Net Neutrality

[Speaker to Animals]

You lost. Bye.

[StCapps]

You lost. Bye.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.....

[Speaker to Animals]

1. If competition exists, then a broadband provider would lose business by ruining peoples' Netflix and Amazon streaming services in favor of their own cable television services.

2. Cable companies want the power to throttle competitor's services and, before the previous regulation was in place, they were doing exactly that in the mid-2000s in an effort to kill off the video streaming competitors.

3. None of those cable companies subsequently lost any business because of this, even though people were livid. (Indeed, Comcast is the most hated institution in the United States, ranking lower than even the IRS, and yet it's one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.. I wonder how that could be possible.. )

4. Therefore, these broadband companies are, in fact, monopolies. There exists ZERO competition for broadband for most regions in the United States. Throttling traffic to favor one business (their own or the businesses that pay them the most for the advantage) is, in fact, a monopolistic practice. It cannot possibly work in a competitive market, since competitors would just not do it and grab more market share.

5. If you oppose restraining monopolies like Comcast from throttling their competitor's content, then you are defending the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry. If you defend the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry, then you oppose free markets.

^^^ There's the argument again. If you can't form a coherent response to it, then you lose by default, dude. You don't win by walking away.

[StCapps]

*walks away*

[Speaker to Animals]

Okay, bye then. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

[Calculus Man]

1. If competition exists, then a broadband provider would lose business by ruining peoples' Netflix and Amazon streaming services in favor of their own cable television services.

2. Cable companies want the power to throttle competitor's services and, before the previous regulation was in place, they were doing exactly that in the mid-2000s in an effort to kill off the video streaming competitors.

3. None of those cable companies subsequently lost any business because of this, even though people were livid. (Indeed, Comcast is the most hated institution in the United States, ranking lower than even the IRS, and yet it's one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.. I wonder how that could be possible.. )

4. Therefore, these broadband companies are, in fact, monopolies. There exists ZERO competition for broadband for most regions in the United States. Throttling traffic to favor one business (their own or the businesses that pay them the most for the advantage) is, in fact, a monopolistic practice. It cannot possibly work in a competitive market, since competitors would just not do it and grab more market share.

5. If you oppose restraining monopolies like Comcast from throttling their competitor's content, then you are defending the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry. If you defend the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry, then you oppose free markets.

^^^ There's the argument again. If you can't form a coherent response to it, then you lose by default, dude. You don't win by walking away.

If monopolies exist, the right solution is to break up the monopolies and introduce competition, not create a new regulatory regime which will obviously be corruptible.

I have three internet providers to choose from where I live. The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe these monopolies are inevitable, which they are not.

[Speaker to Animals]

1. If competition exists, then a broadband provider would lose business by ruining peoples' Netflix and Amazon streaming services in favor of their own cable television services.

2. Cable companies want the power to throttle competitor's services and, before the previous regulation was in place, they were doing exactly that in the mid-2000s in an effort to kill off the video streaming competitors.

3. None of those cable companies subsequently lost any business because of this, even though people were livid. (Indeed, Comcast is the most hated institution in the United States, ranking lower than even the IRS, and yet it's one of the most profitable businesses in the United States.. I wonder how that could be possible.. )

4. Therefore, these broadband companies are, in fact, monopolies. There exists ZERO competition for broadband for most regions in the United States. Throttling traffic to favor one business (their own or the businesses that pay them the most for the advantage) is, in fact, a monopolistic practice. It cannot possibly work in a competitive market, since competitors would just not do it and grab more market share.

5. If you oppose restraining monopolies like Comcast from throttling their competitor's content, then you are defending the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry. If you defend the right of monopolies to create barriers to entry, then you oppose free markets.

^^^ There's the argument again. If you can't form a coherent response to it, then you lose by default, dude. You don't win by walking away.

If monopolies exist, the right solution is to break up the monopolies and introduce competition, not create a new regulatory regime which will obviously be corruptible.

I have three internet providers to choose from where I live. The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe these monopolies are inevitable, which they are not.

When you can't feasibly break up a monopoly, as is the case for the power utility, what then?

Also, how do you plan for the state to create competition? What form of central planning is that? We have to work with the industries we have. At present, this is a monopolistic industry. If you know of a means to make it competitive, then do so, and only then should the regulations be lifted.

[Calculus Man]

^^^ There's the argument again. If you can't form a coherent response to it, then you lose by default, dude. You don't win by walking away.

If monopolies exist, the right solution is to break up the monopolies and introduce competition, not create a new regulatory regime which will obviously be corruptible.

I have three internet providers to choose from where I live. The problem with your argument is that you seem to believe these monopolies are inevitable, which they are not.

When you can't feasibly break up a monopoly, as is the case for the power utility, what then?

Also, how do you plan for the state to create competition? What form of central planning is that? We have to work with the industries we have. At present, this is a monopolistic industry. If you know of a means to make it competitive, then do so, and only then should the regulations be lifted.

Why would you say its unfeasible for new competitors to enter the market? High barriers to entry? I only ask because my city recently gained a third ISP where there were previously only two. It would seem that increased competition is feasible in some areas. What keeps more competition from developing in areas where monopolies exist?

The infrastructure for power is a lot more bulky and maintenance intensive, so I'm not really sure that's an apples to apples comparison...

Also, I was under the impression that power utilities were regulated more at the local level than the federal. One of our attorneys may be able to correct me on that...

[nmoore63]

If you know of a means to make it competitive,

Such has already been provided to ad infinitum

[Fife]

Uh-oh, Donald! You've created a #Winning Monster.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1FI1T2

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Monday said he would oppose a federal government move to build and run a national, super-fast 5G wireless network, calling any such effort “costly and counterproductive.”

But, but, but, Muh Infrastructure!!!