4 ms·

Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years y

by s73ver 9y ago

Starting an ISP is incredibly expensive, even if you didn't have regulations. If you got rid of all ISP regulations tomorrow, you would be lucky if in 3 years you'd start to see competition. And most places wouldn't be valuable enough to have more than one provider. When you argue for getting rid of these regulations, you're basically saying that a bunch of people don't deserve quality, neutral internet.

snickerbockers 9y ago
I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it. Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private corporations to provide it to them for free. And net neutrality advocates are cheering it on like it's a huge victory that they've deprived all these people of modern technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...
- alphabettsy 9y ago
  How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. Sure the best way would be for our lawmakers to actually make laws protecting privacy and providing basic consumer protections rather than relying on the FCC, but Congress is almost completely dysfunctional.
  - snickerbockers 9y ago
    > How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. Because most lifeforms are capable of observational learning. > The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but the government has been meddling in the telecom industry for a long time.
- s73ver 9y ago
  You haven't answered the question as to why people who live in rural areas, where there likely wouldn't be competition anyway, don't deserve net neutrality. And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service.
  - snickerbockers 9y ago
    They don't deserve net neutrality if they choose to do business with an ISP that doesn't give it to them. You say that they don't have a choice because there's no competition; I say there's no competition because government regulations raise entry barriers and remove profit motives. > And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service. You're certainly not doing anybody a service by trying to prevent a transaction that doesn't even involve you because you don't like the terms.
    - s73ver 9y ago
      No. Your argument completely falls flat when you ignore the fact that most people do not have choice for their ISP. Because you keep ignoring this, and saying it's the fault of people who had nothing to do with it, I have to believe you are not discussing in good faith.
      - snickerbockers 9y ago
        m80, if there's only one ice cream truck that drives through my neighborhood and he won't stock mint chocolate chip, the correct solution to this problem is not to petition the government to make a law requiring all ice cream flavors to be stocked equally.
        s73ver 9y ago
        We're not talking about ice cream. And yes, the proper solution is to have government require that all data is treated equally. Because, despite your attempts at dodging, there are places in this country where competition just is not viable, as those places are not profitable. And removing regulations WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. Those people deserve a neutral net too.

by s73ver 9y ago

snickerbockers 9y ago

I've been to rural areas, I'm well aware that millions of people live without reliable high-speed internet connections all over the United States, and those regulations you support haven't fixed it. Meanwhile, there are poor people in India who aren't going to get internet access because they can't afford it themselves, and net neutrality legislation has removed the profit-motive that would have incentivized private corporations to provide it to them for free. And net neutrality advocates are cheering it on like it's a huge victory that they've deprived all these people of modern technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-row https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/08/india-fac...

alphabettsy 9y ago
How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. Sure the best way would be for our lawmakers to actually make laws protecting privacy and providing basic consumer protections rather than relying on the FCC, but Congress is almost completely dysfunctional.
- snickerbockers 9y ago
  > How about making your argument without shifting it to the other side of the globe. Because most lifeforms are capable of observational learning. > The brand new regulations that have been fought by the same people introducing this bill haven't been effective? Duh, they weren't even in existence long enough. I don't know what alternate universe you live in, but the government has been meddling in the telecom industry for a long time.
s73ver 9y ago
You haven't answered the question as to why people who live in rural areas, where there likely wouldn't be competition anyway, don't deserve net neutrality. And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service.
- snickerbockers 9y ago
  They don't deserve net neutrality if they choose to do business with an ISP that doesn't give it to them. You say that they don't have a choice because there's no competition; I say there's no competition because government regulations raise entry barriers and remove profit motives. > And I'm sorry, but if the only reason you're giving internet "for free" is so that you can violate net neutrality, then you are not doing anyone a service. You're certainly not doing anybody a service by trying to prevent a transaction that doesn't even involve you because you don't like the terms.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    No. Your argument completely falls flat when you ignore the fact that most people do not have choice for their ISP. Because you keep ignoring this, and saying it's the fault of people who had nothing to do with it, I have to believe you are not discussing in good faith.
    - snickerbockers 9y ago
      m80, if there's only one ice cream truck that drives through my neighborhood and he won't stock mint chocolate chip, the correct solution to this problem is not to petition the government to make a law requiring all ice cream flavors to be stocked equally.
      - s73ver 9y ago
        We're not talking about ice cream. And yes, the proper solution is to have government require that all data is treated equally. Because, despite your attempts at dodging, there are places in this country where competition just is not viable, as those places are not profitable. And removing regulations WILL NOT CHANGE THAT. Those people deserve a neutral net too.