It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The only thing the big companies can do is charge more than they do now. If the big companies charge too much, then entrepreneurs will start up new internet services.
Like fiber optic cables along power lines, or maybe snaked through the plumbing.
The FEC's only legitimate function is to count actual votes. Anything else is finagling by collectivist progressives.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan
Or a metallic hydrogen superconducting infrastructure.
The point being that we don't know what the better way is yet so, we can't anticipate it. That will be revealed as we develop better methods and materials.
If many different providers compete to supply access, we will discover what the most equitable service is by their happy customers.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan
Precisely, no new laws, only remove the laws which prevent new competition and create or support existing monopolies.
The obvious error in all of this is wireless access, there is a provision which expressly forbids the classification of personal wireless as title II.
If it goes through it will create indecision and doubt in the future of the market of service provision. Investment in infrastructure to low income people in rural areas will be less likely under such a regime.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan
Precisely, no new laws, only remove the laws which prevent new competition and create or support existing monopolies.
The obvious error in all of this is wireless access, there is a provision which expressly forbids the classification of personal wireless as title II.
If it goes through it will create indecision and doubt in the future of the market of service provision. Investment in infrastructure to low income people in rural areas will be less likely under such a regime.
Reclassification as title 2 is the no new laws approach. If you leave it in the hands of Verizon to create a complicated series of laws saying who can do what, you'll end up with a regulatory nightmare that only the largest companies can handle. In addition to the extra powers it gives them.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: DMFL1133
One thing is for sure, once the government gets in, it will never get out -- this side of a revolution.
Every intelligent adult has an ideology. Which ideology do you think predominates?
I think variations on socialism, the ideology that lets "experts" give you other people's stuff and do all of your thinking, is the default ideology.
If the government is involved, someone or something is having their property confiscated, and that is always a bad precedent against self-cultivation and the evolution of the possibilities of the individual.
originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.
In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.
In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.
Reclassification is the closest there is to no new laws (you have to write the law that reclassifies it). Currently Verizon and the rest of them are under common carrier regulation. This is due to regulation Verizon bought a few years ago, they wanted the classification for tax breaks. Now that they no longer have a need for those tax breaks, they want to get away from the associated restrictions.
If we remove Net Neutrality what you're going to see is small websites pushed off of the internet, while the remaining sites are divided up like TV channels.
With Net Neutrality there is a lot of competition, primarily for TV which is what this is all about. The telecoms don't like that their copper wiring is becoming obsolete and are trying to discourage alternative technologies.
If Verizon gets their way companies like Netflix which have innovated and essentially proven that they have a better model will simply be forced offline.
Innovation happens when the barrier to entry remains low and competition is allowed to happen, which only happens if we maintain Net Neutrality. What Verizon is attempting to do is to buy legislation that outlaws their competitors precisely because they can't compete.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: DMFL1133
One thing is for sure, once the government gets in, it will never get out -- this side of a revolution.
Every intelligent adult has an ideology. Which ideology do you think predominates?
I think variations on socialism, the ideology that lets "experts" give you other people's stuff and do all of your thinking, is the default ideology.
If the government is involved, someone or something is having their property confiscated, and that is always a bad precedent against self-cultivation and the evolution of the possibilities of the individual.
We have an entire generation (perhaps more) that has been brought up to believe that the state is more trustworthy than a person's most trusted friend. Some don't even think they are socialists.
Most people have never been exposed to any counter indicated philosophy and there has been a concerted effort to remove civics classes from public school completely. Once that happened, all bets were off and it became an unapologetic openly admitted indoctrination machine.
The solution is simple, restrain to the greatest amount possible all elements of extraneous government and deny all social engineering in our society.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: greencmp
No, reclassification is not the no new laws approach.
In the case of Verizon which you bring up, they are currently under heavier regulation than their competitors. They want to bring everyone into that same classification so as to increase the regulatory burden on their competition.
Reclassification is the closest there is to no new laws (you have to write the law that reclassifies it). Currently Verizon and the rest of them are under common carrier regulation. This is due to regulation Verizon bought a few years ago, they wanted the classification for tax breaks. Now that they no longer have a need for those tax breaks, they want to get away from the associated restrictions. If we remove Net Neutrality what you're going to see is small websites pushed off of the internet, while the remaining sites are divided up like TV channels.
With Net Neutrality there is a lot of competition, primarily for TV which is what this is all about. The telecoms don't like that their copper wiring is becoming obsolete and are trying to discourage alternative technologies. If Verizon gets their way companies like Netflix which have innovated and essentially proven that they have a better model will simply be forced offline. Innovation happens when the barrier to entry remains low and competition is allowed to happen, which only happens if we maintain Net Neutrality. What Verizon is attempting to do is to buy legislation that outlaws their competitors precisely because they can't compete.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't know the basis of this claim. Probably that everything will remain the same except for the one effect that "Net Neutrality" ameliorates.
A new player could buy up the wires and use them for internet. If cable is obsolete, then it should be allowed to liquidate its capital into the general economy. Slowing liquidation is what made the Great Depression so long.
Just a matter of time until money gets the government.
Why are any regulations needed in the first place? Regulations either restrict entry, or restrict growth of the best providers.
The only real solution is the rollback of regulatory intrusion into market forces.