AT&T to 'Pause' Network Investments in Net Neutrality Fight
Go ahead T-bone
The point you're trying to make here is that what AT&T is doing doesn't seem to make sense because they don't currently have a financial stake in a world without net neutrality.
Although, I totally agree with you, let me shine some light on AT&T's motives. AT&T recently filed patents for the technology they plan to use to install these internet fast lanes and to bilk consumers and content providers as many times over as possible for del...
(continues)
Net neutrality says all Internet traffic is treated equally (no fast/slow lanes).
Net neutrality IS NOT A LAW. IT IS NOT A REGULATION. IT HAS NOT BEEN PASSED.
Right now, the FCC is CONSIDERING net neutrality options, but they tried before and failed on the grounds that they don't have the authority to create and enforce those rules.
So the companies with a stake in net neutrality not passing (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) are heavily lobbying and otherwise throwing fits to try and block net neutrality from happening.
More information you might have an easier time understanding: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
You also seem to have a misunderstanding about net neutrality yourself. Att/Vzw and ISPs do not want to charge customers more for 'fast lanes'. They want to charge companies like Hulu and Netflix. Personally, Im against this as Hulu and Netflix would certainly raise their prices for the customer in response. If you or anyone else think there would not be a sizeable consumer,backlash for,doing such things, you are safly mistaken. That is how the Free Market works. I also thonk it is odd how you claim in other posts to be pro free market, but somehow justify government intervention and also refer to capitalists in a disparaging way. Ted Cruz penned an OpEd today in the Washington Pos...
(continues)
I'm not.
>>You also seem to have a misunderstanding about net neutrality yourself.
I understand it perfectly, as I also understand the technology the internet is built on.
>>Att/Vzw and ISPs do not want to charge customers more for 'fast lanes'
But ultimately they will.
>>They want to charge companies like Hulu and Netflix. Personally, Im against this as Hulu and Netflix would certainly raise their prices for the customer in response.
I'm against it because it is unethical to charge them a cent. HULU and Netflix pay a plenty of money for the bandwidth to deliver their content to the internet backbone. THAT is their obligation.
ISP's charge customers for a...
(continues)
Because you are entirely wrong. Perhaps if you first understood what net neutrality was in the first place you might be in a better place to have this dialogue. But you obviously do not.
>>But I will say that your stance that because free markets are being manipulated that somehow a government takeover is required is nonsensical at best.
You have not understood my stance or you are purposefully misrepresenting it.
>> And you seem to also confuse capitalists with crony fascists
Any of the so-called capitalists that I have indicated as crony fascists most certainly are. If you think what the likes...
(continues)
>>>advocating for a system where these companies are allowed to continue behaving in the manner that they do.
Exactly my point. Are these companies breaking any laws? Nope. Who are you to dictate what these companies do? You are advocating government rules and restrictions instead of allowing the free market to reign.
What you want to do is not Capitalist. It is not neutral. It is not free market.
Seriously read an economics book before you come clowning at me wi...
(continues)
Not sure what you did in the tech sector, but you are certainly wrong about what net neutrality is.
>>The fact that you havent even heard of Mises or Rothbard or Rockwell is proving that you don't have a clue about economics or capitalism.
You're making the inference that since I haven't read three authors you deem important, that I couldn't possibly know anything about economics even though thousands of authors have written about economics over the centuries.
>> Are these companies breaking any laws? Nope.
As an anarcho-capitalist you should believe that any form of government interference in the market is wrong. And yet you defend these companies practices in the m...
(continues)
"you are certainly wrong about what net neutrality is"
No. As the article pointed out, even the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" says YOU are wrong about what it means.
"You're making the inference that since I haven't read three authors you deem important, that I couldn't possibly know anything about economics even though thousands of authors have written ab ...
(continues)
You'll do anything to resist an actual debate won't you. Unfortunately, I get to decide if I respond or not, not you. But you can feel free to not respond to me if you like. Besides, I'm not really sure if I'm willing to endure another 30 posts of your insults just to get to another mediocre response like this one.
>>My choice to discontinue this charade of a debate has already been stated.
Wouldn't be the first time you told me bye and continued to post. Oh look, you already have several posts to me after this one, lol.
>>You choose to insult, insinuate and inflame
No, you provoked me. Then I did those things quite intentionally. I honestly prefer rational debate. ...
(continues)
Now there's a straw man. I want no such thing. There's no in-between with you. Has it ever occurred to you that I actually want very little government regulation, which is quite different in itself from none-at-all and as-much-as-possible?
>>while claiming to be a libertarian and a Constitutionalist.
You got that right.
>>In the Free Market you gte to vote with your dollar
The market is hardly free. But I do vote with my dollar as best as I can.
>>and that is more powerful than your vote on any ballad.
You pounced all over one of my typo's once, and quite rudely. So, I'll take this opportunity to politely point out one of yours. I think you me...
(continues)
So you got a degree. Congrats. Personally, I prefer to claim I'm not an expert. Then if I get myself into a dilemma like the one you created for yourself above I can maintain at least a little credibility.
>>As already stated in the actual definition of Capitalism, the State has control with what you propose and the State is not now nor has it ever been "neutral".
You're mincing words again. What you mean by a neutral state is not what is meant by a neutral internet. Furthermore, you have neither shown that the state is incapable of being neutral nor have you demonstrated that the state must be neutral in order to maintain a neutral int...
(continues)
I'm so glad you learned to post links. Unfortunately, out of the 11 links you posted, I mentioned you and twitter once? The rest is only an attempt to have them noticed by a moderator and have them deleted.
Let's get to the "points" of your claims here so you can get your rocks off reading them.
1. Neutral State. The State is not now nor will it ever be "neutral". The State's goal is to grow in power to govern and to be the master.
" Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the...
(continues)
This forum is closed.