It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What is net neutrality?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:30 PM

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: xuenchen

Warning. This post and content has been removed for serious violations of telecommunications laws.

You are not allowed to self police anymore, please restore your comment so we can have it expunged.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:02 PM

originally posted by: Edumakated

How do we not have a balanced field of play currently as it pertains to the internet. Let's see some real world examples.

To answer that you need to go find out who owns who as far as ISP's are concerned and Tier 1,2 & 3 providers. They are the "Providers" of access through which all content is delivered.

Who's merging with who??

Who offers access to the customer??

Which ISP's are competing with other ISP's and are they really competing with each other or not???

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:03 PM

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Edumakated

If we truly had an actual "Free Market" I might agree with you but we don't. There are still other laws and regulations in play which allow for Comcast and Time Warner to dominate and control the market in ways which don't allow for real "Free Market" capitalism to challenge them like it should. Because of that there isn't a balanced field of play so any competition that would keep them in check using the "Free Market" method doesn't always apply.

For "Free Market" capitalism to work like you suggest would require all regulation to end and a true Free Market to exist, which has never and will never happen. Not that we'll ever see anyway. So while your position might be valid conceptually, it simply isn't what we are dealing with in reality.

What we have is the direct result of economic interventionism, the mortal enemy of free markets.

This is a long understood mechanism for the increased implementation of state controls over a functional economy.

First cement the competitive landscape through restrictive regulations. Tomorrow has the same number of competitors as yesterday so, no damage done, right? Nobody thinks about next year, next decade, etc.

Now that unauthorized expansion is prohibited, growth is attenuated until there is an inevitable demand for relief. Capitalism and free markets are blamed.

To the rescue, the state (also the regulators who caused the stagnation) declares that 'fairness' demands the minute management of elements of the economy.

edit on 25-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:03 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: links234
The problem is we don't know what's in the 300+ pages of "regulation" proposals.

If that's the problem then come out and say that that's the problem. Read some of these replies. It's not about open access to the content of the regulations, it's the regulations themselves. Any regulation is bad, apparently. Even if that regulation says, specifically, that neither governments or corporations can control access to content via the internet.

Next thing you know we're going to start hearing about how terrible the US Constitution is because it practically eliminated states rights with the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. Come on people.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in