I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.
So it is with the Internet.
And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.
The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.
But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.So it is with the Internet.
And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.
The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.
But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.
Well, we can certainly agree to disagree. I see this as a bad thing, and your greed is good mentality belongs in the 19th century.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.So it is with the Internet.
And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.
The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.
But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.
The Department of Defense started ARPANET (which led to the internet) and to do so they had to sponsor the creation of the actual network connections. A company may have laid it down, but the government paid for it to be done. For a company to start charging AGAIN for lines that were already paid for to be created is just greed.
Seriously, you think companies laid down those lines for free in the first place? That's not how capitalism works, and you know that. Someone (the government) needed those lines to be there(to make the internet), so they had to pay for it to be done. Some company wasn't going to lay down lines and just hope for the invention of the internet.
Also, that is the nature of the world, those with more money, get more stuff. That's right. But when a person is paying X amount of money for something already, and they jack it up to 3X out of greed, that puts a whole lot of people who were able to afford that something, into a lower group. Do this with a few more things and suddenly middle class isn't middle class anymore, they can't afford to be and you make a much larger poor class.
But whatever, **** the little guy, middle and poor class only makes up 97% of the nation.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The Department of Defense started ARPANET (which led to the internet) and to do so they had to sponsor the creation of the actual network connections. A company may have laid it down, but the government paid for it to be done. For a company to start charging AGAIN for lines that were already paid for to be created is just greed.Seriously, you think companies laid down those lines for free in the first place? That's not how capitalism works, and you know that. Someone (the government) needed those lines to be there(to make the internet), so they had to pay for it to be done. Some company wasn't going to lay down lines and just hope for the invention of the internet.
Also, that is the nature of the world, those with more money, get more stuff. That's right. But when a person is paying X amount of money for something already, and they jack it up to 3X out of greed, that puts a whole lot of people who were able to afford that something, into a lower group. Do this with a few more things and suddenly middle class isn't middle class anymore, they can't afford to be and you make a much larger poor class.
But whatever, **** the little guy, middle and poor class only makes up 97% of the nation.
Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?
And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.
Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.
This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.
Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff.
Yea I have made a phone call lately, which is charged for. And guess what, the internet is already charged for too! Charging once for the lines being used is not greed, charging the same consumer TWICE is greed. People already have to pay to be connected to the internet, using the cables and telephone lines you mentioned. It's not really that hard to figure out.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yea I have made a phone call lately, which is charged for. And guess what, the internet is already charged for too! Charging once for the lines being used is not greed, charging the same consumer TWICE is greed. People already have to pay to be connected to the internet, using the cables and telephone lines you mentioned. It's not really that hard to figure out.
It really wouldnt matter if the companies jacked up the price because 1) competion will lower the price 2) only those who can afford it will pay therfore customer base will dwindle
The real probelm about the Net Neutrility Bill is that they would be able to control what you can and cant view which is considered like taking away your freedom of speech. You may not even be able to come to KMC anymore to discuss topics such as this.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.
Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.
This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.
Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff.
This is about the internet being neutral, not free, quit twisting things around. Last time I checked my internet connection wasn't free.
Originally posted by UshgarakWe pay quite a bit for our internet connection - we paid for our cables to be laid down into our home, we paid for the modem, and we pay for our bandwith - I really don't want to see the price go up out of greed which it is, as what other reason would they have to raise it other than for mo' moneh.
Holy heck, read what I say properly, will you? I didn't say they did it for free, I said they did it to make money. And you seem to have this weird idea that the internet works on some magical network the Government installed. Err, what now? The internet works on the cable and telephone network, which is entirely commercial! The infrastructure was never, EVER a Government owned product. I don't know why you are having difficulty with this. How could you possibly have thought that all the phone cabling in your country was Government owned and installled? And furthermore, why do you have this strange idea that once the cables are laid down, it is immoral to charge more for their use? Made a phone call lately?And now we see what this is. Simple consumer greed- you resent companies having the freedom to price.
Tough. Let them price as they will, and competition will do the rest. Like I say, it gets done for tv and phones. There is not the slightest ethical reason for it to be not the same with the net.
This isn't going to be a matter of trying to fleece customers. It is a matter that companies have a right to charge for people using their commercial property! What right do you invoke for getting that for free? The greed is yours, not theirs.
Capitalism is as relevant today as it ever has been; the view that belongs in the past is this muddle-headed, illogical and, in the final analysis, selfsih one that says that companies owe you all favours and free stuff.
The hell - this thread was started with the discussion about Network Neutrality and was derailed after three posts. It's not about it being free or greed, it's about corporations that own the wires deciding which websites will work best for you based on what site pays them more.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm sorry, classing the Internet as a necessity is contempible. Television radios, even PHONES... none of these are necessities. Very handy as they are, they are still luxury goods, and we have always paid commerce rate for them.So it is with the Internet.
And... I am not sure what this confusion about the wired infrastructure is. This stuff gets laid by companies. The US Government, like all other ISPs, used the existing strucutre when they created their network which later became one of the founding parts of the Internet.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no real right to stop companies charging on Free Market grounds. Nor is it really a bad thing.
The only way in which this can be seen as bad is in that it creates a system in which those with more money can benefit more than those with less.
But I don't get why such a fuss is made about that. Because, like, that is how money works!. The entire point of money is that those with more get more. Now, if you want to totally change the nature of the world so that this is not so... err, good luck to you. But the fact that money = stuff is hardly the fault of the comms companies.
Phones are hardly luxuries. The only people who don't use radios or televisions or phones are amish communities and the like. They are ok because of their community. However, if you want to succeed in the fast paced world of consumerism, then these most basic of technologies, I think, are absolutely essential. Try getting a job (or a date), among other things, without a phone or an e-mail. Sure it can be done, but it's definitely going to be more difficult than if that person had one or the other. Maybe they could just go knock on the door of that company 20 miles away from their home. Are cars luxuries too?
The same goes for radios and other affordable means of information. You call access to information a luxury, I call it a right.
Net Neutrality
I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this, or if this topic has been posted before ( I couldn't find it)
Or for those of you who want the ultra-sumerised version check
This is grave stuff, and the internet is in serious risk right now.
Originally posted by Robo-Chocobo
I'm not sure how many of you have heard of this, or if this topic has been posted before ( I couldn't find it)Or for those of you who want the ultra-sumerised version check
This is grave stuff, and the internet is in serious risk right now.
The bill didn't make it past the Senate.