As usual in the hive mind SDMB, I notice that I am the one that’s supposed to concede these kinds of points. If no one cares, then I assume no one would bring up a rebuttal, and I certainly would continue to argue it without any responses. But I’m responding to posts others make; why should I be the one to abandon the point, especially whne i am the one in the right?
I’m not acknowledging any such thing, and I reject the absurd suggestion that “evil,” is in play here.
I’m willing to discard 3 and 4 without further debate.
Agreed.
Nope.
Since the second proposition isn’t true, the conclusion does not follow.
You made a claim, too. I know your MO is to ask questions and try to poke holes in everyone else’s posts, and refrain from making any assertions that you may be called on to provide evidence for; but I think you made a claim here that can be proven or disproven: that the Internet is merely a “want” for “most” Americans.
Heck, I’d be content if you’d acknowledge that complex market forces are at play here and you have no idea what the results will be. For shitzengiggles (and perhaps out of a vague anti-government sentiment), it might be amusing to broadly deregulate (or, related, vote Trump) just to see if anything interesting emerges from the resulting chaos, but there’s little point pretending you have some rational expectations of the results.
If it happens to work out for the better, I’m not likely to credit you and other anti-NN types for foresight.
shrug Six pages. Thus far, the anti-NN people have offered NOTHING but “regulation bad” and pointless nit-picking.
How, precisely, is repealing Net Neutrality going to make the internet better for the American people as a whole?
For that matter, how is the service the ISPs offer any different than landlines, an undisputed Title II industry. They both involve providing communication service, after all.
Asking how anti NN is going to be better for consumers is a red herring. Since there is no obligation to be better for consumers, the question is irrelevant. It carries emotional weight, sure. But it assumes an unstipulated premise.
For someone who is anti NN because they want market forces to work, the only line of argument available is that market forces won’t work.
But if one trusts in market forces, then both buyer and seller should be acting in their own self-interest. It is perfectly fair for consumers to ask, “What’s in it for me?”
As the FCC is tasked to protecting the consumer, among other things, the question is most certainly NOT a red herring.
And as in most regions the ISP has a monopoly*, market forces will not be brought to bear - especially as the recent FCC decision also forbids community internet service efforts, last I heard.
*Monopoly, or at best, a duopoly. And when there are only two providers in town, there is little incentive for one to undercut the other, except in the short term. Which would you prefer, if you were running a company - an even number of people paying the same as the competitor charges, or more people paying less? I’d go for the former - easier to maintain minimal acceptable service.
Carrying it forward - consumers would be able to pressure bad market actors to avoid bad behavior. Consumers could be offered tiered choices of content delivery. For a $2/month add on, free pornhub and super fast speeds!
The rebuttal is that market forces don’t work because there is no realistic market. And that’s the clincher for me. If there were a wide breadth of ISPs available so consumers could choose between many providers, then I’d be totally opposed to NN. But that’s not the case so I’m not.
I have a telephone. If my car needs a new transmission, I can look in the yellow pages for a place that can address that specific need – oh, wait, I have not seen a full-size phone book in more than a decade.
No, the internet is not a need in the same way as lunch, a toilet or a place out of the rain. Still, in today’s world, it can be very difficult to get by without. The library here is about 4 miles away (I think it is still open these days).
Quickest way for conservatives to get the point is for George Soros to buy Comcast and throttle all conservative websites and blogs down to 2 bytes a second.
And in a perfect capitalist scenario, the consumer can take their business elsewhere.
In a monopolistic scenario, the consumer’s question will go unanswered, and the consumer will just have to accept the consequences.
To trust in market forces, the market needs to be a fair competitive capitalist market.
Would not work in a an unregulated monopoly.
I know I can’t be the only parent here with a child in a public school that requires home internet service. I had to agree to this and pay the insurance fee for my daughter to get her laptop from school, which is also required. This is hardly a wealthy district and it’s required for us. Of course I had the option to “just say no” that fateful night 13 years ago when she was created I suppose.
See? You failed to plan for every conceivable (sorry) and inconceivable outcome of every possible and impossible situation that could occur. Your fault.
(A paraphrasing of D’A’s philosophy)
The funny thing, in the whole debate over regulation and competition, is that there are some countries that have competition precisely because of regulation. In countries like France, they required that incumbent broadband providers offer to lease capacity on their networks to new entrants selling competing Internet services to consumers. This created price competition, and gave smaller internet service providers a chance to get into the market, from where they then began, in some cases, to build out some of their own networks, thus creating even more competition.
Make no mistake: the ISPs talk about free markets and competition and the burdens of regulation, but they don’t really want free markets and competition. They want the advantages of monopoly and oligopoly, with none of the drawbacks. The fact that so many Americans seem willing to take them at their word that they only want what’s best for consumers is a pretty damning indictment of some people’s gullibility or willful blindness.