Private Property and the Net

[Ame®icano]

I wanna make sure we don't have a scrunch coming up like in the days of dial up where you would have trouble getting online or getting the web to work once you did

Free market already solved that problem for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please....try to restrict your posts to words you understand.....
..unless that would make you mute.


mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).
2. Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to asingle party.

Exactly, now look at the map:

You cant get more monopoly than that if you wore a Monicle and just passed go

Is English your first language?

Do you have a first language?

I provided the definition of monopoly.

I can explain it to you, dope, I can't comprehend it for you.

You just showed ten- 10- companies in that graph.

All not competing with each other unless you're confusing "competing" with "existing".

Do you know what the prefix 'mono,' in monopoly, means?
Do you?

So you arent going by your definition anymore?

mo·nop·o·ly(m

-n

p

-l

)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopolyfrequently ... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals" (MiltonFriedman).

Because it doesnt say that only one must exist.

"... to a single party."

sin·gle
ˈsiNGɡəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   only one; not one of several.

 

[ClosedCaption]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

 

[PoliticalChic]

I firmly believe that the key reason to oppose the attempt by the Leftists to take control of the internet is not merely the growth of government, or even the impending censorship,...it is the attack on capitalism and the free market.....



10. In addition to its importance as a marker for liberty, private property is the basis of capitalism, the very thing that communists and socialists abhor.

If you believe in private property, in liberty, and in a capitalist society, you must oppose "Net Neutrality" Laws.



Further, advances in technology are directly related to affirming property rights.


"In the world of Robinson Crusoe property rights play no role, ..Property rights are an instrument of society and derive their significance from the fact that they help a man form those expectations which he can reasonably hold in his dealings with others....

Changes in knowledge result in changes in production functions, market values, and aspirations. New techniques,.... the emergence of new property rights takes place in response to the desires of the interacting persons for adjustment to new benefit-cost possibilities..... in response to changes in technology and relative prices.


[Early on in America, the] property right system began to change, and it changed specifically in the direction required to take account of the economic effects made
important by the fur trade.
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec100C/Readings/Demsetz_Property_Rights.pdf





Hard to imagine that there are hordes of pin heads who never learned what happens when command and control governments take over....i.e., the Soviet Union.



Wanna buy a used Trabant?

 

[Ame®icano]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

 

[SwimExpert]

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would proposenew rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanesto send video and other content to their customers.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[SwimExpert]

This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

This is a great analogy, and it should be expanded upon....

An all-you-can-eat buffet offers consumers (the people eating) a wide selection of things they may eat, and allows the consumer to eat what they want, as much as they want. The consumer pays a price for access, and they are given free reign to choose the content they desire. If the consumer wants 100 plates worth of food, they have the right to eat it, if they can. They paid for it. The terms of the business transaction are as much of whatever content is available. If you like veggies, you can eat 100 plates of veggies. If you like beef, you can eat 100 plates of beef. The restaurant, of course, needs to make a profit, and so they charge everyone the same rate, no matter now much you consume. It's the restaurant's burden to set rates that keep their operation profitable. If they have a problem with too many people eating too much food, they can either raise the price of the buffet or switch to a different model that limits how much a person can eat for a certain price.

So what happens when the restaurant discovers that beef is very popular, and it happens to be a huge cost for the restaurant? As I said, they can raise their prices, or they can switch to a different model that isn't all-you-can-eat. But Comcast Bar and Grill comes up with a different plan. They go tell the beef producers that from now own, they have to the restaurant a fee for how much beef people are eating, otherwise the restaurant will purposely take their sweet as time cooking the beef, so that it's not available. This, of course, is quite a dandy little racket for Comcast. They get paid by people doing the consuming, but they also demand payment from those who do the producing of the consumed content. But of course, this is crazy! Right? The producers aren't the consumers.

 

[SwimExpert]

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

If they own the cables, then why not?

Tell me, what's stopping them from setting up completely new superfast network and offering it only to those who pay extra?

The issue of tiered service is regarding the producers of content, and that's the problem. ISPs have always had various kinds of tiered service available for consumers. I pay X dollars a month for internet up to N speed. If I want faster internet I can purchase this for a higher cost. In the early days of the internet it wasn't uncommon for ISPs to offer plans that had a limit on total consumption. That's pretty rare nowadays, if it even happens at all anymore, but nothing is stopping them from offering such service plans again.

The ISP companies own the infrastructure that brings internet into our homes, and they absolutely ought to be able to offer various service options to consumers for different prices. But charging the producers of content, lest those producers be blacked out, is insane. What the ISPs want is for legalized digital racketeering, and is a completely unethical form of business. But more importantly, it's bad policy for the economy and detrimental to small businesses who need to be able to make their content available.

 

[ClosedCaption]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

Ok so if you dont believe a fucking map. Here is the CEO of Comcast who, I think, knows a thing or two about competing with another company.

“They’re in New York. We’re in Philadelphia. They’re in LA. We’re in San Francisco,” said Roberts, from the Re/code Code conference in Rancho Palo Verdes, California. “You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”
Read more at Brian Roberts Defends Time Warner Merger News Philadelphia Magazine

What do you call companies that agree not to compete with each other? Is it a Monopoly? Is the lack of competition really competition?

So maybe the CEO of Comcast doesnt know what he's talking about...or maybe its you.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Net Neutrality means that the cable companies cant create tiered service. If you believe that the telecoms will treat everyone fair ONLY WHEN they get to create packages then either you dont have cable or are a fool

If they own the cables, then why not?

Tell me, what's stopping them from setting up completely new superfast network and offering it only to those who pay extra?

The issue of tiered service is regarding the producers of content, and that's the problem. ISPs have always had various kinds of tiered service available for consumers. I pay X dollars a month for internet up to N speed. If I want faster internet I can purchase this for a higher cost. In the early days of the internet it wasn't uncommon for ISPs to offer plans that had a limit on total consumption. That's pretty rare nowadays, if it even happens at all anymore, but nothing is stopping them from offering such service plans again.

The ISP companies own the infrastructure that brings internet into our homes, and they absolutely ought to be able to offer various service options to consumers for different prices. But charging the producers of content, lest those producers be blacked out, is insane. What the ISPs want is for legalized digital racketeering, and is a completely unethical form of business. But more importantly, it's bad policy for the economy and detrimental to small businesses who need to be able to make their content available.

This is absolutely the point.

People who are concerned about their internet/cable bill and people who are hoping for faster streaming HD/UHD/3D movies are failing to see the big picture. Right now the internet is the one place that a small company can compete fairly with a corporations and if you give up net neutrality then you will never know what you missed because it will never come to be.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Setting it up with lanes means that companies that have taken off in the past will wont be available because they cant pay the fee to compete with the big boys.

Just think about a web show that you enjoy. And you ask why it isnt on TV. Because those web shows cant afford to get on TV but they can gain an audience from being available like corp TV.

Its literally changing the internet to have a corporate internet thats easy to watch and the small guys that are innovating will get the buffering signal. You ever try to watch something that keeps buffering? You end up turning it off

 

[Ame®icano]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

Ok so if you dont believe a fucking map. Here is the CEO of Comcast who, I think, knows a thing or two about competing with another company.

“They’re in New York. We’re in Philadelphia. They’re in LA. We’re in San Francisco,” said Roberts, from the Re/code Code conference in Rancho Palo Verdes, California. “You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”
Read more at Brian Roberts Defends Time Warner Merger News Philadelphia Magazine

What do you call companies that agree not to compete with each other? Is it a Monopoly? Is the lack of competition really competition?

So maybe the CEO of Comcast doesnt know what he's talking about...or maybe its you.

Even it's been explained to you what monopoly is (I think PC gave you definition), you're still trying to make it means what you think it should be.

Lets say they have agreement not to compete against each other in those areas. Is that illegal? Nope. Is that monopoly? It could be if they are only cable provider in that area. But they're not. There are 31 cable company registered in the New York, including Comcast. Whaaaat?

 

[ogibillm]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

that's about the dumbest comparison i've ever heard.
if i'm a consumer, i can decide (providing there are multiple broadband providers in my area - so in actuality i can't decide) which tier of service i want. i can decide which speed i want to pay for, just as i can choose to eat at mcdonald's or a steak house.

but if i choose to eat at a steakhouse, mcdonald's doesn't get to charge me money for going there. they can't send me a bill for driving past their store and dismissing their option, or make me sit at a certain table at the steakhouse that has a wait of 4 hours compared to the immediate seating available to others.

why do you think your isp should be able to do that?

 

[ClosedCaption]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

Ok so if you dont believe a fucking map. Here is the CEO of Comcast who, I think, knows a thing or two about competing with another company.

“They’re in New York. We’re in Philadelphia. They’re in LA. We’re in San Francisco,” said Roberts, from the Re/code Code conference in Rancho Palo Verdes, California. “You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”
Read more at Brian Roberts Defends Time Warner Merger News Philadelphia Magazine

What do you call companies that agree not to compete with each other? Is it a Monopoly? Is the lack of competition really competition?

So maybe the CEO of Comcast doesnt know what he's talking about...or maybe its you.

Even it's been explained to you what monopoly is (I think PC gave you definition), you're still trying to make it means what you think it should be.

Lets say they have agreement not to compete against each other in those areas. Is that illegal? Nope. Is that monopoly? It could be if they are only cable provider in that area. But they're not. There are 31 cable company registered in the New York, including Comcast. Whaaaat?

I didnt say cable companies couldnt be registered. I said available. First you said they are competing I proved that wrong, now you are moving to how many registered companies there are and dropping the competition angle.

Whats your next angle when you lose this one? Just scream "its good because they told me so!"

 

[ogibillm]

"...we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.

And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is net neutrality.

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

since that statement is a lie, and you're choosing to repeat it, why should we believe anything you have to say?

 

[ClosedCaption]

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs throttling end users or charging for usage. I am not ok with them resticking access

"It comes down to an issue of private property..."

Not sure it is quite that simple. The internet was developed with the help of government funds and authorities... not unlike the road system. I don't want the guy who built my subdivision or the guy who sold me my car to be able to tell me where I can drive. If they could them Ikea could pay them to restrict my access to Pier one.

If they did that, people would not buy their car from them. This is not about denying access to sites. This is about whether the bandwidth hogs should be given the right to carry 100 plates to the all you can eat buffet. ISP's have throttled users for decades but when it is netflix that might be throttled suddenly people are like "Tyranny!!!"

I am ok with ISPs charging for usage but I am not ok with them restricting access or giving priority to the biggest players.

".... or giving priority to the biggest players."

So you probably want a law that makes Sparks Steak House charge no more than Mickey D's, huh?

Grow up.

that's about the dumbest comparison i've ever heard.
if i'm a consumer, i can decide (providing there are multiple broadband providers in my area - so in actuality i can't decide) which tier of service i want. i can decide which speed i want to pay for, just as i can choose to eat at mcdonald's or a steak house.

but if i choose to eat at a steakhouse, mcdonald's doesn't get to charge me money for going there. they can't send me a bill for driving past their store and dismissing their option, or make me sit at a certain table at the steakhouse that has a wait of 4 hours compared to the immediate seating available to others.

why do you think your isp should be able to do that?

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

 

[Ame®icano]

one group has exclusive control in those areas on the map. Maybe you cant see the map but that isnt competition

Only problem with the map is that is NOT showing what you're saying it does.

Map shows the locations served by the top 10 US cable TV providers, not where they have "exclusive control".

Ok so if you dont believe a fucking map. Here is the CEO of Comcast who, I think, knows a thing or two about competing with another company.

“They’re in New York. We’re in Philadelphia. They’re in LA. We’re in San Francisco,” said Roberts, from the Re/code Code conference in Rancho Palo Verdes, California. “You can’t buy a Comcast in New York. You can’t buy a Time Warner in Philadelphia. So there’s no reduction in competition in broadband or in television.”
Read more at Brian Roberts Defends Time Warner Merger News Philadelphia Magazine

What do you call companies that agree not to compete with each other? Is it a Monopoly? Is the lack of competition really competition?

So maybe the CEO of Comcast doesnt know what he's talking about...or maybe its you.

Even it's been explained to you what monopoly is (I think PC gave you definition), you're still trying to make it means what you think it should be.

Lets say they have agreement not to compete against each other in those areas. Is that illegal? Nope. Is that monopoly? It could be if they are only cable provider in that area. But they're not. There are 31 cable company registered in the New York, including Comcast. Whaaaat?

I didnt say cable companies couldnt be registered. I said available. First you said they are competing I proved that wrong, now you are moving to how many registered companies there are and dropping the competition angle.

Whats your next angle when you lose this one? Just scream "its good because they told me so!"

So you're saying that only cable company operating in New York is Time Warner. No competition, period.

Try again.

 

[kaz]

What people "could" do is irrelevant to law until they actually do it. This is not a first amendment issue because they are not being blocked, just not prioritized. It is like saying your first amendment rights are violated because your Congressman chooses to go to a fundraising dinner instead of coming to your house to hear your opinions and stories of woe.

What an inane analogy. Net neutrality as Chic said is government regulating the use of private property, it's absurd.

A better analogy is government forcing a restaurant to serve only one dish to everyone no matter what they pay or are willing to pay.

 

[kaz]

Because Obama is against it.

Ask them how this benefits the consumer and they dont have an answer so being anti-Obama is all thats left

Right, because we're for government regulating the use of private property when Obama isn't for it. Dumb ass.

 

[kaz]

Thats it PC...quote even bigger dumbasses who dont know what they are talking about as proof.

Ted Cruz just said "internet obamacare" and thats all he had to do

Obamacare is government controlling the medical industry. Net Neutrality is government controlling the internet. So when Cruz calls it internet obamacare, you don't get it? Seriously?