Started By
Message
re: Time to celebrate: Net neutrality has been repealed
Posted on 12/18/17 at 11:18 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 12/18/17 at 11:18 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
It's not about how much they charge, it's that they can now legally gouge prices
Using the term price gouging implies that there is a known price point that should be charged. So I'll ask again: How much should they charge?
quote:
Libertarians when government says: ''trust us, we won't actually do the bad thing you're afraid of us doing!!'' NO WAY MR. GOVERNMENT, SLIPPERY SLOPE, WE'LL BE LIVING IN CAVES AND FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT IN A FEW YEARS.
Yep.
quote:
Libertarians when corporations say: ''trust us, we won't actually doing the bad thing you're afraid of us doing!!'' The market will sort itself out.
Right. I don't trust a company any more than the government. The difference being - one is subject to market forces, the other is not.
quote:
There is a reason that the only people who actually want Net Neutrality to end are almost exclusively retarded anti-government groups.
We're the only people right about a lot of things.
This post was edited on 12/18/17 at 11:19 am
1
Posted on 12/18/17 at 12:52 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
Lol
Fear mongering is real
capitalism came out on top. The free market will prevail. less government involvement is a good thing.
even if the NN repeal goes bad, it will make people do stuff in the real world that don't involve the internet. the horror
When did the ISP industry become a free market? Right now, ISPs have government-mandated monopolies and duopolies in almost every market in the country. If you wanted to start an ISP, even if you had the money, you wouldn't be able to without bribing some politicians and fighting Verizon/Comcast/etc in court. That's not a free market. That's a cartel.
If your electrical utility was allowed to charge you whatever it wanted for electricity, would you call that a "free market"?
Posted on 12/18/17 at 1:03 pm to PortlyDawg
quote:
Let’s hope. I always point to craft beer in the states as the most beautiful examples of the free market capitalism.
Not apples to apples, but we shall see.
Craft beer is much closer to being a free market than internet service. If you don't like a particular beer, you have hundreds of others to choose from. If you don't like your ISP, you have maybe 1 other choice...maybe. And if both the ISPs in your market are colluding, you're SOL. This is why companies like Verizon and Comcast love those government-mandated monopolies (which they lobbied/bribed politicians to get). They can treat their customers terribly without facing the consequences businesses in genuinely competitive industries face. That's not capitalism, that's cronyism.
Posted on 12/18/17 at 1:16 pm to coachcrisp
(no message)
Posted on 12/18/17 at 1:20 pm to coachcrisp
quote:
NN was a bandaid on a 12 gauge slug entry wound. Congress just ripped it off and didn't remove the slug.
That analogy reveals the extremity of your position
My position isn't extreme. Until measures are taken to bust up monopolistic ISP's, the government has to closely regulate what they do.
Don't be surprised if you see some streaming apps suffering more buffer than others in the next few months, or some websites fail to load.
If you supported repeal, you are supporting the restriction and throttling of internet resources and connectivity - you just have no say in which ones will get squeezed.
Posted on 12/18/17 at 9:08 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
Using the term price gouging implies that there is a known price point that should be charged. So I'll ask again: How much should they charge?
Wrong. You do not need a ''known'' price to determine if something is gouging or not -- unless you're using a legal definition which we need not worry ourselves with because it's pointless nuance.
A ''just price'' needn't be immediately named, but artificially creating a demand by illegally controlling your product to lift prices is absolutely exploitative.
Or do you think the government that just gave them the capacity to control their own market is going to actively ensure that they won't collude together?
That you think anti-government people are automatically ''right'' makes me understand the delusion of you and your ilk. Unilaterally opposing the government doesn't make you reasonable anymore than unilaterally supporting the government does, and hopefully you can find a less hyperbolic viewpoint to be taken more seriously in the future.
Posted on 12/18/17 at 9:59 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Wrong. You do not need a ''known'' price to determine if something is gouging or not -- unless you're using a legal definition which we need not worry ourselves with because it's pointless nuance.
What definition of price gouging are you using that means anything other than setting a price above what is considered a "just" (or some other made-up, undefinable, left-wing, quasi-marxist word) price? That is what it means in every context.
quote:
A ''just price'' needn't be immediately named, but artificially creating a demand by illegally controlling your product to lift prices is absolutely exploitative.
Demand can't be artificially created unless you are somehow forcing the market to desire your product (maybe mind control or something). What you're trying to say is that companies are restricting supply in order to keep prices high.
Since you won't say what the price should be... what should the supply be? How much supply of bandwidth should Comcast allow at a given price?
Since we're dealing with a scarce resource, I'm going to assume you don't think the answer is "infinite."
If your answer is something less than infinite, then consider the fact that raising prices is the most efficient way to limit supply. Websites with the most market value will be willing to pay more and continue to receiving supply.
The alternative would be limiting supply through just a quantity cap, in which case who does/does not get supplied isn't determined by market value, but other things that don't have as much to do with what people actually value.
quote:
Or do you think the government that just gave them the capacity to control their own market is going to actively ensure that they won't collude together?
Companies in collusion are still subject to market forces.
quote:
That you think anti-government people are automatically ''right'' makes me understand the delusion of you and your ilk.
Because I said that?
Posted on 12/18/17 at 10:32 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
What definition of price gouging are you using that means anything other than setting a price above what is considered a "just" (or some other made-up, undefinable, left-wing, quasi-marxist word) price? That is what it means in every context.
Exploitative prices while the market is artificially limited falls into gouging. I don't know why Libertarians fall into the warm arms of the law to avoid giving up philosophical arguments. Raising your prices without a stimulus while exploiting your customer by cutting something they want is the definition of gouging.
quote:
Demand can't be artificially created unless you are somehow forcing the market to desire your product (maybe mind control or something). What you're trying to say is that companies are restricting supply in order to keep prices high.
Another funny thing about Libertarians is when they retreat to semantics -- almost always confined to their unusually petite framing of the conversation. Cutting the supply to a demand is artificially increasing the demand (more people are without, therefore more people want, want is another word for demand). It's basically just coming to the same conclusion in different ways.
You want to make this into a microeconomics conversation and I'm not biting, so don't die on that hill.
quote:
Companies in collusion are still subject to market forces.
Like Walmart? So naive.
Again, a market is not a be all end all to any argument about corruption. Snake Oil was not fixed by some weird market subconsciousness, it was fixed by the government eventually sueing a company and making an educational campaign. (Just as one of many examples.)
Posted on 12/18/17 at 10:34 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
Companies in collusion are still subject to market forces.
In theory, yes. But in reality? It depends on the industry. In commodities and retail, collusion is really hard to maintain, but in highly protected industries, like internet service, it's much, much easier to maintain because there are far fewer competitors that need to be brought into the cartel and the barrier to entry is incredibly high (because the cartel lobbied/bribed to make that barrier as high as possible).
Posted on 12/18/17 at 10:41 pm to Papplesbeast
quote:
In theory, yes. But in reality? It depends on the industry. In commodities and retail, collusion is really hard to maintain, but in highly protected industries, like internet service, it's much, much easier to maintain because there are far fewer competitors that need to be brought into the cartel and the barrier to entry is incredibly high (because the cartel lobbied/bribed to make that barrier as high as possible).
Exactly, a lot of people like to think that the market is the focal point of every problem that's ever existed and it's simply not the case. Not only that, our government has an interest in collusion at that level for censorship and other tender morsels that their corporate donors fund them for. Especially since there are so few actual ISPs in any given area, you're almost forced to take in something that is ubiquitous in the First World with no real competition to be seen.
It's just anarcholibertarian nonsense.
Posted on 12/18/17 at 11:05 pm to Papplesbeast
quote:
In theory, yes. But in reality?
I would say, in reality, yes. Granted, they have more market power than in a very competitive market, but even a true monopoly faces the threat of substitute markets. Think of a coal supplier around the industrial revolution somehow becoming a monopoly, and thereafter raising prices. They can raise prices but it's simultaneously encouraging investment in alternatives (like oil, in this case).
Posted on 12/18/17 at 11:16 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
StrawsDrawnAtRandom
A lot of words but you still didn't answer the question or address my point.
quote:
Cutting the supply to a demand is artificially increasing the demand (more people are without, therefore more people want, want is another word for demand). It's basically just coming to the same conclusion in different ways.
You could have just said "I don't understand basic economics."
quote:
Like Walmart? So naive
This is your example of a company not being subjected to market forces? A company that is renowned for selling at lower prices than the competition?
Posted on 12/19/17 at 1:05 am to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
I would say, in reality, yes. Granted, they have more market power than in a very competitive market, but even a true monopoly faces the threat of substitute markets. Think of a coal supplier around the industrial revolution somehow becoming a monopoly, and thereafter raising prices. They can raise prices but it's simultaneously encouraging investment in alternatives (like oil, in this case).
That's not a good comparison. Coal suppliers couldn't bribe politicians to erect barriers against oil competition to nearly the same extent that Verizon can erect barriers against its competition today.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 7:53 am to Papplesbeast
quote:
Coal suppliers couldn't bribe politicians to erect barriers against oil competition to nearly the same extent that Verizon can erect barriers against its competition today.
That sounds like more of a problem with the size and scope of government now vs then. I agree that what you're talking about is an issue, just don't think more govt power is the solution. Never solve an issue with more govt when it can be solved with less govt.
Posted on 12/19/17 at 4:12 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
You could have just said "I don't understand basic economics."
You understand that cutting the supply to a demand increases the demand by default, no? You could just say ''I don't understand basic concepts'' in general and we could have avoided you being a walking stereotype of a Libertarian who wants no part in a conversation where they can't run back to how laws are worded or microeconomics where everything is a LEGO and fits perfectly.
Cutting the supply means you can justify the rise in prices because the demand is now more disproportional. You're simply framing the word to mean exactly what you want it to mean in an attempt to simply stop talking about the topic -- common among all types of Libertarians who are philosophically retarded.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:03 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
now we get to find out if capitalism works this out now or if the fear mongering was right and everyone finds other stuff to do that doesn't include the internet.
Net Neutrality has only been in effect for a short period of time. This changes regulatory requirements back to what they were before. Were there problems with some services slowing down communication speeds of specific sources?
Yes...there were (see comcast slowing down Xfinity references from 2014). Why...because we don't operate in a free market, and the internet service providers take advantage of that.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 9:24 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
That you think anti-government people are automatically ''right'' makes me understand the delusion of you and your ilk. Unilaterally opposing the government doesn't make you reasonable anymore than unilaterally supporting the government does, and hopefully you can find a less hyperbolic viewpoint to be taken more seriously in the future.
Spot on. One can simultaneously be very pro free market and also be very weary of an industry that's enabled and rewarded monopolistic companies.
Busting up destructive monopolies is no different than busting up restrictive unions, IMO.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 9:44 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
Companies in collusion are still subject to market forces.
Like airlines, who have quietly bought up all smaller companies and limited flights to achieve higher airfares, often resulting in..................oversold flights.
You cannot trust an industry that has either consolidated all assets to a few giant corporations, or has gamed government resources and restrictions to favor a few specific providers.
ISP's, as they stand today, are not capitalistic entities in the way we think of them. They are more closely related to a business in a capitalistic dictatorship, where all resources are pumped into a few specific companies.
We just nixed the regulations keeping them from fricking us, and we smiled while we did it.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:39 pm to Papplesbeast
quote:
That's not a good comparison. Coal suppliers couldn't bribe politicians to erect barriers against oil competition to nearly the same extent that Verizon can erect barriers against its competition today.
Thank you.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 11:40 pm to The Sultan of Swine
quote:
That sounds like more of a problem with the size and scope of government now vs then. I agree that what you're talking about is an issue, just don't think more govt power is the solution. Never solve an issue with more govt when it can be solved with less govt.
I think both of you are approaching the discussion with a different understanding of reality.
ISP's, as they exist today, are not a good example of free market practice.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News