Gender: Unspecified Location: 30.3322 degrees N 81.6557 degrees S
But even in that kind of "natural" monopoly (I use quotation marks around natural due to the start-up costs being so high that it discourages competitors from entering the market), they still can't set whatever price they want.
The writer of that article is a moron. You can verify a $20 price hike, right now, with AT&T's new plans rollout for "HD services." You don't buy it, you're throttled so that you can only use SD or below.
I've already addressed this argument multiple times in this thread. It's simply wrong: bandwidth is not an issue.
Your argument was legit in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's not. Again, bandwidth is not an issue anymore.
Also, the red herring argument of, "Well, the government created these regional duoplogies and monopolies with regulations so more regulations will just make it worse" won't fly. This is fear-mongering to get people off of the net neutrality train. A national net neutrality rule, as long as it is just that and not earmarked to hell, will in no way create or incubate some of the shitty regional situations we have now.
When the little guys have a shot at competing if they work hard and play their cards right, then you know you're living in a good capitalist system. Right now, we don't really have that. Enforcing net neutrality regulations will. "Little ISPs" can be squeezed out of competition very quickly like Rockefeller did to the competitor oil companies back in the day.
In regards to PG&E, they're regulated, I spoke about this before. Both the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are there for checks and balances.
The fact that you can clearly verify the huge cost differences in Kansas City Missouri and, say, Houston, should be telling of how bullshit your argument is.
There are huge pricing differences in cities that had "forced infrastructure" from the city itself or Google fiber. When businesses are forced to compete, you get very nice competition.
While they would not get away with charging $200 a month for basic internet speeds at 10Mbps, they come close to those absurd rates by charging $50. When you can get 300 Mbps for $50 in Kansas City.
Do you understand the pricing difference? You literally get 30 times more value in Kansas City than in Houston for the same price. "But they can't just create monopolies, man! It won't work!" Sounds like a 30 times price difference is very close to a monopoly.
Gender: Unspecified Location: 30.3322 degrees N 81.6557 degrees S
Well, you seem reasonable.
Of course bandwidth still remains an issue. You screaming BS at it doesn't disprove that. At all.
If you believe everyone in the government (and the FCC for that matter) is beyond corruption and that lobbyism and crony capitalism won't take part in any capacity, then you're idea of more regulations would totally work.
1. Trying to peddle lies and deceptions as truths and then pretending that your position is "reasonable" or open-minded.
2. Realizing that #1 actually fools people into believing false things.
While you say I am unreasonable, I say that, actually, you're the one being unreasonable. Just because I use strong language to cut through the bullshit does not automatically make me unreasonable.
You ignoring pages and pages of the thread where this was discussed and clearly laid out (specifically, there's not a bandwidth issue) doesn't disprove that. And you simply not researching your parroted bullshit (because we both know that these are not your own ideas: you've parroted them from morons) is more telling of how unreasonable you are.
You're on thin-ice. If you wish to discuss anything at all with me, you must reframe from being an unreasonable dumbass. Else, you'll just be relegated to the idiot column and be ignored. I don't want to waste time on idiots.
Do you understand that what you did here is a blatant strawman? That's not the only logical fallacy: you also tried to pull, again, the appeal to emotion instead of providing a substantive argument.
Come back and try again.
First, discard the notion that you can pull the "bandwidth" argument. That's not even debatable at this point. It hasn't been for many years. Quite literally, only misinformed idiots who are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect continue to peddle that bullshit as some sort of triumphant truth to end the net neutrality debate. Even IF it was still true, then you must deal with the fact that ISP Giants have squandered billions upon billions of tax payer dollars that was given to them to upgrade their infrastructure. In other words, the "bandwidth" argument is not even cogent to begin with.
If the bandwidth argument is true, then net neutrality needs to be implemented due to the squandering of billions of tax payer dollars so that it can even the playing field away from duopolies and monopolies and infrastructure can be built (the original intent of those tax payer dollars). If the bandwidth argument is not true, then net neutrality should be enforced increase competition, create a more prosumer/capitalistic landscape, and to ignore the outdated lies of the ISPs. In other words, there is not reason at all to oppose net neutrality on the grounds that "bandwidth" is or is not an issue.
But don't let that stop you from:
1. Reading the thread.
2. Actually doing some research about the bandwidth argument.
I recommend you stay away from that less than 5% of content out there that opposes net neutrality because that's clearly all you're consuming.
Tell me why you believe this argument of yours:
Premise: Having net neutrality is worse than not having it because the government is corrupt.
Conclusion: Not having net neutrality is better than having net neutrality because the government is corrupt.
Jokes aside, there seems to be laws in some states? Something Obama tried to do away with and help states/people bymaking it a states rights issue. Thanks Obama <3
Gender: Unspecified Location: 30.3322 degrees N 81.6557 degrees S
You can use whatever language you want. But you didn’t “cut through the bullshit.” Instead you just pulled a Young Turks and screamed “THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!” and expect everyone to just jump onboard with you.
So, either agree with you or I’m just a dumbass? Again, you seem so reasonable. I take it you get all your debating techniques from Cenk Uygur.
But hey! Bandwidth has no limits apparently. No such thing as data caps or anything! Woo! No need for throttling and all those instants of internet congestion was just a figment of your imagination! Bandwidth is unlimited and there’s no difference about streaming videos in Ultra HD or just sending an email anymore! WOO!!
You're right, what he talks about just doesn't exist.
But what you found is a landmine of state and municipal law that stifle competition.
Alabama makes it quite obvious what is going on:
That's quite clear: ISPs do not want municipal broadband to compete with them at all. And they fattened up some pockets to get these kinds of laws passed.
I'm okay with requiring a city to vote for setting up a municipal ISP. That makes sense. You'd want your people to vote on massive city projects.
Gender: Unspecified Location: 30.3322 degrees N 81.6557 degrees S
My point there wasn't addressing PG&E. Again, I don't know much about it. I live on the East Coast. My point was addressing just unregulated monopolies in general and even in those instances they just can't set the price to whatever they want.
I stated the writer is a moron and then directly gave evidence as to why he's a moron. It does not get any more clear than that. No amount of "witch accusations" (read: ad hominems) are going to make your point function as a rebuttal. Seriously, go back and look at my post. I state he's a moron and then explain why. It's quite clear. What's the matter, are facts hurting your feelings so you're trying character assassination like the butthurt democrats have been doing since Trump won?
But what about my actual point about "reasonable"? Care to provide a rebuttal to that?
No, it's too late for that, now. You've already proven you're a dumbass. Now it's time for you to redeem your dumbassery by being reasonable and admitting you're parroting bullshit arguments that you had little understanding of.
Strawman...
Strawman...
Factually incorrect.
Strawman.
Okay, so would you actually like to try to calm down and make legitimate points?
I'll give you one more chance. But you have to do a few things for me, first:
Calm down, stop bouncing up and down on GOP cock, take Ajit Pai's dick out of your mouth, wipe his semen off your face (don't forget the layers...your eyes may be crusting up which is why it's probably so difficult for you to read), realize "bandwidth" is a terrible argument for the two reasons I outlined, abandon the fear-mongering about corrupt governments, and come back with an actual cogent argument.
"The 2015 Obama FCC order reducing the Internet to a regulated public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act was marketed as protecting net neutrality - even though the DC Circuit Court of Appeals expressly held that any ISP that blocked or filtered web traffic would be completely exempt from the rules. "
This must be a lie, correct?
This also best not be true:
"The FCC has already decided to boost E-Rate spending by $1.5 billion per year (conveniently, right after the November 2014 elections)," Pai said. "And it will soon dramatically expand the Lifeline program to subsidize broadband."
"The money to fund this spending spree will come from a broadband tax.The only question is when," he continued. "One might reasonably suspect that this decision is conveniently being put off until after the November elections. After all, making people pay more to access the Internet isn't going to be popular."
That's from 2016.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jun 14th, 2018 at 10:03 PM
Seeing as the only source is former ISP lawyer and current ISP shill Ajit Pai, it probably is a lie to try and make his repeal of NN seem more consumer-friendly than it actually is.
"even though the DC Circuit Court of Appeals expressly held that any ISP that blocked or filtered web traffic would be completely exempt from the rules."
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Just looking it up right now, unless the author of the article is citing some other decision, it seems, if I'm understanding it correctly, that it's not as cut and dry as he implies, but merely AT&T's interpretation of a rather small segment of the ruling.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 12th, 2018 05:17 PM
