Blood Borne
Member
Lol. It was a government supported monopoly. Government gave them licences. They were the only ones allowed to develop and supply telephone lines.
Read this
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FCC is to vote on net neutrality
- Thread starter Thanati
- Start date
Read this
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html
Blood Borne
Member
Really John Oliver? Dude spews bullshit and propaganda. I can't believe actually think the dude is some sort of intellect.
I love how the first suggestion when I type "cato.org" into Google is "cato.org bias" and digging about a millimeter deeper shows it is just a right-wing think tank funded by the Koch brothers. Yep, that's quite an unbiased source you have there.
If net neutrality is good for corporations and bad for the people explain to me why said corporations are lobbying to kill it.
Monopolies are the natural conclusion of pure capitalism without oversight. How would it be anything else? You cant put a bunch of gladiators into an arena and expect them to compete without rules, but not kill each other until 1 is left.
Corporations dont have your interest in mind, it's a business.
Corporations will try to bend the rules to benefit them.
Rules are made by government
Why would you ever assume it would benefit the customer to remove government from this equation? Rules are made to protect the customer ... protect you. Because there there will be noone else speaking on your behalf. And you will never win a confrontation with a corporation.
"Clashes with your worldview" does not automatically make something "bullshit propaganda". Actual investigative journalists work on the show, and they do a hell of a lot better presenting well-researched, informative and nuanced coverage of their chosen topics than wherever you get your news from. Which I'm going to say is Fox News..... you know, the network whose owners and creators have outwardly admitted is to serve as a propaganda outlet for the Republican party.
Not surprised that you would find some excuse- any excuse- to dismiss something presented to you instead of responding to the content itself. There are plenty of other sources that present the same information that could be provided to you, although you could do the legwork yourself for once and do some actual research.
...what the??..." government supported monopoly"...well I guess if you want to call every business government supported.
Man. That's some crazy contortions you are going through trying to fit the Ma Bell monopoly into your argument. That Cato paper is spectacular too. "Thank god the government stepped in an broke up this monopoly! It just proves that the government shouldn't be involved in anything"
Muppet of a Man
Member
This. laissez-faire capitalism works great when you start with a blank canvas (see American colonialism and frontierism), but once unregulated markets become saturated, the winner starts dictating the future outcomes as a result of consolidation of wealth and power through mergers and acquisitions and lobbying and creation of law that changes the working rules of the game to benefit only them. Contract law is the core tenet of libertarian ideology, but ultimately unchecked contract law is bad when it's used to lock competition out of markets. This is exactly why the ISP situation in this country is so fucked. As a way of returning the favor for the big ISPs initially investing in infrastructure, local municipalities have created contract law based statutes and laws effectively locking out small startup competitors.
To remedy this sort of situation, we must lean more heavily on the enforcement of antitrust laws, actively breaking up mega corporations to promote competition and innovation. Also, we must make these local contract based arrangements illegal to remove barriers to entry for small startups. Government must act as a partner and co-invest in any shared infrastructure to ensure fair shared usage by all private competitors (just like it regulates the shared usage of roads and bridges for the logistical/distribution aspects of private companies' business dealings).
Government can also help spur innovation by investing tax dollars in basic scientific discovery at public research institutions, as well as the trickle down of R&D from government and military agencies (after all, you can thank the internet's existence for that).
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Handing the internet to the telecoms is some sinister shit. Who's excited for higher profits for the telecoms! Things are looking pretty good
Blood Borne
Member
The answer is right in front of you. Government.
samoscratch
Member
Capitalism can only work for the people if it is tightly regulated, people cannot get this into their thick heads.
Memories are short, people have already forgotten about the housing crash.
Wake up people, without regulations corporations will do whatever they want and spoiler alert they do not care about you, only profits.
Memories are short, people have already forgotten about the housing crash.
Wake up people, without regulations corporations will do whatever they want and spoiler alert they do not care about you, only profits.
ape2man
Member
A nice job after working for the FCC
If net neutrality is good for corporations and bad for the people explain to me why said corporations are lobbying to kill it.
Muppet of a Man
Member
You didn't read and you didn't understand. Contract law exclusivity agreements and Crony Capitalism are what is fucking up the competitive private market...not neutrally-applied regulation. Also, natural monopolies for certain types of infrastructure and utilities that are strictly regulated by the government can be beneficial, especially when starting from square one. Why do you think the USA had the world's best highway, rail, flight, and telecommunication networks at the advent of those technologies? Because of government-backed natural monopolies. In fact, if you go to many countries in Europe and Asia where gigabit internet is the standard, it's because of government-backed natural monopolies with regard to ISPs and the government-subsidized build out of the related telecommunications infrastructure.
The truth is that both private companies and the government need to coexist (i.e., a mixed market economy) in order to have a system being fully functional and productive. If you want to see societies that functions in an optimal manner, look to the Scandinavian countries and how government and private organizations coexist there.
He clearly doesn't understand. His post seems to imply that he thinks government is bad because our government has been corrupted by corporate lobbying and corporate-written laws therefore get rid of government. It's such an insane and myopic logical train of thought that I want to assume he's a corporate shill just for his own sake.
"Those wolves keep finding ways into our hen house and eating our hens. Get rid of the hen house! The invisible hand will keep them safe."
Muppet of a Man
Member
Exactly.
And to your point...we really need to build a better hen house with things like:
-Campaign Finance Reform (only public funding for campaigns; no private money allowed)
-Disallowing politicians from getting hired at lobbying special interests for a period of time after the end of their term (e.g., 5 to 10 years after term ends)
-Reforming/Limiting Lobbying in general.
-Lock-step ratios for total executive compensation (i.e., total executive compensation is pegged to a maximum ratio with the median total compensation considering all employees and contractors working for the company; e.g., 40:1 upper threshold, where executive can only make up to 40 times as much as the median total compensation at that company...if the executives want to increase their own pay, they have to increase everyone else's also).
-Strengthening of labor and union laws which bolster labor and unions.
-Simple Progressive Federal Corporate Tax Rates (multiple brackets and much higher percentages at the upper end)
-Simple Progressive Federal Income Tax Rates (more brackets and much higher percentages at the upper end)
-Significantly higher Capital Gains Tax
-Simple Progressive Estate Tax (multiple brackets and much higher percentages at the upper end)
-Tuition-free College/Vocational Education
-Universal Healthcare
-Strict enforcement of labor and environmental laws wherever business is done, including in foreign countries (i.e., American companies operating in other countries must abide by our own labor and environmental standards); trade with foreign companies will be conditionally-tariffed if our standards are not met (i.e., fair trade).
-Companies operating in and/or incorporated in America will have strictly enforced repatriated taxable revenue (if companies do not comply, the funds will be forcibly recovered/frozen by the American government)
-Vastly increased investment in sustainable infrastructure and energy production (in the order of trillions of dollars over time).
-Massive increase in publicly-funded basic scientific research and R&D.
Just to name a few...
Soleil rouge
Member
Wonder what this could mean for people who depend on Twitch streaming as their only source of income.
RastaMentality
Banned
I have mixed feelings about this.
The logical conclusion of killing net neutrality, assuming Democrats don't retake the government and solidify it with legislation or whatever, I can't imagine would be very good for something like Twitch.
It's pretty disheartening. The internet is literally the backbone of our society at this point, with businesses, people's income, communication, entertainment, ability to research and educate oneself etc, being entirely reliant upon it. Anyone who says it isn't a vital infrastructure is completely full of shit. Imagine the internet "going down" indefinitely and tell me that wouldn't be catastrophic for modern society. That's a vital infrastructure. And these shit heads want to hand it over on a silver platter to cartels and monopolies to do with as they please. Why don't we just hand over the power grid, public water systems and highways to them while we're at it. I'm sure they'd act with society's best interests in mind.
Benjamin_MFF
Member
How? Honestly interested to know why.
Blood Borne
Member
Nah it's both of you that are myopic and idealogues.
You people seem to think that government is some incorruptible benevolent AI. Government is people like me and you running it. Humans have their biases, preferences, agenda and whatnot, therefore, they'll always be lobbying, bribery and corporate-written laws.
This is why we need to limit government power, so that it doesn't matter who's in power, their agenda can't reach us. Also, your analogy is awful, it makes no sense whatsoever, but even if we're to use your analogy, Government are the wolves, they're the ones with power.
You leftists feel that you can legislate human suffering and every injustice out of existence. All that is going to lead is to tyranny and misery. Leftist policies will always fail, it always end in disaster because it goes against the laws of nature.
Blood Borne
Member
Wow.
I'm so thankful you're not in power.
ape2man
Member
Can you please react on some of the points people are trying to make. By reacting like this we are not really having a sound discussion
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Which country do you look to as an example for the ideology you espouse? You seem pretty confident that you have it figured out, that means you have some evidence. If you're correct, that would also mean at least one sovereign nation out of 200 or so has it figured out as well, and has proven it. I mean, it can't just be a collection of good ideas on paper, right? Which country is that?
Which country do you look to as an example that net neutrality was indeed a bad thing and a hindrance to 'innovation'? Portugal? Spain?
Fuck it is depressing to see people defend this. I'm not even American, but I'm convinced that if this passes, the lobbying in other countries will start aswell and other countries will follow suit eventually. It will really be the death of the internet as we know it today.
I always compare net neutrality with the electricity that comes into your house. The electricity is neutral, the power provider does not get a say in what you do with it. You can power a lamp, a tv, a vacuum cleaner or whatever you want. Can you imagine what it would do to your life if the power company decides what you can or can not use in your house? That they decide you can only use certain brands or you can power lamps but no videogame consoles unless you pay extra? This is what this will do to the internet and everybody that is defending this will regret it later.
I always compare net neutrality with the electricity that comes into your house. The electricity is neutral, the power provider does not get a say in what you do with it. You can power a lamp, a tv, a vacuum cleaner or whatever you want. Can you imagine what it would do to your life if the power company decides what you can or can not use in your house? That they decide you can only use certain brands or you can power lamps but no videogame consoles unless you pay extra? This is what this will do to the internet and everybody that is defending this will regret it later.
You spew bullshit and propaganda.
See? I can do it too! If you don't think we need Net Neutrality, you don't think.
And you wonder why we think you don't know what's good for you. You're not a millionaire, posting here. So all of that is good for you.
ape2man
Member
I love this, back in the days blood borne would have been already been banned for no reason at all. Now even if i think he is not really giving answers to all the counter points people are making, and i 100% disagree to everything he is saying about the points he is making. At least he is not banned for not agreeing with other people, i love that.
If net neutrality is good for corporations and bad for the people explain to me why said corporations are lobbying to kill it.
Keep ignoring me, it is a real good look for your ridiculous biases.
No reason? He would have 100% have been banned for ignoring points, arguing in bad faith, peddling incorrect information and I'm sure plenty more. There may be a way to defend killing net neutrality, what he is doing isn't it, he is just turning up the volume on fox news for a while and letting some speech to text program do the work.
Vicetrailia
Member
He's trolling 100% and is throwing around leftist insults. It's a soapbox, not a discussion. Of course he would be banned due to his shitty actions, not because he disagrees.
Not agreeing with researched and informative information doesn't equate to spewing bullshit. Taking spewed bullshit as gospel because you agree with the side spewing it is your front and center I guess.
I don't think this matters much anymore....
Do we really have net neutrality now? I don't think so.
Everything is either Google, facebook, netflix or amazon. Is it fair that comcast has to treat their traffic equally? Is having net neutrality really sparking innovation? I don't see it. I see a lot of small websites making little to no money from google ads, I see google making a lot of money. I see comcast costs going up.
It kind of doesn't matter anymore....
Do we really have net neutrality now? I don't think so.
Everything is either Google, facebook, netflix or amazon. Is it fair that comcast has to treat their traffic equally? Is having net neutrality really sparking innovation? I don't see it. I see a lot of small websites making little to no money from google ads, I see google making a lot of money. I see comcast costs going up.
It kind of doesn't matter anymore....
Dreadnought
Member
People would lose their goddamn minds if they opened a history book and saw that the U.S government had to severely regulate businesses in the early 1900s to protect the average American. Early 1900s America must have been a communist dictatorship!
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Net neutrality affects small businesses because they might need to pay more to have their traffic treated similarly to larger companies. Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with the size of large internet companies and the internet is far from just Google Facebook netflix, and Amazon. You're posting on GAF right now.
If you fear the internet being run by a few big players then you should absolutely be opposed to removing net neutrality.
Also, because I'm enormously curious. How could removing net neutrality do anything to help innovation and small business?
Something inane and vacuous about "freedom" I'm sure.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
This is what US telecoms want:
That's happening now in Portugal, and it's the endgame that telecoms are desperately lobbying for. With the widespread use of streaming video, internet service providers are pissed about how much bandwidth we're using for it. Currently they can't do anything about it, and they're fighting alongside Republicans to make it so we all pay more. That's the innovation- us paying more for what we already have and use. Non snarky answer is that there is no stifled innovation, it's all bullshit.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
This is what US telecoms want:
That's happening now in Portugal, and it's the endgame that telecoms are desperately lobbying for. With the widespread use of streaming video, internet service providers are pissed about how much bandwidth we're using for it. Currently they can't do anything about it, and they're fighting alongside Republicans to make it so we all pay more. That's the innovation- us paying more for what we already have and use. Non snarky answer is that there is no stifled innovation, it's all bullshit.
if this is real, holy shit.
I think this is inevitable.
No one cares about small websites but their users. Small potatoes.
What does matter is video. Video traffic is growing exponentially. This has resulted in a lot of money being spent on infrastructure to handle video. The majority of this video is being monetized by Google, Netflix and facebook. Cable companies are having to bear the costs of the infrastructure without the revenue from it. On top of that, cable subscriptions are down. Video consumption is growing via OTT but not collapsing over cable and satellite.
This is one small aspect of this but it is a factor.
Bear the cost of infrastructure without the revenue from it... what are you talking about? They get a shit ton of revenue from it.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
The battle here is who picks up the tab. Republicans, telecoms and the video services would like it if we did, because we don't want to stifle innovation, do we? Truth is that they can work the economics of all of this out without the end users being involved at all much less being fucked over with higher prices, but we'll all argue with each other that we should get fucked over or we deserve to get fucked over because it's the telecoms who are investing in infrastructure, and that isn't cheap.
It's not inevitable that we live in an internet dark age where we are constantly shopping for the lowest Netflix tier internet package with various other caveats that make our lives worse. We don't have such short memories that we don't remember who was in office that fought for net neutrality. Wasn't that long ago.
macfoshizzle
Member
there is a bot that can send and fax letters for you to your representatives in congress. it's so convenient.
message "resist" to 504-09 and just go through the prompts. write the whatever you want and the bot will send it for you. i found this on reddit and it worked. my whole department did it.
message "resist" to 504-09 and just go through the prompts. write the whatever you want and the bot will send it for you. i found this on reddit and it worked. my whole department did it.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Re: net neutrality 'stifling innovation'. In this example, they repeal net neutrality rules, and there's a new streaming video service that streams your favorite shows, but they're new and small, and the bigger services all made deals with the telecoms for faster bandwidth. To play ball, that startup will need to make a deal with the telecoms so they aren't relegated to the 'poor' internet. The quality of the stream for their video content just isn't good enough, not as good as the big services like Hulu. The startup has a tough time getting past the bad PR, people don't like the bad quality. How does this scenario help with innovation? What repealing net neutrality rules will do, however, is introduce a 'rich' and 'poor' internet, higher prices for consumers, discrimination and potential blocking of content- and you know telecoms will do this right away because they did this before in 2014 with Netflix.
bigmit3737
Member
This won't happen- at least not right away. What's going to happen is google, netflix, facebook etc all the big players will pay the telecoms to make sure their services are provided with basic usage at no extra pay. This is because they can afford to pay it and it also prevents future competition. They can easily afford to pay 100 million or so (netflix might get a little hurt though). Smaller companies that are in losses won't be able to afford these fees. So these big companies will essential have monopolies. For competion, we have to wait for international conglomerates like Baidu, Alibaba to start moving in.
I think it was a 1000 start-ups have already sent letters to the FCC not to remove net neutrality.
So small startups will really get hurt this -- that's why they have been more vocal about it this time as opposed to the efforts the big companies are putting in compared to 2012.
Blood Borne
Member
This is probably the last time I'm going to reply you because you're a totalitarian. Your mindset is awful and scary and I'm glad you're not in power.
As for your question, you need to specify which corporations, because companies like Google, Apple,Amazon, Netflix support net neutrality, while Comcast, Verizon, AT&T are against it.
But most importantly, you have this ridiculous belief that anything good for corporations is automatically bad for the people and vice versa. I argue the opposite, massive corporations are good, I'm yet to see a country that is home to massive corporations and the people there are suffering or have low standard of living.
Massive corporations fund most of the shitty government programs and freebies that leftists love so much.
According to leftists, anyone who isn't a rabbid socialist/communist is a trump shill or alt right crazed nazi.
As expected, you refused to answer the question, shocker.
Want to try again? Or has Fox News not given you your soundbite for that yet?
ape2man
Member
Killing Net Neutrality, will kill the ability for small businesses to compete with the big corporate overlords.
And small businesses are the corner stone of America, killing it is bad very bad very very bad.
Muppet of a Man
Member
You're a goddamn fucking troll at this point. All of the things listed here are policies present either currently within a number of first world countries with significantly higher standard of living than the average person in the U.S. experiences or were part of previously implemented policies in the US during the golden era of the US middle class (1945 through 1975).
Put up a counter argument. Your drive by trolling otherwise.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
You can't expect any more than what you've seen from Blood Borne, that's the best they can do. I perceive them more as a bot than a troll, I don't believe they are fucking with us, but just regurgitating what they're programmed to say.