US Senate decides that Ajit Pai is doing well at his job.

[Elba]

How is it anti-free market to have ISPs provide equal net access?

Telling ISPs how to run their business is ant free market.

[Fugus]

Telling ISPs how to run their business is ant free market.

No, not allowing a company to leverage their monopoly in other areas is protecting the free market. You forget, the Free Market doesn't self regulate.

And the customer didn't pay to have their internet interfered with without their consent and with no real competition in most of the US, they don't have the option to take their business elsewhere, especially if the other person can be doing the same.

[Kujako]

He is. Net neutrality is anti free market. Can't wait for it to disappear.

How did you post here from your private for profit AOL Newsroom?

[Grapemask]

Telling ISPs how to run their business is ant free market.

No, not allowing a company to leverage their monopoly in other areas is protecting the free market. You forget, the Free Market doesn't self regulate.

Pretty much this. Net neutrality does more to help the free market than gutting it would, in the market as it actually exists in the real world, rather than the market as it exists in philosophical mumbo jumbo fantasy land. In the real world, we have megacorporations with near limitless resources at the top of pyramids; net neutrality keeps the sides of those pyramids sloped enough that others might be able to scale them. Gutting it would make them more like the lines of a function at an asymptote.

It takes an extremely shallow, almost alarming brainwashed mind not to understand it. The kind of person who says "the best cure for an itch is to BLOW IT OFF WITH A SHOTGUN."

[Cthulhu 2020]

I want every person of the whole political spectrum to be checked if they post something like DOWN WITH USA/CAPITALISM/WHITE SUPREMACIST COUNTRY! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

the security and stability of our country is very important. No wonder FBI considers antifa a terrorist organization, you think theyre wrong and youre smarter?

Thought policing, how very fascistic of you. If you're not trolling me, you're the very reason this country needs an anti-fascist group.

- - - Updated - - -

Telling ISPs how to run their business is ant free market.

Letting them run rampant with monopolies and legalized extortion is also against free market principles.

So when you get rid of net neutrality and they ultimately end up doing EXACTLY what everyone who knows the importance of net neutrality is saying they'll do, what's your free market solution then?

[Dmitro]

Thought policing, how very fascistic of you. If you're not trolling me, you're the very reason this country needs an anti-fascist group.

Why, hell no, nobody should ban these people from spreading their degeneracy, its anti-constitutional and not needed.
Just track the most dangerous ones to see what they're doing, like ALL intelligence services in the world do when it comes to islamic terrorism.

[kail]

Telling ISPs how to run their business is ant free market.

All businesses of all kinds have regulation, mostly to protect the consumer, and no one is crying how it hurts free market. Internet access shouldn't be competitive on what you have access too, but what performance you get for your dollar.

[PosPosPos]

So when you get rid of net neutrality and they ultimately end up doing EXACTLY what everyone who knows the importance of net neutrality is saying they'll do, what's your free market solution then?

Blame the liberals and worship Trump, of course. Like they do on literally every issue.

Look at healthcare for the tip of the iceberg.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Why, hell no, nobody should ban these people from spreading their degeneracy, its anti-constitutional and not needed.
Just track the most dangerous ones to see what they're doing, like ALL intelligence services in the world do when it comes to islamic terrorism.

Aren't you the guys who insist that if the government knows who owns which guns, they'll use that gun registry to confiscate all guns?

I'm in full agreement, track the most dangerous people in the country closely. But that's certainly not antifa - well... unless you're an advocate for the rights of trash bins, since about 98% of Antifa "terrorism" is dumpster fires.

But you also have a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality even is. It's certainly not the reason the CIA has a hard time tracking people. IP companies already hand over metadata to the CIA and FBI on request. The NSA already mass collects user data from their own sources AND directly from your internet provider AND social media like Amazon, Facebook, etc. I see this argument so often and I have to wonder why people still have this misconception that "net neutrality" = "people are anonymous and thus can't be tracked!" I can understand an INITIAL misunderstanding towards that definition, but after it's been explained thousands of times on youtube and various other places, I can't understand why people still think that's what net neutrality is.

People say that the end of net neutrality means more free market, but that's also a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality is.

For one thing, competition between internet providers barely exists as it is, and in areas where multiple companies do in fact operate, they have non-competition agreements that they won't get into price wars with each other. Yes, they all gouge their prices and agree to set certain services at certain prices that is higher than the ACTUAL market value if they were really competing. Your internet service would be 1/4 the cost or less if your internet companies were actually competing with each other.

People think that ending net neutrality means that "fast lanes" will suddenly exist. This was the argument from the internet providers for the end of net neutrality. That they could create "fast lanes" for people who pay more. The reality is they already have those fast lanes, and you can already pay for them. The end of net neutrality simply means they get to have legal extortion.

The whole reason net neutrality exists in the first place is because of a case where Netflix was threatened by a certain internet provider to slow down Netflix's services to the customers of said company. And said IP company has monopolies in many areas, so users who were getting lots of buffer times on Netflix during this "incident" couldn't switch to another internet company. Netflix was paying their usage fees. Let me repeat that, Netflix was already paying for the services of the internet company to deliver their streaming content to Netflix's customers.

Said company saw that Netflix was using up a huge portion of the internet's bandwidth and making ridiculous profits off of that. And again, let me repeat once more for anyone who missed it, NETFLIX WAS ALREADY PAYING THEIR FAIR FEES FOR THIS LARGE AMOUNT OF SERVICE. Said internet provider went to Netflix and said "look, if you don't pay us EVEN MORE money per package of data streamed to your customers, we're going to slow down your service to your customers. And you know that means you'll lose business, so go ahead and cough it up."

They knew that Netflix was reliant upon internet providers to get their content streamed to their customers, and at first Netflix didn't bend, so said IP company actually slowed down Netflix's service to their customers, and as soon as Netflix paid up (once they started losing business) their speeds returned to normal.

That is what net neutrality is, not allowing internet companies to extort money from businesses that rely upon fast internet service for their business to succeed.

Ending net neutrality is just legalizing extortion.

How anyone can still be against net neutrality knowing this is beyond me.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Ah I see another person who has absolutely zero clue about what net neutrality is, and bought into the story that it's FOR DA FREE MARKET, MUH FREE MARKET!

As I said in my post, I generally find that free marketeers have good intentions, but they don't actually realize that implementing various "free market" policy in a system that is easily exploitable would... lead to exploitation.

Free market principles rely on a complete and utter lack of human greed, that everyone stands on equal footing when coming to the bargaining table, whether it's over a job or some goods (they don't, and I just laugh really hard at anyone who think a giant corporate entity and an individual have equal bargaining power) just like communism relies on a lack of people's ambition, a lack of desire to be "better" than others.

Both rely on human nature not existing, and trying to argue free market principles is putting the horse before the cart. You implement your idea, it doesn't turn into the magical free market paradise and instead you now have even worse crony capitalism.

But anyway, internet companies already have tiered services for faster speeds. That's something I find most people who are against net neutrality don't understand. THERE ARE ALREADY TIERED INTERNET PACKAGES, for both consumers and businesses. Net neutrality would legalize extortion, and that's all. It would do ZERO to encourage competition and innovation, and rather have the opposite effect. It would create stagnation and suddenly you have egg on your face.

No this is another example of you not knowing what a word like capitalism means, and trying to stretch the definition to suit your own bias. We all don't need to hit the reset button, because you are unhappy about the arrangement of things before you showed up.

You can't be pro capitalist, and then against it at the same time because it works as intended and you find yourself on low end of it all.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you heard the phrase 'natural monopoly'? Hint: it is one of the reasons as to why the free market is not working properly in this market, just like it failed in others. If there was perfect competition then yes, there would not be a problem. Consumers would simply go to the provider offering them the best service to price ration for their individual needs. However, in large parts of the US there is no competition. If there is only one provider in your town, then they can do whatever they want. Given the high investment cost to enter the market, they have a lot of leeway before competitors spring up. Even in larger cities there are not that many providers. And the fewer competitors there are, the more stable is tacit collusion.

Comparing this to individual websites is disingenous. Every website competes with all other websites over your attention, which is a lot more competition. Barrier to entry for most sites, especially news ones like this very site, is ridiculously low. If you do not want to 'pay' for MMO-C by clicking pop-ups, you can find another site to get your news from or argue politics on. Chances are if you are not in a large US city, you cannot just change your provider if it slows your favorite sites.
So yeah, there is nothing contradictory about being for the free marked between websites, where it works, but not when it comes to those companies where it does not.

No it isn't there is no reason people should be allowed to make money off you clicking on their website anymore than ISP being able to regulate connection speeds through the very technology they actually provided. The difference is ISP spend money to develop their products, and some simply put together a website and feel they are owed a livable wage, if they can get people to click on a link.

[Mormolyce]

Net neutrality makes it harder for CIA to browse the net

What the fuck are you ta...

Oh, it's you. Haha, never mind.

[DarkTZeratul]

We all don't need to hit the reset button, because you are unhappy about the arrangement of things before you showed up.

Reset button? What are you talking about?

You can't be pro capitalist, and then against it at the same time because it works as intended and you find yourself on low end of it all.

So what, you're arguing for pure unregulated capitalism at every level of society? Because that would be horrific. Also, lol at your claim that anyone who isn't all for 100% pure unadulterated capitalism is automatically entirely against capitalism.

No it isn't there is no reason people should be allowed to make money off you clicking on their website anymore than ISP being able to regulate connection speeds through the very technology they actually provided. The difference is ISP spend money to develop their products, and some simply put together a website and feel they are owed a livable wage, if they can get people to click on a link.

What in the everloving fuck are you even talking about? Do you even understand what net neutrality is?

Wait, scratch that. Better question. Please explain to me your understanding of what net neutrality is.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Reset button? What are you talking about?

So what, you're arguing for pure unregulated capitalism at every level? Because that would be horrific.

What in the everloving fuck are you even talking about? Do you even understand what net neutrality is?

Wait, scratch that. Better question. Please explain to me your understanding of what net neutrality is.

My point is either you believe in capatalism or you don't. This on the fence bullshit until it effects me personally is BS.

I'm not supporting fence sitters especially the obnoxious ones that look down their nose at everyone else.

[DarkTZeratul]

My point is either you believe in capatalism or you don't. This on the fence bullshit until it effects me personally is BS.

I'm not supporting fence sitters especially the obnoxious ones that look down their nose at everyone else.

Oh, so you're one of those "the world is black and white, there are no shades of gray, you're either for or against" types. Then I'm not going to bother.

[LaserSharkDFB]

My point is either you believe in capatalism or you don't. This on the fence bullshit until it effects me personally is BS.

I'm not supporting fence sitters especially the obnoxious ones that look down their nose at everyone else.

Have you accepted capitalism as your Lord and savior?

[Orbitus]

For americans not so much, for europeans FOR SURE. Tho its kinda useful to track down dangerous terrorist orgs like Antifa and ISIS

I thought you said that Republicans weren't authoritarian? Because this is another Authoritarian step to add to Republicans. And Antifa isn't a terrorist organization. Does that mean everyone that hated the Nazis during WW2 to current day are Antifa? Because that is what it means to be anti-fascist. To hate fascists like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and white supremacists.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Oh, so you're one of those "the world is black and white, there are no shades of gray, you're either for or against" types. Then I'm not going to bother.

You got it fuck fence sitters. I don't give my support to disloyal confused and mindless self righteous causes.

[Cthulhu 2020]

My point is either you believe in capatalism or you don't. This on the fence bullshit until it effects me personally is BS.

I'm not supporting fence sitters especially the obnoxious ones that look down their nose at everyone else.

Free market capitalists and communists have two things in common: They want the world and governments to operate as they think it should. They don't think about reality. Only the "ideal". They don't take real human behavior into account. They want to implement systems that in reality would never work and only cause massive hardship upon the masses.

What you're advocating for is an impossible scenario. Full deregulation of the market has time and again caused massive crashes and recessions. That's just a fact. If you disagree with it, well history disagrees with you and doesn't care what you think.

The world WORKS on mixed market economics, a system of the best ideas from capitalism, socialism, and many other -isms. I'd love it if marxist communism was how the world worked. But here's the thing: My head is in reality, not in some fantasy land where people act exactly the way I think they should.

In your head you seem to believe in the magic hand of the free market making everything work how you want it to. But here's the thing: Your head is not in reality at all. You've completely obliterated real human behavior and real economics in favor of some fantasy world where everyone acts in exactly the way you want them to.

In a completely unregulated system there is no such thing as a free market. Only royalty and peasants.

Ayn Randian style free market is as impossible in the real world as marxist communism is. Deal with it. Get your head out of the clouds and into the real world. There's a reason your laissez-faire style of economics is also called voodoo economics.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Have you accepted capitalism as your Lord and savior?

Yes... yes I have.

- - - Updated - - -

Free market capitalists and communists have two things in common: They want the world and governments to operate as they think it should. They don't think about reality. Only the "ideal". They don't take real human behavior into account.

What you're advocating for is an impossible scenario. Full deregulation of the market has time and again caused massive crashes and recessions. That's just a fact. If you disagree with it, well history disagrees with you and doesn't care what you think.

The world WORKS on mixed market economics. I'd love it if marxist communism was how the world worked. But here's the thing: My head is in reality, not in some fantasy land where people act exactly the way I think they should.

In your head you seem to believe in the magic hand of the free market making everything work how you want it to. But here's the thing: Your head is not in reality at all. You've completely obliterated real human behavior and real economics in favor of some fantasy world where everyone acts in exactly the way you want them to.

In a completely unregulated system there is no such thing as a free market. Only royalty and peasants.

Ayn Randian style free market is as impossible in the real world as marxist communism is. Deal with it. Get your head out of the clouds and into the real world.

Ayn Rand is a moron. Either it's one or the other not just whatever is convenient for you. I don't have to give a shit about your problems because you like to convince me it's mine.

Actions are important because talk is cheap. That's reality

[Cthulhu 2020]

Ayn Rand is a moron. Either it's one or the other not just whatever is convenient for you. I don't have to give a shit about your problems because you like to convince me it's mine.

Actions are important because talk is cheap. That's reality

As pointed out, you live in a black and white world. Countries are the most stable when they operate with a system of mixed market economics that uses some aspects of capitalism and tosses the "free market" trash out the window. It's no coincidence that every time a major world power deregulates huge portions of the market for the "free market" that massive depressions follow.

- - - Updated - - -

I will say it just dawned on me, it's fucking hilarious that @Mall Security calls Rand a moron even though he's arguing for the same Randian laissez-faire economics.