you want the state to regulate things? It's the big corporations that tell politicians what laws and regulations to make... By allowing the State to regulate things, you are eventually giving the big corporations powers they wouldn't be able to gain in a free market.

why do you view internet access as a product? also, isn't this a kind of bait and switch? build a customer base and then change the service completely? will full disclosure be given to the customer? can you name a couple of examples where a free market has empowered consumers rather than corporations?

tony286 · 12-26-2010, 10:43 PM

When considering the government funded the development of the Internet. They also gave money for broadband and cable expansion for the net and throw in some tax breaks. Now when they want it to stay open it's a government over reach.

u-Bob · 12-27-2010, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

can you name a couple of examples where a free market has empowered consumers rather than corporations?

Watch the first 15 minutes of the Murray Rothbard video i posted....

also a good read on human cooperation: http://mises.org/daily/4317

u-Bob · 12-27-2010, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

why do you view internet access as a product?

What else could it be? you pay another person or organization and they deliver something in return....

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

also, isn't this a kind of bait and switch? build a customer base and then change the service completely?

If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign one. if you don't like the product, don't buy it.

u-Bob · 12-27-2010, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CYF

unless you're like almost everyone else in North America, and you only have a choice between a shitty cable provider and a shitty DSL provider. There's no free market right there, and net neutrality is needed.

The current limited choice of ISP in certain parts of the world is a direct result of State intervention in the economy. More State intervention won't solve that problem... It will only create more problems.

Every couple of years a politician launches the idea to ban porn... Every time they are unsuccessful because they don't have enough power over the internet. Do you really want to give politicians more power over the internet, knowing that it's only a matter of time before another anti-porn freak gets a hold of that new position of power?

u-Bob · 12-27-2010, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

there are no transcendent "rights." we create them. your whole foundation is built on sand.

http://www.independent.org/students/...ay.asp?id=2342

Paul Markham · 12-27-2010, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

if that net neutrality bill is weak or collapses all the minor players (everyone on this board) is going to get fucked.

True, it's only laws that keep most of us in business. Remove the laws protecting us and we're first to get fucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

You're forgetting they are competitors and that sooner or later, one of them will lower it's prices, relax its filter etc in an attempt to gain a bigger market share.

Also, if the big telco's filter content and ask high prices, that leaves more room for smaller and new companies to fill the gap.

If you are dealing with companies, organizations that want to make money, you have a chance to influence them by choosing how you spend your money. If you give the State the power to regulate the internet, you essentially give up every chance of ever being able to control or influence what will be decided.
Who has the biggest incentive to listen to 'the people'? A company that could go out of business if people decide to stop buying its services or government bureaucrats that get paid no matter what and have the power to grant special privileges to their friends?

You really don't think very deep into things. You were screaming the Internet shouldn't be subject to laws. Now you're supporting the laws that keep it free for you to make a living on.

Think of the laws on monopoly and creating price cartels. They stop companies banding together to decide what you will pay, not just competition. What stops a company like Microsoft buying all the ISPSs? Yes laws.

Companies that control a market would never listen to a consumer. He buys or he goes without. At least every 4 years you get some say. Guaranteed by law.

Vendzilla · 12-27-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

When considering the government funded the development of the Internet. They also gave money for broadband and cable expansion for the net and throw in some tax breaks. Now when they want it to stay open it's a government over reach.

There is a difference between government and business, government should not be in it for anything but the advancement of the nation, a business is in it for the advancement of the business. So just because the government is behind getting it started, doesn't mean it should run it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

True, it's only laws that keep most of us in business. Remove the laws protecting us and we're first to get fucked.

You really don't think very deep into things. You were screaming the Internet shouldn't be subject to laws. Now you're supporting the laws that keep it free for you to make a living on.

Think of the laws on monopoly and creating price cartels. They stop companies banding together to decide what you will pay, not just competition. What stops a company like Microsoft buying all the ISPSs? Yes laws.

Companies that control a market would never listen to a consumer. He buys or he goes without. At least every 4 years you get some say. Guaranteed by law.

The government is already has laws in place for business, giving them a foot hold in the internet would be double dipping for the internet business

Agent 488 · 12-27-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

When considering the government funded the development of the Internet. They also gave money for broadband and cable expansion for the net and throw in some tax breaks. Now when they want it to stay open it's a government over reach.

pretty much.

u-Bob · 12-27-2010, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You really don't think very deep into things. You were screaming the Internet shouldn't be subject to laws. Now you're supporting the laws that keep it free for you to make a living on.

I'm supporting laws? I only support the non-aggression principle. I support human cooperation an creativity, I support voluntary association, I support the free market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Think of the laws on monopoly and creating price cartels. They stop companies banding together to decide what you will pay, not just competition. What stops a company like Microsoft buying all the ISPSs? Yes laws.

Companies that control a market would never listen to a consumer. He buys or he goes without. At least every 4 years you get some say. Guaranteed by law.

It seems you should take a better look at history... State intervention is what enabled cartels and monopolies. Take a look at the first 15 minutes of the Rothbard video I posted, he explains things quit well.

Who lobbied for the first preservation laws? Who lobbied for the State to create big national parks? The railway companies. Why? Because by having the State create big parks in strategic places they were able to prevent the competition from building their own transcontinental railroads that would compete with their own.

Who lobbied for banking regulations? The big banks. Why? because that way they were able to harass their small competitors. Rockefeller went even so far as calling "competition a sin".

Big corporations don't like the free market, they don't like competition. They like State intervention because they know they can control the decision making process. They fund both sides in the elections. They don't care who wins or looses an election. In the end politicians always do what is good for the big corporations.

If you really believe that the fact that the state organizes elections every 4 years gives you one bit of power, then you are very far down the road Hayek talked about.

BlackCrayon · 12-27-2010, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u-Bob

What else could it be? you pay another person or organization and they deliver something in return....

If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign one. if you don't like the product, don't buy it.

i'll just leave it at this. there is a reason why not a single telco has come out and said, we believe in an open internet. what they want to do will only work if they all band together. they know this. the idea of some start up building its own network sounds good in theory but is far from practical. they could never compete with the prices regardless.

u-Bob · 12-28-2010, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

i'll just leave it at this. there is a reason why not a single telco has come out and said, we believe in an open internet. what they want to do will only work if they all band together. they know this. the idea of some start up building its own network sounds good in theory but is far from practical. they could never compete with the prices regardless.

I'll try one more time to get you to watch the Rothbard video... he gives you a good idea of how regulations come to be.

The people that make the regulations don't come falling out of the air. They usually have a been working in the very industry they are now trying to regulate and they often later return to that industry.

Big corporations love regulations... of course they pretend to the public that they don't... but in the end the realize that they will always benefit from state regulations... why? because the big corporations make the rules.

12-26-2010, 11:12 AM	#3
BlackCrayon Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ottawa Posts: 19,631	charge people more who use more bandwidth. that would be fine. they do that here in canada. i don't see a problem. what i do see a problem with is dictating which sites load faster than others. THAT is total bullshit and if any provider i used did that, i would drop them so fast and encourage all that i knew to do the same. __________________ you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

12-26-2010, 01:52 PM	#30
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,201	Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress….But then I repeat myself. -Mark Twain Giving any power to a government agency over the net is not the way to go __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

12-26-2010, 03:31 PM	#33
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Net neutrality: a "solution" in search of a problem. __________________ Boner Money

12-26-2010, 11:08 AM	#2
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	the telecoms are a state supported oiligarchy so thinking that letting them dictate the internet will result in a free market is sheer fantasy. there will never be any free libertarian markets as there will never be any pure form of marxism or communism. that shit if for teenagers or fanatics.

12-26-2010, 11:22 AM	#6
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	The only organization powerful enough to force us to do anything is the State. So people should be very careful wen they call on the state to regulate things and give it more power...

12-26-2010, 11:47 AM	#11
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	00:00 to 00:40 (Murray Rothbard on Government intervention and how government regulations supposedly aimed at breaking up cartels actually keep cartels in place.):

12-26-2010, 11:51 AM	#12
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	From 2 years ago: "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is still considering a proposal to create a free, porn-free Internet, according to today's Wall Street Journal" Do you really want to risk giving someone who is opposed to porn the power to regulate the internet?

12-26-2010, 12:10 PM	#16
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	First of all that crooked situation is a direct result of State intervention in the market. More State intervention won't make things any better. Second of all, nothing is stopping smaller companies from building their own network. Over here, several smaller ISP have already put their own fiber network in place. They usually start with 1 town at a time, but in the end that's all it takes.

12-26-2010, 12:15 PM	#19
u-Bob there's no $$$ in porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs) Posts: 33,063	Agent: Please list a couple and explain why in your opinion State intervention was the solution to that 'problem'.

12-26-2010, 12:25 PM	#24
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	have do some errands while evading the tentacles of the state. back in a bit.

12-26-2010, 10:43 PM	#40
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	When considering the government funded the development of the Internet. They also gave money for broadband and cable expansion for the net and throw in some tax breaks. Now when they want it to stay open it's a government over reach.