|
|
|
|
Wtb
by 270 guru. 04/06/25 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
13 registered members (BigA47, CreekCrosser, MTeague, Tree Dweller, Bronco 74, Booner Hunter, Holcomb, bhammedic84, BCLC, JohnG, Frankie, 2 invisible),
947
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: R_H_Clark]
#2338595
12/20/17 09:43 AM
12/20/17 09:43 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644 Arab/Stevenson AL
Recurve
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644
Arab/Stevenson AL
|
No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay. People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons. I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules. Under title II the internet was subject to regulations like ISPs having to submit proposals for new tech to the FCC. So basically, to innovate, company xyz has to get permission to use their new tech from the government. Once determinations are made, they can’t be appealed and can only be reversed by them. They can also partially regulate capital investments of existing companies and decide which of those companies can enter the ISP market. Basically, they took almost a trillion $ of GDP and put it under new regulations and entrenched monopolies. I hope the decision will wind up to be a good thing. I would not mind some limited pricing protection in cases where ISP's have monopolies.Something to the effect that pricing must not be greater than a certain percentage where a monopoly doesn't exist would serve to protect consumers without restricting ISP's. As always government seeks to control much more than is ever necessary and complicate things beyond comprehension. I think it will be. Regulations almost always do the opposite of what they say they will do. I know the existing “monopolies” aren’t ideal and the way things are done can be improved but they are better than the alternative. I would like to see more de-regulation. If you want to see innovation like the early days of the internet, you need less. With regulations demanding permission, you don’t get Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. There was an economist (I can’t remember his name) that said “the economy flourishes with permissionless innovation.” The problem is, you get a country where the media and politicians have their once a week immoral dragon we all need to kill and they all without a doubt want government to kill it. They prop up the problem as something only government can solve and do a pretty good job of convincing the masses. I’m not all out against government. I’m just against government always being the arbiter of all that is moral. They aren’t and a vast majority of the time make the problem worse.
I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There�s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts. � Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: Remington270]
#2338599
12/20/17 09:46 AM
12/20/17 09:46 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644 Arab/Stevenson AL
Recurve
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644
Arab/Stevenson AL
|
No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay. People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons. I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules. But if internet was $1000/ month, me or someone like me would invest in a startup to deliver services at a fraction of that cost, and there would be plenty of money to be made. Capitalism really is great. It is indeed. Especially when the government doesn't make regulations making it nearly impossible for that startup to be created.
I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There�s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts. � Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: Recurve]
#2338601
12/20/17 09:47 AM
12/20/17 09:47 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 14,331 Mobile, AL
SouthBamaSlayer
Gary's Fluffer
|
Gary's Fluffer
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 14,331
Mobile, AL
|
No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay. People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons. I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules. But if internet was $1000/ month, me or someone like me would invest in a startup to deliver services at a fraction of that cost, and there would be plenty of money to be made. Capitalism really is great. It is indeed. Especially when the government doesn't make regulations making it nearly impossible for that startup to be created. But but but it's not free market without net neutrality!!
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: SouthBamaSlayer]
#2338607
12/20/17 09:50 AM
12/20/17 09:50 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644 Arab/Stevenson AL
Recurve
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,644
Arab/Stevenson AL
|
No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay. People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons. I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules. But if internet was $1000/ month, me or someone like me would invest in a startup to deliver services at a fraction of that cost, and there would be plenty of money to be made. Capitalism really is great. It is indeed. Especially when the government doesn't make regulations making it nearly impossible for that startup to be created. But but but it's not free market without net neutrality!!  I think the net neutrality regulation was like 323 pages long.
I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There�s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts. � Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: Recurve]
#2338682
12/20/17 10:32 AM
12/20/17 10:32 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 11,073 coffee county
goodman_hunter
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 11,073
coffee county
|
I would not mind some limited pricing protection in cases where ISP's have monopolies.
I know the existing “monopolies” aren’t ideal and the way things are done can be improved
people tend to not mention, its still not free market when a monopoly is still involved. Y'all always leave that part out. And about the first part. Most people believed there would be at least some protection for the consumer. But the verizion lawyer who now works for the FCC got it just the way they wanted it. Answer me this. these start up companies thats now gonna come out of the wood works. How they gonna afford the extortion fee thats gonna be put on them. They all feel like they aint gonna be able to compete against the larger existing companies that can afford it. Cause, these new business's feel like they wont be able too. What do you know that they don't?
Last edited by goodman_hunter; 12/20/17 10:34 AM.
"A moment of realization is worth a thousand prayers"
|
|
|
Re: Net neutrality
[Re: Remington270]
#2338683
12/20/17 10:33 AM
12/20/17 10:33 AM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 8,670 NW Alabama
R_H_Clark
Leupold Pro Staff
|
Leupold Pro Staff
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 8,670
NW Alabama
|
No one would buy it and it would be considered gouging. Laws are already in place to keep gouging at bay. People might buy it if that was all that was available and they needed it bad enough. Yes,there are laws in place to keep gouging at bay for those very reasons. I'm not so sure that removing the Net Neutrality law isn't exactly like removing all gouging rules. But if internet was $1000/ month, me or someone like me would invest in a startup to deliver services at a fraction of that cost, and there would be plenty of money to be made. Capitalism really is great. Yea,I understand that,but it won't be quite so blatant.It will just be a lot higher than somewhere a monopoly doesn't exist. Eventually the monopoly will go away but consumers may get gouged years before another company develops to compete.
|
|
|
|