FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Tribes Republic]

what are you getting at so what if they share customers and employees a lot of industries do the same thing. I'll put it this the more you regulate businesses for things they may do worse off it'll become so if it happens on a small scale then what you're saying is that governments should punish the businesses that haven't done anything because of a few.

Yeah, none of that is true. For an example of how functional monopolies fuck everybody over, try comparing DDR4 RAM prices today vs 18 months ago.

Once again so what it's not the government's job to break up businesses. Businesses are to serve the consumer as people buy things also competition drives prices to be low, well not low just not high. When businesses compete the consumer wins.

[The of Japan]

Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding what Salandriagado means by "functional", it's a de facto monopoly as opposed to a de jure monopoly. But maybe it's better for him to explain what he meant.

Three companies which each have a 33% market share are not technically a monopoly. If they all stay out of each other's way and don't compete for business then they act like a monopoly from the consumer level.

that is a "trust", not a monopoly

[The of Japan]

Yeah, none of that is true. For an example of how functional monopolies fuck everybody over, try comparing DDR4 RAM prices today vs 18 months ago.

Once again so what it's not the government's job to break up businesses. Businesses are to serve the consumer as people buy things also competition drives prices to be low, well not low just not high. When businesses compete the consumer wins.

or for that matter, the government's job to nationalize industries like some proposals here are

[Vassenor]

Yeah, none of that is true. For an example of how functional monopolies fuck everybody over, try comparing DDR4 RAM prices today vs 18 months ago.

Once again so what it's not the government's job to break up businesses. Businesses are to serve the consumer as people buy things also competition drives prices to be low, well not low just not high. When businesses compete the consumer wins.

And in the broadband market there is only ever competition when Google has managed to get past the lobbyist stonewalling and all the other crap the Big Three got passed to effectively freeze everyone else out of the market.

[Tribes Republic]

The government has an obligation to take care of its people, because it is the people who vote for its administrators, leadership, and ultimately its policies. A Business does not, they exist to make profit for their shareholders, they are under no obligation to any of us. They can and absolutely will use and abuse you and without government regulations there's nothing you can do about it

A business wants to make a profit so it would be cost effective for them to use shady practices. It's in a business's best interest to make sure customers are happy

[Vassenor]

The government has an obligation to take care of its people, because it is the people who vote for its administrators, leadership, and ultimately its policies. A Business does not, they exist to make profit for their shareholders, they are under no obligation to any of us. They can and absolutely will use and abuse you and without government regulations there's nothing you can do about it

A business wants to make a profit so it would be cost effective for them to use shady practices. It's in a business's best interest to make sure customers are happy

When you have an effective monopoly like the ISPs do you ain't gotta do crap to keep your customers happy because there is nowhere else they can go to.

[Pasong Tirad]

We've never had net neutrality here, so I understand how frustrating it is. Good luck, America. I already pay more than I should be paying for internet that's only marginally better than my neighbor's.

[Tribes Republic]

A business wants to make a profit so it would be cost effective for them to use shady practices. It's in a business's best interest to make sure customers are happy

When you have an effective monopoly like the ISPs do you ain't gotta do crap to keep your customers happy because there is nowhere else they can go to.

There may be monopolies of ISPs, but there are smaller ISPs around just many people don't know or don't want to use them because the larger ISPs lobby the government to keep them out of areas where they would have to compete with them. The more regulations we instill on ISPs the more of an incentive they have to lobby the government to get around them or work them in their favor.

[Ifreann]

I just noticed that the thread title says "Neutrally", not "Neutrality".

[Vassenor]

When you have an effective monopoly like the ISPs do you ain't gotta do crap to keep your customers happy because there is nowhere else they can go to.

There may be monopolies of ISPs, but there are smaller ISPs around just many people don't know or don't want to use them because the larger ISPs lobby the government to keep them out of areas where they would have to compete with them. The more regulations we instill on ISPs the more of an incentive they have to lobby the government to get around them or work them in their favor.

I'm not sure I follow your logic any more.

[Camicon]

Three companies which each have a 33% market share are not technically a monopoly. If they all stay out of each other's way and don't compete for business then they act like a monopoly from the consumer level.

that is a "trust", not a monopoly

That's not a trust because the three companies are not in any sort of legal partnership. They're just staying out of each other's yards.

[Zakuvia]

The term we've been hunting for is 'Oligopoly'. This is where the Big 3 will agree not to seriously compete against each other, uniformly raise their rates, and keep their provided services stagnant. Because the barrier to market entry is too high, nothing can stop them.

[Justicia y paz]

[centre]
https://www.battleforthenet.com/

The FCC just announced its plan to slash net neutrality rules, allowing ISPs like Verizon to block apps, slow websites, and charge fees to control what you see & do online. They vote December 14th. But if Congress gets enough calls, *they* can stop the FCC.

We need calls! NationStates may be subjectable to internet tax! The great thing about NS its that its free! Free! Create as many nations as you like! But without net neutrality, ISPs can tax NS or make it slow! Awful! It would kill NS! Max Barry may shut it down! Join the fight! Save the Internet! Save NationStates! NationStates for the people!

Edit: To spread the word please upvote and pin it wherever you can. We need to stop the FCC![/centre]

From https://www.nationstates.net/nation=honeydewistania

[Camicon]

The term we've been hunting for is 'Oligopoly'. This is where the Big 3 will agree not to seriously compete against each other, uniformly raise their rates, and keep their provided services stagnant. Because the barrier to market entry is too high, nothing can stop them.

An oligopoly functions as a monopoly. It's not inaccurate to describe it as such.

[Salandriagado]

Yeah, none of that is true. For an example of how functional monopolies fuck everybody over, try comparing DDR4 RAM prices today vs 18 months ago.

Once again so what it's not the government's job to break up businesses. Businesses are to serve the consumer as people buy things also competition drives prices to be low, well not low just not high. When businesses compete the consumer wins.

They don't compete, though. Because when there are a small number of businesses competing, it is advantageous to not compete, which fucks the consumer over. See DRAM prices, as mentioned.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

There weren't any problems with ISPs before.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The term we've been hunting for is 'Oligopoly'. This is where the Big 3 will agree not to seriously compete against each other, uniformly raise their rates, and keep their provided services stagnant. Because the barrier to market entry is too high, nothing can stop them.

An oligopoly functions as a monopoly. It's not inaccurate to describe it as such.

It's not the same thing nonetheless. It is by definition inaccurate.

[Camicon]

An oligopoly functions as a monopoly. It's not inaccurate to describe it as such.

It's not the same thing nonetheless. It is by definition inaccurate.

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

[Telconi]

It's not the same thing nonetheless. It is by definition inaccurate.

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

Which has fuck all to do with Net Neutrality...

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's not the same thing nonetheless. It is by definition inaccurate.

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

Which has fuck all to do with Net Neutrality...

The oligopoly status of the ISPs is highly relevant to why we want net neutrality.

[Telconi]

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

Which has fuck all to do with Net Neutrality...

The oligopoly status of the ISPs is highly relevant to why we want net neutrality.

Explain how that has any effect?

[Salandriagado]

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

Which has fuck all to do with Net Neutrality...

Yes, it does, because the whole point of net neutrality is to restrict some of the more abusive bullshit that said oligopoly wants to pull.

[Camicon]

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

From the perspective of the consumer, how many times do I have to say that?

The consumer in a monopoly has only one option. The consumer in an oligopoly has only one option (which will change in name depending on where they are).

From the perspective of the consumer an oligopoly functions as a monopoly, because under both systems the consumer has only one option. From the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly is a functional monopoly.

[Salandriagado]

I'm not calling an oligopoly a monopoly, I'm calling it a functional monopoly; from the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly functions as a monopoly.

That is not an inaccurate statement, or description of an oligopoly.

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

There is no practical difference between the two from the customer's perspective. Three identical options and one option are the same thing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

From the perspective of the consumer, how many times do I have to say that?

The consumer in a monopoly has only one option. The consumer in an oligopoly has only one option (which will change in name depending on where they are).

From the perspective of the consumer an oligopoly functions as a monopoly, because under both systems the consumer has only one option. From the perspective of the consumer, an oligopoly is a functional monopoly.

And a monopoly functions as an oligopoly too, but it's still wrong to call it a functional oligopoly.

A monopoly functions with only one company; ergo an oligopoly does not function as a monarchy.

There is no practical difference between the two from the customer's perspective. Three identical options and one option are the same thing.

Actually, they're different things by definition.