Once you've got a REALLY free market, with no regulations, that means that political power will be in the hands of corporations, bought and sold on wall street to whoever can pay for it. We may wake up to find the Saudi Royal family controlling the American internet, because they had the money to buy enough Verizon stock.
The modern corporation, with special privileges within the legal system, is a creation of state monopolistic law. At the extreme, remember that property claims are overturnable. If you don't want wealthy Saudis in control of your ISP, who would you rather have standing between you and the relevant material - troops they had to pay for (which factors into the profitability of the venture) or troops you fund every day through taxation.
I think Xominiverse is correct, but doesn't realize that his argument basically tells us that if the companies dont want to do what we want them to do (net neutrality) telecommunications should NOT be in the hands of private corporations and individuals. This way, no one is forced to do something unconstitutional. Problem solved.
well, i didn't mean "boycotting" them. Im saying if they don't do what the entire public unanimously wants, then providing internet should no longer be in the hands of private corporations. The act of providing Telecommunications for the Nation is a PRIVALEGE of the corporate charter, not a RIGHT. I'm not sure if you understood my comments.
First I do not see how a "corprate charter" can have "rights" or "privliges", as it is not a live entity (in fact, I would argue that it exists no where outside of imagination, but that is not needed at the moment, I think)
What it seems you are saying is that the people who work in these companies should not be allowed to undertake the task of offering communictions service unless they have unanamous approval to do so. Why is this true?
Is it also true that I should not be able to offer my services in the job I work in unless every person within some specific geographical area "approves" of me doing so?
Why or why not?
(as a side note, there are luddites and primitivists out there who do not want anyone to use technology above a certian level...)
Not eveyrone lives in areas where they have the option of DSL, or Cable, and/or having a T1 line installed.
For some, all you have is either Cable internet, or dial-up. If Net Neutrality dissolved and the companies were free to block whatever they wanted and give special treatment to those who paid them, many folks would just have to deal with it for the sake of having acceptable internet service.
But I can not believe that bringing in a third party to threatan death to those who refuse to conduct their own buisness in some specific way is any kind of a solution to this. Or to anything else.
I was only arguing the initial point in the post stating about people's right to choose not to do business with corporations that do not provide the services, services which they are currently obligated to do thanks to Net Neutrality.
I'm not sure how anyone could call the NAU a "theory" when spp . gov is pretty clear (and when I looked at it there was an FAQ where the answers directly contradicted information in other parts...)
I respect omniverse but he is off on this subject. In fact, he is completely wrong. Like you said, the sole purpose of blocking off certain websites is for money. This limits information and free speech. Lets say they blocked Youtube, then you couldn't get your voice out. A clear violation of the 1st amendment.
The Fascist model is no good, much "privitization" these days is merely a way to shift the blame for policies dictated by the state to private enterprize.
That said, I have changed my viewpoint a bit.
The bill of rights merely makes for a more palatable poision. The only true monopoly, government, should not exist.
i pay 50 bucks a month for my internet. i expect whatever page i want to load fast as any other. without net neutrality, i wont be getting my money's worth. period.
I really like how you tied the tollways together with this topic. I internet was developed by the U.S. army, certainly a tax-funded project. These ISPs think they have some right to this regulate this, or, actually, they know they don't, but will pretend they do.
Your point about the government funding the Internet to begin with is a valid one, but part of the problem is that responding to inappropriate government spending/regulation with MORE spending/regulation is an endless cycle. At some point, a line has to be drawn and someone has to say "Ok, we're taking the government out of this now. Sorry if you got fucked."
Forgotten vital point: Choice is not a practical reality for anythng other than dial-up service for most people. Dial up is outdated in these days where every webpage is pretty large.
Dial up outdated? Tell that to the travelling business people, students, GSM users, people living outside of big cities. Many of them still depend on it.
Re large webpages: You might have notices that with increasing utilization of CSS websites begin to shrink because many graphics can now be replaced with style sheet rules (e.g. look at most blogs). I use Firefox with Adblock and eliminate each page element that takes too long to load.
Yeah, about that. As a student living in a rural area of the US with friends from the same background, I think I can speak for many people in the same situation when I say: Yeah, we use wireless.
Dial-up IS outdated, and if people can find a wireless signal or a LAN jack, they WILL use it.
lol
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
580 OMGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
MidnightRayn 1 year ago
@MidnightRayn
Your lucky number?
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
stifle YES!!!!
MidnightRayn 1 year ago
Once you've got a REALLY free market, with no regulations, that means that political power will be in the hands of corporations, bought and sold on wall street to whoever can pay for it. We may wake up to find the Saudi Royal family controlling the American internet, because they had the money to buy enough Verizon stock.
omgitsmikegravel 1 year ago
@omgitsmikegravel
The modern corporation, with special privileges within the legal system, is a creation of state monopolistic law. At the extreme, remember that property claims are overturnable. If you don't want wealthy Saudis in control of your ISP, who would you rather have standing between you and the relevant material - troops they had to pay for (which factors into the profitability of the venture) or troops you fund every day through taxation.
Notice the latter is today's system.
blackacidlizzard 1 year ago
I think Xominiverse is correct, but doesn't realize that his argument basically tells us that if the companies dont want to do what we want them to do (net neutrality) telecommunications should NOT be in the hands of private corporations and individuals. This way, no one is forced to do something unconstitutional. Problem solved.
rookandpawn 3 years ago
"if the companies dont want to do what we want them to do ..."
Then we will not pay them for the unwanted service.
If people want open access on the internet, they will pay for it, and buisness men will leap at the chance for the profit to be had.
Refusing to provide a service is not an act of force. And exploitative monopolies can only be held by force.
... yes, I have reworked some of my thinking since making this.
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
well, i didn't mean "boycotting" them. Im saying if they don't do what the entire public unanimously wants, then providing internet should no longer be in the hands of private corporations. The act of providing Telecommunications for the Nation is a PRIVALEGE of the corporate charter, not a RIGHT. I'm not sure if you understood my comments.
rookandpawn 3 years ago
I understood. I disagree, however.
First I do not see how a "corprate charter" can have "rights" or "privliges", as it is not a live entity (in fact, I would argue that it exists no where outside of imagination, but that is not needed at the moment, I think)
What it seems you are saying is that the people who work in these companies should not be allowed to undertake the task of offering communictions service unless they have unanamous approval to do so. Why is this true?
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
Is it also true that I should not be able to offer my services in the job I work in unless every person within some specific geographical area "approves" of me doing so?
Why or why not?
(as a side note, there are luddites and primitivists out there who do not want anyone to use technology above a certian level...)
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
From your origonal post:
"telecommunications should NOT be in the hands of... individuals"
This confuses me. What other hands could they be in?
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
You don't always have a choice.
Not eveyrone lives in areas where they have the option of DSL, or Cable, and/or having a T1 line installed.
For some, all you have is either Cable internet, or dial-up. If Net Neutrality dissolved and the companies were free to block whatever they wanted and give special treatment to those who paid them, many folks would just have to deal with it for the sake of having acceptable internet service.
Goatmon 3 years ago
This may be true.
But I can not believe that bringing in a third party to threatan death to those who refuse to conduct their own buisness in some specific way is any kind of a solution to this. Or to anything else.
blackacidlizzard 3 years ago
I was only arguing the initial point in the post stating about people's right to choose not to do business with corporations that do not provide the services, services which they are currently obligated to do thanks to Net Neutrality.
Goatmon 3 years ago
I doubt they just hit on this idea myself and I realize this is just more government propaganda.
HillDueceua 4 years ago
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, focus on the wrong things....
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
rich and powerful? Ever heard of David Rockefeller?
HillDueceua 4 years ago
Yeah, a hardcore statist from my knowledge of him.
Not sure what you're referncing specifically, could you fill me in?
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Well I'm all into that nau 'conspiracy theory' shit and he's pushing for that.
HillDueceua 4 years ago
I'm not sure how anyone could call the NAU a "theory" when spp . gov is pretty clear (and when I looked at it there was an FAQ where the answers directly contradicted information in other parts...)
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
that's why I put 'conspiracy theory' in quotes. I personally believe it's true.
HillDueceua 4 years ago
oh sorry I made that comment because I wasn't sure where you were going with this and responded too early
HillDueceua 4 years ago
I respect omniverse but he is off on this subject. In fact, he is completely wrong. Like you said, the sole purpose of blocking off certain websites is for money. This limits information and free speech. Lets say they blocked Youtube, then you couldn't get your voice out. A clear violation of the 1st amendment.
macekid421 4 years ago
The Fascist model is no good, much "privitization" these days is merely a way to shift the blame for policies dictated by the state to private enterprize.
That said, I have changed my viewpoint a bit.
The bill of rights merely makes for a more palatable poision. The only true monopoly, government, should not exist.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Dreaming is Free : )
seattleshaman 4 years ago
i pay 50 bucks a month for my internet. i expect whatever page i want to load fast as any other. without net neutrality, i wont be getting my money's worth. period.
Psych0ranger 4 years ago
Yep. In the current sustem this idea is crap - but I'd gladly trade this for the elimination of government (or 90% of it).
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
I go to the library and don't pay anything so i have no expectation : )
seattleshaman 4 years ago
I'm doing the same thing these days.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
I really like how you tied the tollways together with this topic. I internet was developed by the U.S. army, certainly a tax-funded project. These ISPs think they have some right to this regulate this, or, actually, they know they don't, but will pretend they do.
machaeroguy 4 years ago
Dead on. Good video.
machaeroguy 4 years ago
Your point about the government funding the Internet to begin with is a valid one, but part of the problem is that responding to inappropriate government spending/regulation with MORE spending/regulation is an endless cycle. At some point, a line has to be drawn and someone has to say "Ok, we're taking the government out of this now. Sorry if you got fucked."
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Not more funding, just letting private companies take over with the condition that the current standard of operation.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Forgotten vital point: Choice is not a practical reality for anythng other than dial-up service for most people. Dial up is outdated in these days where every webpage is pretty large.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Dial up outdated? Tell that to the travelling business people, students, GSM users, people living outside of big cities. Many of them still depend on it.
Re large webpages: You might have notices that with increasing utilization of CSS websites begin to shrink because many graphics can now be replaced with style sheet rules (e.g. look at most blogs). I use Firefox with Adblock and eliminate each page element that takes too long to load.
leporidus 4 years ago
True. Still, most who have the option do not choose dial-up and probably would not even if their high speed provider turned to blocking information.
blackacidlizzard 4 years ago
Yeah, about that. As a student living in a rural area of the US with friends from the same background, I think I can speak for many people in the same situation when I say: Yeah, we use wireless.
Dial-up IS outdated, and if people can find a wireless signal or a LAN jack, they WILL use it.
rubbergumby 4 years ago