Net neutrality "wins"

[Hanchu]

Monopolies end all competition

Yes, exactly. Monopolies will always be the result of a free market, once the best company emerges and beats out all its competitors. There simply cannot be competition to the best company.

And then they kill off any competition , so even if they produce bad products people are still forced to buy them

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Why should there be competition if there's already a best company? A monopoly has already beaten out its competition, there's no reason to punish it for being the best.

Because there's always the possibility to improve things and no company can stay best all the time? Competition offers an incentive to make better goods and invest in new technology.

Well, shit, if the best company falls behind a bit, competition will arise. But the monopoly is the goal to strive for.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

OP, do you really know what net neutrality is? I have my doubts you do.

It's where the net is neutral *nods*

To be simply put. But to elaborate:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. (¹)

I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Yes, exactly. Monopolies will always be the result of a free market, once the best company emerges and beats out all its competitors. There simply cannot be competition to the best company.

And then they kill off any competition , so even if they produce bad products people are still forced to buy them

No, people are not forced to buy anything.

[Hanchu]

It's where the net is neutral *nods*

To be simply put. But to elaborate:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. (¹)

I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

Propaganda

[Camicon]

Because there's always the possibility to improve things and no company can stay best all the time? Competition offers an incentive to make better goods and invest in new technology.

Well, shit, if the best company falls behind a bit, competition will arise. But the monopoly is the goal to strive for.

No, it won't, because once a company is large enough that it is the sole operator in an economic sector then it has the position and capital to prevent anyone else from entering said sector.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Because the best has already emerged through the process of free market. Again, why should there be competition to the best company, that's pointless and futile.

Because without competition, the remaining company has no incentive to do anything over than provide the cheapest (shittiest) service possible, while charging the absolute most from their customers for said service. In an economy where the dominant belief is that companies exist only to generate profit for the shareholders, a monopoly will result in the worst possible service at the most expensive price.

Quite the contrary, because if they offered shitty service, they'd never have made it to the top in the first place.

[Saiwania]

No. We do not need regulation to get infrastructure upgrades, we need another Eisenhower.

A simple regulation that seems to work in European countries is requiring companies that own the pipes carrying broadband to people’s homes lease space in their pipes to rival companies. This seems to have prevented any monopolies or duopolies from forming which isn't uncommon in the US. The average market there has only one or two serious internet providers.

[Conserative Morality]

Postal services even 150 years ago could have had the same things said about them. Without them, no communication would have passed anywhere, which is mostly why a lot of them were nationalised and put under direct control of the head of state (in France at least). They still had 'premium services', though, and this wasn't a problem.

You want to send a letter to DC? Cool, ten cents.

You want to send a love letter to DC? Twenty.

What's that? You want to send the letter to a business office in DC? Forty cents.

This is not about 10 kbs v. 100, this is about discriminating between different types and origins of data or not.

[New Genoa]

Because there's always the possibility to improve things and no company can stay best all the time? Competition offers an incentive to make better goods and invest in new technology.

Well, shit, if the best company falls behind a bit, competition will arise. But the monopoly is the goal to strive for.

Nope.

[Mike the Progressive]

How so? The free market requires competition in order to be a free market. With no competitors, quality of goods stagnate or even regress. That's the basic tenet of free market theory.

there cannot be competition to the best
the monopoly will ALWAYS arise from the free market, because the people will only use the best services offered. Once that "best" has been selected by the free markets, you've reached the pinnacle of the free market, you cannot get a more advanced system.

Not always. It's also based on the assumption that the best will stay best.

But again, Smith, Friedman all argue government intervention is justified in such extraordinary circumstances.

[Planita]

And then they kill off any competition , so even if they produce bad products people are still forced to buy them

No, people are not forced to buy anything.

yes they are because in a monopoly their is only one producer to choose from. Its a take it or leave it

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well, shit, if the best company falls behind a bit, competition will arise. But the monopoly is the goal to strive for.

No, it won't, because once a company is large enough that it is the sole operator in an economic sector then it has the position and capital to prevent anyone else from entering said sector.

Good, they can maintain that as long as people keep buying, and people will keep buying as long as the service is good.

[Hanchu]

And then they kill off any competition , so even if they produce bad products people are still forced to buy them

No, people are not forced to buy anything.

Unless you want a product that they control the market of

[Mike the Progressive]

I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

When you're fanatically dedicated to a principle or principles.

[Arkolon]

It's where the net is neutral *nods*

To be simply put. But to elaborate:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. (¹)

I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

*shrug* Every other communication service provider has 'premium' services for quicker delivery. Net neutrality just makes it illegal for ISPs to perform such a service.

[Camicon]

Because without competition, the remaining company has no incentive to do anything over than provide the cheapest (shittiest) service possible, while charging the absolute most from their customers for said service. In an economy where the dominant belief is that companies exist only to generate profit for the shareholders, a monopoly will result in the worst possible service at the most expensive price.

Quite the contrary, because if they offered shitty service, they'd never have made it to the top in the first place.

You seem to be missing the point: they provide shitty service after the incentive to provide quality service (competition) disappears. Because the only goal is to give money to the shareholders, they don't need give a shit about the customers when there is nowhere for them to go.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

No, people are not forced to buy anything.

yes they are because in a monopoly their is only one producer to choose from. Its a take it or leave it

People will then just choose to leave it, and the monopoly will go bankrupt unless it overhauls its service.

[Jute]

How so? The free market requires competition in order to be a free market. With no competitors, quality of goods stagnate or even regress. That's the basic tenet of free market theory.

there cannot be competition to the best
the monopoly will ALWAYS arise from the free market, because the people will only use the best services offered. Once that "best" has been selected by the free markets, you've reached the pinnacle of the free market, you cannot get a more advanced system.

No, people will not always use "the best service", for different reasons, and it's not like opinions wouldn't be divided about what service would be the best anyway.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Quite the contrary, because if they offered shitty service, they'd never have made it to the top in the first place.

You seem to be missing the point: they provide shitty service after the incentive to provide quality service (competition) disappears. Because the only goal is to give money to the shareholders, they don't need give a shit about the customers when there is nowhere for them to go.

It's hard to give a profit to shareholders if nobody's investing.

[Jute]

yes they are because in a monopoly their is only one producer to choose from. Its a take it or leave it

People will then just choose to leave it, and the monopoly will go bankrupt unless it overhauls its service.

Except if people depend on it, like an ISP.

[Arkolon]

Postal services even 150 years ago could have had the same things said about them. Without them, no communication would have passed anywhere, which is mostly why a lot of them were nationalised and put under direct control of the head of state (in France at least). They still had 'premium services', though, and this wasn't a problem.

You want to send a letter to DC? Cool, ten cents.

You want to send a love letter to DC? Twenty.

What's that? You want to send the letter to a business office in DC? Forty cents.

This is not about 10 kbs v. 100, this is about discriminating between different types and origins of data or not.

Uhh, yeah?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

When you're fanatically dedicated to a principle or principles.

Yeah, that is to put it simply. And it's true.

I mean, I was reading the arguments for it and I find them very convincing.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

To be simply put. But to elaborate:


I think that's amazing and, how can someone not be glad that was maintained?

*shrug* Every other communication service provider has 'premium' services for quicker delivery. Net neutrality just makes it illegal for ISPs to perform such a service.

Aye, and I think that the internet shouldn't get the special snowflake status, there's no reason why premiums shouldn't be charged on the internet too.

[Camicon]

yes they are because in a monopoly their is only one producer to choose from. Its a take it or leave it

People will then just choose to leave it, and the monopoly will go bankrupt unless it overhauls its service.

You can't leave a service provider when said provider is the only one that can offer you vital things like clean water, or electronic communication.