FCC Policy Change

[Wells]

We're not at a stage where we purchase everything via the internet. At least not yet.

Internet use in our economy is waaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaay more than just e-commerce.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Purchase what anyway? The product from the firm who has shitty bandwidth? I don't think you understand the potential this holds. This gives bigger firms the power to limit consumer choice in a lot of markets. The "don't buy it" goes beyond the internet. Consumers will be wrongfully shut out of markets that they would have otherwise partaken in.

So are you saying that the consumers have some sort of inherent right for a product giving them convenient access to those markets be available for them? If not, then there is still no issue based on what you have stated as far as I can see. Not having something offered to you for sale is quite different than having something taken away from you.

[THE Bigzoman]

Internet use in our economy is waaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaay more than just e-commerce.

From the end of a consumer? No?

From the end of a firm when it uses the internet to communicate/advertise. That I can buy. But those eventually lead to transactions one way or another.

[Fexus]

It is well within the rightful liberty of providers to what is being described. If you don't like the way a nonessential service is sold, don't buy that nonessential service.

1. The Internet is essential. Most jobs and most institutes of higher education require it.

2. A lot of places in the US have exactly one ISP to choose from. An essential utility that has larges monopolies requires strict oversight to prevent exploitation.

[THE Bigzoman]

So are you saying that the consumers have some sort of inherent right for a product giving them convenient access to those markets be available for them? If not, then there is still no issue based on what you have stated as far as I can see.

Yes. Yes they do.

And it's in everyone's best interest to keep markets accessible. A market in which there are many buyers and sellers maximizes welfare for everyone involved.

For the love of god man, this is basic microeconomic theory.

[Lahis]

Well shit. Propably will be just a matter of time before EU follows suit, despite the recent voting against this bullshit.

[Wells]

From the end of a consumer? No?

From the end of a firm when it uses the internet to communicate/advertise. That I can buy. But those eventually lead to transactions one way or another.

Why focus on just consumers?

[THE Bigzoman]

1. The Internet is essential. Most jobs and most institutes of higher education require it.

2. A lot of places in the US have exactly one ISP to choose from. An essential utility that has larges monopolies requires strict oversight to prevent exploitation.

I'm sure that in the event that people gave up internet access businesses would just twiddle their thumbs and be like "well fuck, we can't use all that labor"

- - - Updated - - -

Why focus on just consumers?

I didn't. I included ways in which producers use their internet to their advantage.

[Collegeguy]

It is essential on a national level. These acts may have a meaningful impact at the individual level, but at the national level, there would be little to no impact on the contribution of the internet to society and the economy. As such, these impacts are not legitimate justification for additional regulation

Entire marketing segments and companies being shut out from potential customers certainly does effect the economy and the country nationally.

[Fexus]

I'm sure that in the event that people gave up internet access businesses would just twiddle their thumbs and be like "well fuck, we can't use all that labor"

Why should businesses have to revert to a less efficient form of recruiting when we can just pass sensible legislation to keep ISP's from exploiting their customers?

[Xisa]

From the end of a consumer? No?

From the end of a firm when it uses the internet to communicate/advertise. That I can buy. But those eventually lead to transactions one way or another.

That's a painfully stupid statement.

[THE Bigzoman]

Why should businesses have to revert to a less efficient form of recruiting when we can just pass sensible legislation to keep ISP's from exploiting their customers?

You're moving the goalpost.

My point wasn't that they should. My point is that they would in the event that a lot of their labor pool didn't have access to the internet.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a painfully stupid statement.

Thanks for the contribution.

Care to share with me an essential role the internet plays for a consumer besides e-transactions? I'm not sure if it will get much better. Your initial contribution was so swell.

[mvaliz]

Yes. Yes they do.

And it's in everyone's best interest to keep markets accessible. A market in which there are many buyers and sellers maximizes welfare for everyone involved.

For the love of god man, this is basic microeconomic theory.

Woah woah woah! Be careful there! A thousand (ok... more like 2) Ayn Randian theologists here will come down on you! Welcome to the Republican/Tea Party bible doctrine that "nothing should be for everyone's best interest. Self-Interest should dictate morality over everybody as a whole." :P

HEAVEN forbid we should enact something that's in society's best interest, not that of the self-interested moneymaker! :P

[THE Bigzoman]

Woah woah woah! Be careful there! A thousand (ok... more like 2) Ayn Randian theologists here will come down on you! Welcome to the Republican/Tea Party bible doctrine that "nothing should be for everyone's best interest. Self-Interest should dictate morality over everybody as a whole." :P

HEAVEN forbid we should enact something that's in society's best interest, not that of the self-interested moneymaker! :P

Any real free-market proponent is shitting himself out of his underwear drawer faster then any liberal right now.

[mvaliz]

Any real free-market proponent is shitting himself out of his underwear drawer faster then any liberal right now.

<----------------------------- This is my face when reading this. ^_^

[Xisa]

Thanks for the contribution.

Care to share with me an essential role the internet plays for a consumer besides e-transactions? I'm not sure if it will get much better. Your initial contribution was so swell.

Sure, I'll try to use small words for you.

The "Internet" is nothing more than a communications tunnel first off, referring to it as this living, breathing entity is a misnomer in itself.

Socialization is not e-commerce, Entertainment is not e-commerce, Education is not e-commerce. There are variations of these things involving money changing hands, but it's the exception, not the rule. On the business side, yes, it's e-commerce, but EVERYTHING involving a business is commerce. That's like saying "On the Internet it's a business's job to make money".

So like I said, painfully stupid.

[THE Bigzoman]

<----------------------------- This is my face when reading this. ^_^

A situation in this nature, by defintion, hinders the self interests of a firm wayy more then a consumer.

[Fexus]

You're moving the goalpost.

My point wasn't that they should. My point is that they would in the event that a lot of their labor pool didn't have access to the internet.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for the contribution.

Care to share with me an essential role the internet plays for a consumer besides e-transactions? I'm not sure if it will get much better. Your initial contribution was so swell.

By what criteria do you consider things "essential"? What about phones? How about indoor plumbing? What about antibiotics? Sure, society would continue on without reliable Internet access for everyone, but we would be worse off without it. Internet use is so foundational to so many people's everyday lives. I don't know what else to call it but essential.

[THE Bigzoman]

Sure, I'll try to use small words for you.

The "Internet" is nothing more than a communications tunnel first off, referring to it as this living, breathing entity is a misnomer in itself.

Socialization is not e-commerce, Entertainment is not e-commerce, Education is not e-commerce. There are variations of these things involving money changing hands, but it's the exception, not the rule. On the business side, yes, it's e-commerce, but EVERYTHING involving a business is commerce. That's like saying "On the Internet it's a business's job to make money".

So like I said, painfully stupid.

Not really.

Most of the things you listed are ways that firms on the internet make money. That's why someone took the time to put their stuff on there most of the time.

And remember, we were talking about it being essential purely in the realm of economics. Very rarely does economics go outside consumers getting what they want and someone making money for providing it.

So yeah, painfully stupid; but it's not me.

[Rhaide]

OK, now we just need the free market to fix this for us somehow. Go on. I'll wait.

Funny thing about criticizing the dysfunctional 'free market' through sarcasm is that the market has to actually be free first...