3 ms·

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. An

by 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

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.