So much for a more "competitive market" after the repeal of Net Neutrality

a reply to: JinMI

Then you are just unwilling to see it any other way because we all know how they're going to spin it: in their own favor.

a reply to: seasonal

Indeed. I went to look for competitors (Kraft) and they aren't doing so well either, so it's a moot point.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Should be used to it by now. It would take the guesswork and biased attribution out of the argument and give your thread more validity.

originally posted by: CB328

How is government the solution if it has already been demonstrated to be the problem?

Government is not even remotely the problem here. Government is the only thing that can protect society from these inhuman organizations, unless everyone gives up their internet, which isn't too likely.

Russia and North Korea want your citizenship.

a reply to: JinMI

You're the one who said it aligns with typical business practice, the practices my thread is predicated on, though in spite of that suspicion you decide to defend it and attack the premise behind my thread anyways? Makes sense.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: JinMI

We paid for those "pipes" to be installed through our tax dollars, the ISP's used handouts from the government to build their infrastructure.

in many cases we paid for it multiple times. i know i did in my taxes and it pissed me off cause they kept paying the same company which kept failing to deliver. even now fiber in my city is iffy as hell and u can be ineligible simply cause your on the south side of a street instead of the north side

a reply to: JinMI

Perhaps folks should be concerned with the monopolies that exists between service providers and content providers instead of what the toll could be. Seems one would directly address the other and without more government.

Thats where the republicans Fd this up royally .

They should have tackled the lack of competition in the telcom sector first and the regulations that allow for it to continue. Instead they go after the one regulation that helps the small business , consumers and encourages a free market place.

The republicans $ided with the telecom industry who gets voted year after year as the most hated company by its customer base. The only way a business can survive when its hated by its customers is by practicing monopolistic behavior and the GOP could give a $h1t.

They should have removed the existing regulations that allow for no competition then they could have gone after the tittle 2 classification if they wanted. However the neocons republicans and the GOP who also convinced individual republicans to use tax payer money to bailout private companies suckered their base once again with false information and fear mongering labeling Obama net neutrality.

This will come back to haunt Trump in 2020. Not only because of the raping by the telecom but you just basically put CNN in charge of what people get to see,read, and hear on the internet.Think of how Hillary was portrayed by the MSM and how Trump got treated by them and even the GOP.

You just gave full control to the corporations and the corrupted system full power to control what you get to see and hear during the next election. IMO trump got played on this and this was all by design from the worthless neocons whoring themselves to the telecom industry.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The op is built upon the citation of an opinion article.

You nor your premise has been attacked as there is no proof to substantiate it.

Meanwhile, as the reason of my posting, the existing regs and laws could be used in attempt or at least broadly highlight that monopolies exist already.

a reply to: interupt42

Again, won't argue. Also won't argue about a smaller government however.

Can you show me a court ruling that was a result of this protection, I mean regulation?

Was it ever veritably enforced?

a reply to: JinMI

You're standard of "proof" is a written statement from the company/agency in question. You don't think they'll have bias in their statement?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Again with the circles. That's what businesses do. They seek to profit and monopolize all within their bounds so of course there is bias in it. What I'm concerned with is the government response.

Also, how government will be the solution when it's part of the problem.

a reply to: JinMI

Well it's a circular argument within itself then because the government bends to the will of corporations depending on how deep their pockets are.

If you're honest with yourself then you'll come to the conclusion that corporate America and the money they have is the issue with our government along with the politicians who choose to take their bribes.

The people didn't vote for Citizen's United, politicians did in order to secure their salaries from corporations.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well it's a circular argument within itself then because the government bends to the will of corporations depending on how deep their pockets are.

So then tell me, how is government the solution?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well it's a circular argument within itself then because the government bends to the will of corporations depending on how deep their pockets are.

So then tell me, how is government the solution?

Wait wait, what these people should be asking is how was the government already the solution?

How and when did they enforce net neutrality? Any case precedence or any judgments???

I'd be happy to read about it.

high speed internet isn`t a necessity like electricity or water,you don`t want to pay for it? fine do without and you`ll survive just fine, and besides there isn`t a chance in hell that some "little" isp is going to give you great rates they are going to maximize their profits by charging the going rate that the market will bear which will be the same rate that the big guys charge.
in this new American capitalist free market society where every company is morally and legally obligated to maximize profits for shareholders there will be no competition between the big guys and the little guys.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'd like to see some actual evidence.

See, the thing is, those who built the pipes get to charge for those pipes. However, they also shouldn't own the water/gas that flows through them. This is the inherent issue, the elephant in the room.

Taxpayers spent $400 billion on those pipes.

a reply to: JinMI

Why have government at all in that case? If that's your best counterpoint then you should be crying for the total annihilation of government altogether. The only other option in that argument is letting corporations run roughshod over the consumer without any regulations at all.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes, black and white.


Why not, I mean it's better than having an actual argument, right?

a reply to: JinMI

So, government is gray?

It can be the solution, it's just a matter of how much government?

That would counter the argument that no government (free markets) are the solution.