or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by asdasd

That's a response which proves my point and invalidates yours. There is nothihg in that definition which says "the free market doesn't produce monopolies" because that claim is economically illiterate nonsense.
@wizard69 you are all over the place. I brought up food regulation as an example everybody would agree with and you are not certain that you agree with it or not. You say merely that word of mouth will close down restaurants. In fact that's not certain, a restaurant with a passing trade in tourists can be crap and the new customers, continually churning, will never know. However the reason for regulation is to stop serious health problems. A restaurant may close down...
The heavy users are the consumers not Netflix.
My understanding is that that isn't what net neutrality is opposed to ( at least here in Europe). Neutrality is about where the content comes from, not what it is. If the ISP throttles all streams between 6pm-8pm so be it. If they throttle NetFlix or Apple TV streaming and benefit their own solution that's a big problem.
These limits are -- or can be -- imposed on the customer by the ISP. I had a cap in the UK once. That's not a violation of net neutrality because there is no preference for certain sites by the ISP.so most of the "customer won't pay" arguments are spurious.
1) I dont agree that build outs would be affected2) of course people can't. They aren't experts. Are you seriously opposed to any regulation whatsoever.3) the "ask a slave" was rhetorical. However you wouldn't need a time machine to talk to one. Probably you wouldn't need a plane trip.
All a long straw man argument. Neutrality means being neutral between all content providers not not passing on costs to customers who over use or abuse fair use. An ISP can, and they already do, throttle speeds at certain times, limit customer bandwidth, or have a cap per month. This would stop a 4k stream from Netflix unless you paid.None of this violates net neutrality as any streaming site would be affected.
If AT&T don't build out some one else will take their lunch.You guys are a joke. A government regulation is not the same as government ownership. It's like saying that sanitary laws for restaurants are communism. What is injurious to liberty - since liberty can be removed by property owners*, monopolists as well as the state - is the control that private capital and infrastructure rentiers can have over information flow on the Internet.* ask a slave.
Nobody is asking for anything for free. The consumer will still pay.A government regulation is not the same as communism or state ownership. Plenty of "private property rights" are regulated, in particular anything for sale is subject to regulation. There are any number of regulations imposed in your iPhone for instance which is why it has to be certified . This is one more and one which any sane person should believe in. Especially Apple users or investors.
His ill gotten gains is free and unfettered access to the Internet?
New Posts  All Forums: