FCC Policy Change

[THE Bigzoman]

Don't worry guys, the invisible hand of the market will ensure that consumers get a fair deal.

You're absolutely right.

Conseratives just hand-wave this as "free-market".

We just ignore the excessive market power of monopolies and are just like "Yup. A select few firms running everything=free market."

[DEATHETERNAL]

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.

[THE Bigzoman]

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.

You do realize that net neuturality actually ensured perfect competition among the internet right?

And with it gone, corporations can use their market power to STIFLE potential competition?

What happens when a select few firms control a product as opposed to a shitload? We get fucked. Literally.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

You do realize that net neuturality actually ensured perfect competition among the internet right?

And with it gone, corporations can use their market power to STIFLE potential competition?

What happens when a select few firms control a product as opposed to a shitload? We get fucked. Literally.

He's perpetuating a "Don't like it? Leave" Mentality. I doubt he'll listen to reason.

[DEATHETERNAL]

You do realize that net neuturality actually ensured perfect competition among the internet right?

And with it gone, corporations can use their market power to STIFLE potential competition?

What happens when a select few firms control a product as opposed to a shitload? We get fucked. Literally.

When it is a nonessential service, that does not present a problem.

[Wells]

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.

Welcome to 2014. Internet is essential to our economy.

[THE Bigzoman]

He's perpetuating a "Don't like it? Leave" Mentality. I doubt he'll listen to reason.

Zip it.

10 char.

[Wells]

When it is a nonessential service, that does not present a problem.

So crushing competition doesn't matter unless you would die without the service?

[THE Bigzoman]

When it is a nonessential service, that does not present a problem.

The internet is a portal that provides various goods and services. It's a way in which firms that sell things completely unrelated to the internet reach consumers.

Now larger companies can bribe the fattening internet monopolies to discriminate the ways in which they use their bandwidth; Hindering consumers from buying from who they want and the firms from generating revenue they would have earned without this level of atrocious market power.

[LilSaihah]

It seems to me like the problem is the monopoly, not the law. Removing Net Neutrality isn't the real problem; it exacerbates it, not cause it.

so yeah gl with that bc its never gonna fuckin happen

[Wells]

Allowing ISP's to throttle for extra money is essentially just legalized extortion. Its a terrible basis for an essential utility in our economy.

[THE Bigzoman]

It seems to me like the problem is the monopoly, not the law. Removing Net Neutrality isn't the real problem; it exacerbates it, not cause it.

so yeah gl with that bc its never gonna fuckin happen

Not everyone can deal with the extremely high fixed costs of starting an internet company and meeting the high demand for it.

Natural monopolies aren't a problem until their influence reaches a point to where it fucks firms more then it fucks consumers.

It's pretty much why conservatives should be fucking shitting themselves right now.

[Collegeguy]

When it is a nonessential service, that does not present a problem.

There was a time when electricity wasn't regulated as a utility either. Internet is by all means essential today. You can't even apply to most jobs without it.

[THE Bigzoman]

Allowing ISP's to throttle for extra money is essentially just legalized extortion. Its a terrible basis for an essential utility in our economy.

Convenient doesn't necessarily mean essential.

But yeah, giving bigger firms the power to hinder a smaller firm's ability to minimize costs through this convenience is a fucking travesty in itself.

[Yvaelle]

We really need to stop calling it Net Neutrality - the term-control is so often one of the biggest problems with dealing with political issues - they get to talk about neutrality and "internet freedom" when what they really mean is collusion and extortion: start calling them the criminals they are, and then see how quick politicians are willing to throw themselves in-front of the bullet of public opinion.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Welcome to 2014. Internet is essential to our economy.

And what is being described would present extremely limited if any interruption to the utilization of the internet within the economy at most.

So crushing competition doesn't matter unless you would die without the service?

Unless the act limits access to an essential service or places the nation in meaningful danger, yes. It already occurs plenty as it is.

The internet is a portal that provides various goods and services. It's a way in which firms that sell things completely unrelated to the internet reach consumers.

Now larger companies can bribe the fattening internet monopolies to discriminate the ways in which they use their bandwidth. Hindering consumers from buying from who they want and the firms from generating revenue they would have earned without this level of atrocious market power.

And if consumers choose to purchase that anyway, they choose to accept that hindered level of access. They choose to accept a more limited selection (or simply the same selection where portions take longer to load the page as is what is being discussed presently) of goods and services that they can purchase over the internet.

When consumers continue to purchase a nonessential product despite a change they don’t like, then the nonessential product remains good enough for them. If they want something else, then they can voice their opinions and try to motivate the provider to change. Why should the government enforce changes upon a company in the name of the consumer when the consumer demonstrates that the nonessential product is still good enough for them by continuing to buy it?

There was a time when electricity wasn't regulated as a utility either. Internet is by all means essential today. You can't even apply to most jobs without it.

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

[Wells]

Convenient doesn't necessarily mean essential.

But yeah, giving bigger firms the power to hinder a smaller firm's ability to minimize costs through this convenience is a fucking travesty in itself.

I can't think of any useful definition of essential in terms of economics that does not include the internet.

And what is being described would present extremely limited interruption to the utilization of the internet within the economy at most.

It would allow ISPs to use their position as localized monopolies to extort additional money out of businesses that rely on large amounts of bandwidth.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally the only group who benefits from letting this happen is ISPs. Everyone else loses. When you have an economic transaction with only one winner something is wrong.

[THE Bigzoman]

And what is being described would present extremely limited if any interruption to the utilization of the internet within the economy at most.


Unless the act limits access to an essential service or places the nation in meaningful danger, yes. It already occurs plenty as it is.


And if consumers choose to purchase that anyway, they choose to accept that hindered level of access. They choose to accept a more limited selection (or simply the same selection where portions take longer to load the page as is what is being discussed presently) of goods and services that they can purchase over the internet.

When consumers continue to purchase a nonessential product despite a change they don’t like, then the nonessential product remains good enough for them. If they want something else, then they can voice their opinions and try to motivate the provider to change. Why should the government enforce changes upon a company in the name of the consumer when the consumer demonstrates that the nonessential product is still good enough for them by continuing to buy it?


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

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.

[Xisa]

This is why we should move away from giving america any power.

EU and Brazil cement net neutrality in their law and the US does bullshit like this

Congrats America.

Minus that whole messy free speech thing.

[THE Bigzoman]

I can't think of any useful definition of essential in terms of economics that does not include the internet.


It would allow ISPs to use their position as localized monopolies to extort additional money out of businesses that rely on large amounts of bandwidth.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally the only group who benefits from letting this happen is ISPs. Everyone else loses. When you have an economic transaction with only one winner something is wrong.

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