Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality

[kamk2k8]

Yep! But then again it is the residents of that town that put that towns administration in place. If the administration of that town signed that deal then it is the right, no, the RESPONSIBILITY of the residents to remove that administration in the next election and put one in that will support their interests.

The problems in some areas like where I live is that there really is only one choice and it is not due to the town or village having an agreement with the provider. It has to do with there only being one company who bothered to put up the gear up here. If they block and limit certain sites just to prop up their own services then I have a problem with it. I don't have another choice of service provider.
That is the kind of thing this would have protected against.

This ISN'T about content blocking or filtering. This is about bandwith throttling to ensure a Quality of Service. No more, no less. Essentially sure you can grab your torrents at 10 Mbps BUT if the network traffic gets too high they throttle down those torrents to 2 Mbps to ensure that the rest of the network remains fast and stable. That's it. Nothing else to see here. Comcast built the network with their money and their investors money. It belongs to THEM and it is up to them how to best administrate the network to ensure a good quality of service. The government has no right to intervene in the administration or operation of a privately held company. PERIOD.

Dude are you joking me? Your logic is basically advocating that its OK for companies to have child labor or even unpaid slaves, mistreat their workers, screw consumers, the list goes on, I can't believe you just wrote that honestly

 

[kamk2k8]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

Well there are consumer laws in place for price gouging already which were established in 1972. For a quick read up here ya go.

Consumer Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So now you contradict yourself, you are saying that government oversight is bad and government oversight is good, which is it?

 

[pyro6128]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

It's called the Sherman Antitrust act, it prevents monopolies from price gouging consumers, which they would, and in the past, have...

It's a pretty big deal and vastly improves the socio-economic landscape for our citizens

I agree with you in regards to the sherman anti trust act and monopolies being a danger to society. However, in the example another_dude provided it wouldn't be considered a monopoly because he could have gotten his gas somewhere else cheaper. Assuming that gas station is privately owned, the owner has the right to charge whatever he wants for gas. People who don't like it can go elsewhere.

I understand the views of those who are against the ruling, but I would argue that you could try to look at it this way. If you're not abusing the internet then you will really be no worse off. Its the people who torrent and seed constantly and do other bandwidth intensive activities 24/7 that slow your internet down for you. That is why at&t's network is slow. It is because I phone users are constantly bogging down the network with many of the more intensive apps on there. So when someone is messing up the internet for the rest of us, the service provider will lower that persons bandwidth temporarily to increase the user experience for everyone. I am an advocate of the free market (as can be seen from my posts). I don't think the government should be getting involved, that being said, when companies break the law, then they should be dealt with, but here no laws are being broken. The fact of the matter is we are all so used to having the internet that we feel entitled to it. But we forget that it is a service being provided to us. The same way it would be great to have free electricity and heat, that is simply not the case.

edit: I actually appreciate having intelligent discussions with people, so I'm just saying if this is going to continue, we should all at least try to keep it civil and not resort to personal attacks (not directed at anyone in, just saying it in general), otherwise the mods will close it.

 

[kamk2k8]

Let's say I live in a town that only has one gas station, they charge $10/gal, and it is over 100 miles to the next station.

Is it the government's/taxpayers responsibility to step in and make things better for me?

Is it my responsibility to either open my own gas station and charge $9/gal, refine my own fuel, or move to a location that suits me better?

It's called the Sherman Antitrust act, it prevents monopolies from price gouging consumers, which they would, and in the past, have...

It's a pretty big deal and vastly improves the socio-economic landscape for our citizens

I agree with you in regards to the sherman anti trust act and monopolies being a danger to society. However, in the example another_dude provided it wouldn't be considered a monopoly because he could have gotten his gas somewhere else cheaper. Assuming that gas station is privately owned, the owner has the right to charge whatever he wants for gas. People who don't like it can go elsewhere.

Considering the fuel tanks on most cars and such, and considering it is the ONLY gas station in a 100 mile radius, it should for all intents and purposes be considered to have a monopoly on gas in that area

Basically it's a more extreme version of concessions at arenas; they know you arent going to leave the stadium during an event so they can charge you 10 bucks for a tall one or 7 bucks for a hot dog...

 

[kamk2k8]

Yes pyro I agree with you in principal, but I think this should be looked at from a more practical angle, whether something is or is not a law does not set in stone whether it is in essence "right" or "wrong"

This could easily devolve into a situation where access to information on the internet depends on what the most affluent party's want you to see

Just because selectively choosing what information they want to be easily accessible to you is not against the law, doesn't mean that it is not wrong, or shouldn't ever be against the law

If the law never changed the world would be a pretty terrible place

 

[pyro6128]

It's called the Sherman Antitrust act, it prevents monopolies from price gouging consumers, which they would, and in the past, have...

It's a pretty big deal and vastly improves the socio-economic landscape for our citizens

I agree with you in regards to the sherman anti trust act and monopolies being a danger to society. However, in the example another_dude provided it wouldn't be considered a monopoly because he could have gotten his gas somewhere else cheaper. Assuming that gas station is privately owned, the owner has the right to charge whatever he wants for gas. People who don't like it can go elsewhere.

Considering the fuel tanks on most cars and such, and considering it is the ONLY gas station in a 100 mile radius, it should for all intents and purposes be considered to have a monopoly on gas in that area

Basically it's a more extreme version of concessions at arenas; they know you arent going to leave the stadium during an event so they can charge you 10 bucks for a tall one or 7 bucks for a hot dog...

To play devil's advocate even further, the person who owns that gas station owns it for a reason, to make money. Now if there is only one gas station within 100 miles, that would indicate that traffic is not so high there, so the person doesnt get that many customers. Lets say you own that gas station and you use the money you make from it to feed your family. Due to the lack of customers, you have found that if you charge 2 dollars a gallon you can't even come close to paying your overhead. Is it right then that the government steps in and forces you to charge a price that is going to cause you to lose money? No thats not the governments place. However, lets say that traffic on this 100 mile stretch of road is actually very good and this person could get away with charging 3 dollars instead of 10, well then someone else should recognize the void and see that there is a large profit to be made by creating an additional gas station while charging a lower price. If people don't want to go through the necessary channels to create their own business and compete, then why should the person who took the initiative themselves be penalized for it?

 

[kamk2k8]

I agree with you in regards to the sherman anti trust act and monopolies being a danger to society. However, in the example another_dude provided it wouldn't be considered a monopoly because he could have gotten his gas somewhere else cheaper. Assuming that gas station is privately owned, the owner has the right to charge whatever he wants for gas. People who don't like it can go elsewhere.

Considering the fuel tanks on most cars and such, and considering it is the ONLY gas station in a 100 mile radius, it should for all intents and purposes be considered to have a monopoly on gas in that area

Basically it's a more extreme version of concessions at arenas; they know you arent going to leave the stadium during an event so they can charge you 10 bucks for a tall one or 7 bucks for a hot dog...

To play devil's advocate even further, the person who owns that gas station owns it for a reason, to make money. Now if there is only one gas station within 100 miles, that would indicate that traffic is not so high there, so the person doesnt get that many customers. Lets say you own that gas station and you use the money you make from it to feed your family. Due to the lack of customers, you have found that if you charge 2 dollars a gallon you can't even come close to paying your overhead. Is it right then that the government steps in and forces you to charge a price that is going to cause you to lose money? No thats not the governments place. However, lets say that traffic on this 100 mile stretch of road is actually very good and this person could get away with charging 3 dollars instead of 10, well then someone else should recognize the void and see that there is a large profit to be made by creating an additional gas station while charging a lower price. If people don't want to go through the necessary channels to create their own business and compete, then why should the person who took the initiative themselves be penalized for it?

But what if the person driving the car also needs to feed his family? I think given the situation, if there is only one company providing a more or less essential service within an area so large that in most cases it is not just improbable, but rather impossible to choose something else, they should be held liable for price gouging at a certain point

 

[Grabraham]

Now what if the Gas Station owner has a 15 year contract with the town that guarantees that the town will not issue a building permit for any new gas stations for the life of the contract and in exchange he is allowed to charge no more than $6 a gallon for regular unleaded. Then the owner decides that you can only buy 2 gallons of Regular Unleaded a day but you can purchase an unlimited amount of the $15 a gallon premium Unleaded?

 

[kamk2k8]

Considering my article is an opinion; here is one from the Wall Street Journal that is more on the news reporting front...

FCC Seeks New Plan After Setback on 'Net Neutrality' - WSJ.com

 

[kamk2k8]

Now what if the Gas Station owner has a 15 year contract with the town that guarantees that the town will not issue a building permit for any new gas stations for the life of the contract and in exchange he is allowed to charge no more than $6 a gallon for regular unleaded. Then the owner decides that you can only buy 2 gallons of Regular Unleaded a day but you can purchase an unlimited amount of the $15 a gallon premium Unleaded?

haha, that's like the insurance companies: after being told they couldn't deny sick children coverage because of "pre-existing" conditions they realized they could still deny them coverage, it's just that they couldn't deny them for that reason...i'm serious btw

here is a clip from The Daily Show, pretty funny
Video: Inethical Basterds | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

He starts talking about it at 1:35 fyi

 

[Another_Dude]

haha, that's like the insurance companies: after being told they couldn't deny sick children coverage because of "pre-existing" conditions they realized they could still deny them coverage, it's just that they couldn't deny them for that reason...i'm serious btw

Is it your belief that a private company should be forced by the government to enter a business relationship with someone when they know ahead of time they will lose money?

If a sick kid is going to need $500,000 worth of medical treatment over the next few years, why on earth would a company want to cover them for a $300/month premium? Why would shareholders invest in a company that operates in this fashion? What happens to big companies when the shareholders aren't making a profit cash out their stock?


How old are you?

 

[kamk2k8]

haha, that's like the insurance companies: after being told they couldn't deny sick children coverage because of "pre-existing" conditions they realized they could still deny them coverage, it's just that they couldn't deny them for that reason...i'm serious btw

Is it your belief that a private company should be forced by the government to enter a business relationship with someone when they know ahead of time they will lose money?

If a sick kid is going to need $500,000 worth of medical treatment over the next few years, why on earth would a company want to cover them for a $300/month premium? Why would shareholders invest in a company that operates in this fashion? What happens to big companies when the shareholders aren't making a profit cash out their stock?


How old are you?

First off let me say that you being condescending to me is not productive in any regard.

Secondly, I use quotes when I say "pre-existing" condition, because often the pre-existing nature of a given condition is only alleged by the insurance companies when in reality it only developed after their plan was purchased

They aren't just raising their rates either when this happens, which would be more acceptable, they just straight up drop their coverage completely and permanently - Despicable in my opinion, absolutely despicable

 

[Darkseider]

The problems in some areas like where I live is that there really is only one choice and it is not due to the town or village having an agreement with the provider. It has to do with there only being one company who bothered to put up the gear up here. If they block and limit certain sites just to prop up their own services then I have a problem with it. I don't have another choice of service provider.
That is the kind of thing this would have protected against.

This ISN'T about content blocking or filtering. This is about bandwith throttling to ensure a Quality of Service. No more, no less. Essentially sure you can grab your torrents at 10 Mbps BUT if the network traffic gets too high they throttle down those torrents to 2 Mbps to ensure that the rest of the network remains fast and stable. That's it. Nothing else to see here. Comcast built the network with their money and their investors money. It belongs to THEM and it is up to them how to best administrate the network to ensure a good quality of service. The government has no right to intervene in the administration or operation of a privately held company. PERIOD.

Dude are you joking me? Your logic is basically advocating that its OK for companies to have child labor or even unpaid slaves, mistreat their workers, screw consumers, the list goes on, I can't believe you just wrote that honestly

You really are an idiot, I have to say it. Seriously. It is people like you that reinforce my opinion that humanity is doomed to failure. No it is not OK for child labor or slavery, hence slavery is ILLEGAL and we have child labor laws. If a company mistreats its' workers they either lose workers or the labor board steps in to settle a dispute. Screw consumers? Sherman Act and Consumer Bill of Rights. If anyone has a problem believing what they wrote you should take a good LONG look at what you are writing yourself. I am done here. By responding you have proven my point far better than I could have. I bid you adieu and wish you well in your future endeavors whatever they may be.

 

[kamk2k8]

Dark, I beg to differ, I think anyone who has followed the progression of this debate will see you have contradicted yourself numerous times, failed to provide sound premises, and generally have no idea what you're talking about

 

[texasPI]

kamk2k8, answer me something? Why is it that most of the threads you've started have been to promote links to your "articles"? There's a reason why people aren't reading your stuff and why you have to go around spamming forums to get hits...

EDIT: In fact all of your posts are in threads you started with links to your "articles"...
http://www.droidforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=1004442