How the FCC's repeal of net neutrality could affect Apple

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 103
    Apple should get into this game and offer both privacy and net neutrality to internet users in every state.

    Fortunately, it would not take a long time for Apple to do that, because of new technology that is just around the corner. In 2020, 5G cellular (phone) technology will provide much faster speeds than today’s 4G service, rivaling speeds offered by today’s cable-based internet service providers. For that reason, the move to 5G will directly pit mobile operators against ISP’s in the provision of internet service. In this battle, the ISP’s will be at a big disadvantage because their markets are segmented into relatively small market areas and because they don’t have established toeholds with hundreds of millions of mobile phone users.

    With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.

    T-Mobile has already started down this path by offering free streaming of a limited range if lower-quality video, but what Apple could do with T-Mobile’s network would be far more ambitious. For a start, millions of devoted Apple customers would catapult T-Mobile to a scale that rivals AT&T and Verizon. That would enable Apple to extract concessions from TV networks and movie studios which have heretofore spurned Apple’s attempts to develop a full range of video entertainment similar to what it has done with Apple Music.

    Having a major player (Apple/T-Mobile) offering privacy and neutrality would also incentivize other ISP’s and wireless operators to follow suit, to avoid losing even more customers to Apple.

    Apple could accomplish all of this without undermining either company's culture by leaving current T-Mobile management in place, and issuing a few guidelines that establish the company’s new mission. Apple’s deep pockets, brand name and well-known commitment to privacy virtually guarantees the success of such a venture. After all, T-Mobile will upgrade to 5G in any event, so its prospects could only brighten with Apple accelerating the transition and attracting millions of new customers.

    Finally, Apple needs a large, high-quality investment where it could deploy a large amount of cash that earns more than a portfolio of government bonds. However, if Tim Cook is reluctant to acquire T-Mobile, he could pay T-Mobile $1 billion each year to offer the $50 monthly package of phone and internet services to iPhone users, plus a zero-interest loan to finance its 5G network upgrade. The ability of iPhone customers to get a bargain on mobile phone and internet services would give iPhone a marketing advantage not enjoyed by the buyers of other phones.
    👍🏽👍🏽  
  • Reply 42 of 103
    Just like apple doesn't give anyone a free ride on their app store why should they get a free ride on the ISP's infrastructure.
    Apple isn't getting a free ride. I'm paying for it, and so are you, and so is everyone else who pays the ISP. That's what that bill you pay every month is for -- access to the internet. If the service providers don't carry anyone's data, what the hell am I paying to access?

    Are you saying the ISPs should be paid twice? Once by the content provider to put the material ON the internet, then again by users to access it? If not, what the heck ARE you saying?
    edited December 2017 StrangeDaysmuthuk_vanalingamGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 43 of 103
    The government should treat the internet like utilities.  Take part ownership and subsidize it then they can institute transparency and fee control.  Until that happens, they cannot legislate how the ISPs or content providers do business.  Let businesses figure it out without regulations, the more you regulate the deeper the imbalances get.
  • Reply 44 of 103
    It's so terrible that everything isn't free.  /s
    No, what's terrible is paying twice for the same product or service. If you want a user-pay system, gimme back my taxes. The present system is based on the premise that some things are better managed collectively, so don't pass the hat when I use them because I gave at the tax office.
    Solimuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 45 of 103

    dewme said:
    Like most things in American politics the worst-case scenarios predicted by opposing sides rarely come to pass and things end up falling somewhere in the middle. Airline deregulation didn't result in poorly maintained planes raining down from the sky onto unsuspecting citizens. But it did wipe out many smaller routes and markets and lead to consolidation, mergers, and universal crap level service and brutal seating conditions for economy class fliers. The hair-on-fire dire predictions about NAFTA didn't pan out and it became overall trade neutral. Our phones still work even after the slaughter and dismemberment of Ma Bell. The biggest problem I see through my own lens of naive realism is with the massive growth in power that America has ceded to the executive branch of government. Having the caretakers of so many of America's vital resources, like the FCC and the regulation of communication spectrum and bandwidth, put into the hands of executive branch political appointees is never going to be in the best interest of American citizens as a whole. Having so many inept, incompetent, and unqualified political appointees installed into these positions solely to advance the political self-interests and selfishness of the president and his/her supporters ends up politicizing critical infrastructure matters that should really be decided on the basis of technical, business, and customer merit rather than party lines. I doubt that voters caught up in the political gamesmanship and buffoonery of an election "event" consider the full set of ramifications that can result from their choice. in this case with Net Neutrality the voices and informed opinions of tens of thousands of people who live, breathe, and understand the real issues were cast aside for one man's totally uninformed and maligned opinion. Democracy, I think not. 
    The bold text portion of that post was the best part.
    Sure, take just about any qualifier without its context and it can be made to sound like the opposite of what was intended.

    He said the "worst-case scenarios" rarely play out. By making that the focus of the comment you ignore the point, which is that there are still consequences.

    Planes did not fall out of the sky, but passengers did suffer. ISPs may not shut down half the internet, but if this doesn't have adverse consequences for consumers within a year I'll eat a sock.
    Solianantksundaram
  • Reply 46 of 103
    Just like apple doesn't give anyone a free ride on their app store why should they get a free ride on the ISP's infrastructure. If apple wants to provide top service to it's customers they should pay for it or lay their own pipes. They will be getting a big tax break soon, repatriate the money, lay down infrastructure and generate some jobs here in the US.
    All that will mean is that the US gets more money (no surprise they voted for it then) and the costs will more than likely be passed into the consumers (no matter who their services provide is). Actually the protocols that run the internet were developed in the U.K. by Sir Tim Burners-Lee. He could have chosen to patent it or the UK government could have chosen to charge a leicence fee but they didn’t. Sir Tim Burners-Lee still campaigns for the principal of net neutrality (https://www.cnet.com/news/save-the-open-internet-in-europe-pleads-web-inventor-sir-tim-berners-lee/). After all removing net neutrality will stiffel innovation and choice as small providers will probably be priced out of the market before they can get enough of a foothold. In the market. 

    However, I suspect the big IT companies have got too big for anything but a truely revolutionary idea to become a company in its own right rather than one of those innovative companies that are bought by one of the large tech companies. 

  • Reply 47 of 103
    spacekid said:
    The FCC believes the FTC is a better place to control these unfair practices which the media and political hyperbole have ignored.
    The FTC doesn't have any rule making authority like the FCC does, so how can that be a better place for controlling abuse? All the FTC can do is respond to allegations of abuse, but if there aren't any rules in place regarding abuse (because the FCC got rid of them)...how can the FTC resolve anything? Pai is just playing games here and has no real interest in companies being held accountable. Note that the FCC says that they're going to actively try to prevent states from passing their own net neutrality laws, which is the blatant giveaway to Pai's real intent: he wants ISPs to be above the law. 
    edited December 2017 cgWerksjSnively
  • Reply 48 of 103
    i can’t believe the GOP voters have turned NN, a matter of all bits being treated equally regardless of source, into a false narrative about freeloaders and free rides. which has nothing to do it. so, so typical. 

    the data transmission of the data is paid for, by me the consumer, to my ISP. that isn’t the issue. the issue is when the ISPs try to charge more for some data to some people, usually by going after the content providers. despite the fact that i already paid for the movement of the data. they’re trying to charge twice for the same job. which i already paid for.



    ...and we have a verified history of the ISPs trying to do this from 2005 - 2013:

    https://np.reddit.com/r/KeepOurNetFree/comments/7ej1nd/fcc_unveils_its_plan_to_repeal_net_neutrality/dq5hlwd/?sh=45a33b81&st=JAA62V5F

    edited December 2017 apple jockeySoliBuffyzDead
  • Reply 49 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,181member
    lorin schultz said:
    Apple isn't getting a free ride. I'm paying for it, and so are you, and so is everyone else who pays the ISP. That's what that bill you pay every month is for -- access to the internet. If the service providers don't carry anyone's data, what the hell am I paying to access?

    Are you saying the ISPs should be paid twice? Once by the content provider to put the material ON the internet, then again by users to access it? If not, what the heck ARE you saying?
    Well, you're paying for an infrastructure to get the data to you. And, yes, content producers also pay to transmit that information out across that infrastructure. There is no real problem with that, so long as the charges involved are somewhat realistic. And, remember, it's a bunch of ISPs involved at different levels. Apple isn't necessarily paying Comcast to put the data on the 'Net, you're paying them to get it back out. They are paying some top-tier providers to connect their huge server-farms.

    What we absolutely don't want - in net neutrality principal - is that you're paying your ISP for access to some set of content! So, what it seems like you might be pushing towards there is actually antithetical to net neutrality. You're paying for access... not access to stuff. What the stuff is, or whether there is only a little or a lot, should be irrelevant.

    vision33r said:
    The government should treat the internet like utilities.  Take part ownership and subsidize it then they can institute transparency and fee control.  Until that happens, they cannot legislate how the ISPs or content providers do business.  Let businesses figure it out without regulations, the more you regulate the deeper the imbalances get.
    Yes, but. The problem is that if the FCC regulates it like they to TV or radio, then suddenly they become content police, and like TV/radio you end up with those in power mostly controlling the message.

    However, it isn't like just letting the corporations figure it out fixes the problem. Just look at how much control the corporations currently have on our government and policies. It's a different kind of influence, but it's still a corrupting influence. And, once government gets in bed with big corporate interests, they probably have much more combined (and somewhat hidden) control than if they were just a authoritarian government.

    lorin schultz said:
    ... but if this doesn't have adverse consequences for consumers within a year I'll eat a sock.
    Listen to the current Congressional Dish podcast on Net Neutrality before you promise too much there. For example, Net Neutrality™ was just a policy promoted by the executive branch that was never actually enforced or made law. It's possible that just the threat of it impacted things, but this idea that things will now fundamentally change is kind of FUD. The 'Net didn't suddenly become neutral for 2 years, and now it's headed back to some dystopian state in quick order.

    Though, you can easily get out of sock eating on a technicality, I suppose, as negative consumer Internet related things happen all the time... before, during, and will continue after the Net Neutrality™ strike-down.

    foregoneconclusion said:
    The FTC doesn't have any rule making authority like the FCC does, so how can that be a better place for controlling abuse? All the FTC can do is respond to allegations of abuse ...
    Yes, that's the impression I've gotten (I'm not an expert by any stretch). They'd have to go after stuff like monopoly behavior or stuff like that. Though, when I worked for a major retailer, the FTC could come down pretty hard on even simply stuff like... you used the term 'sale' even though the product wasn't technically established at 'regular' price for more than X number of days.

    Heck, I managed a CMS that's primary purpose was to make it even possible for all the buyers and sellers to *attempt* to not get smacked with huge penalties by the FTC! So, while I don't understand how such detail gets in place, the FTC isn't powerless at all.

    i can’t believe the GOP voters have turned NN, a matter of all bits being treated equally regardless of source, into a false narrative about freeloaders and free rides. which has nothing to do it. so, so typical. 

    the data transmission of the data is paid for, by me the consumer, to my ISP. that isn’t the issue. the issue is when the ISPs try to charge more for some data to some people, usually by going after the content providers. despite the fact that i already paid for the movement of the data. they’re trying to charge twice for the same job. which i already paid for.
    Yes, the whole free-ride thing is a real pet-peeve of mine in this discussion too. NN is about separating content from the distribution, not about how much the Internet costs. One might have an impact on the other, but that's more a potential outcome.

    But, I disagree a bit, in that it's not so much about double-charging as it is just caring where the data comes from to begin with. The collusion aspect is the biggest problem in terms of basic consumer protection. Then, of course, it could also lead to throttling and blocking, which is the other side of the coin.

    When I pay for Internet access, it should be Internet access... not what Comcast, etc. thinks I should be seeing or not seeing, or what collection of content they have cut deals to get, etc. (Or, on the darker side, what content they've been paid or influenced to prevent me from getting.)
  • Reply 50 of 103
    It's so terrible that everything isn't free.  /s
    No, what's terrible is paying twice for the same product or service. If you want a user-pay system, gimme back my taxes. The present system is based on the premise that some things are better managed collectively, so don't pass the hat when I use them because I gave at the tax office.
    I'd love to refund your taxes, but I don't have them. ;)
  • Reply 51 of 103


    dewme said:
    Like most things in American politics the worst-case scenarios predicted by opposing sides rarely come to pass and things end up falling somewhere in the middle. Airline deregulation didn't result in poorly maintained planes raining down from the sky onto unsuspecting citizens. But it did wipe out many smaller routes and markets and lead to consolidation, mergers, and universal crap level service and brutal seating conditions for economy class fliers. The hair-on-fire dire predictions about NAFTA didn't pan out and it became overall trade neutral. Our phones still work even after the slaughter and dismemberment of Ma Bell. The biggest problem I see through my own lens of naive realism is with the massive growth in power that America has ceded to the executive branch of government. Having the caretakers of so many of America's vital resources, like the FCC and the regulation of communication spectrum and bandwidth, put into the hands of executive branch political appointees is never going to be in the best interest of American citizens as a whole. Having so many inept, incompetent, and unqualified political appointees installed into these positions solely to advance the political self-interests and selfishness of the president and his/her supporters ends up politicizing critical infrastructure matters that should really be decided on the basis of technical, business, and customer merit rather than party lines. I doubt that voters caught up in the political gamesmanship and buffoonery of an election "event" consider the full set of ramifications that can result from their choice. in this case with Net Neutrality the voices and informed opinions of tens of thousands of people who live, breathe, and understand the real issues were cast aside for one man's totally uninformed and maligned opinion. Democracy, I think not. 
    The bold text portion of that post was the best part.
    Sure, take just about any qualifier without its context and it can be made to sound like the opposite of what was intended.

    He said the "worst-case scenarios" rarely play out. By making that the focus of the comment you ignore the point, which is that there are still consequences.

    Planes did not fall out of the sky, but passengers did suffer. ISPs may not shut down half the internet, but if this doesn't have adverse consequences for consumers within a year I'll eat a sock.
    Get ready for dinner.


    cgWerks
  • Reply 52 of 103
    Free markets need strong rules and regulations, otherwise it’s just the winner takes all.
    Free markets....rules and regulations. 

    I do not think that means what you think it means. It's like saying, "I think companies need to stop making ice cream so cold". Uhhhh...that already exists. It's simply called "cream". Free markets work precisely because the buyers and the competition to the sellers are at in greatest position to weed out the bad players. Does this mean bad players will never exist? No! But then again, look at the market conditions that have led to Comcasts, Verizons, AT&Ts, and other mega corps we've been subjected to. If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. There's a reason why the Comcasts of the world lobby for excessive regulation and barriers to entry: they can afford compliance by simply passing along the increased costs to us, while the little guys can't even fathom getting off the ground with all the compliance costs!
  • Reply 53 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,181member
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    singularityGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 54 of 103
    sdw2001 said:.  

    It’s also worth noting that NN wasn’t even on the books until 2015.  Everything was fine without it.  One has to wonder why Big Tech and Obama wanted it (the latter tells me it’s bad on its own).  
     No - that’s just not true. This idea that there was no net neutrality before 2015 is awful history. 

    Just read the the Wikipedia page on the history of net neutrality: the FCC was upholding the principles of net neutrality and opening investigations as early as 2004. 

    These pre-2015 cases that were sorted out occurred in the context of the threat of intervention form the FCC. It wasn’t just “the market” that stopped companies from creating multiple tiers and blocking sites it was the threat of regulatory intervention. 

    The repeal of net neutrality is a direct signal to those companies to go ahead and create a multi-tiered system without worrying about regulatory issues. It didn’t happen prior to 2015 precisely because the FCC was explicitly advocating net neutrality. 

    To say don’t worry is like  saying “hey, that banked hasn’t been robbed in many years so there is no need to post a security guard out front!”

    Finally, the market incentive here is NOT to uphold neutrality. The market incentives for a big ISP are to charge Netflix and others BIG money for a fast pipe. Comcast will make more profit, and that money eventually has to come from someone. 
    Solianantksundaram
  • Reply 55 of 103
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,181member
    fronesis said:
    This idea that there was no net neutrality before 2015 is awful history. 

    Just read the the Wikipedia page on the history of net neutrality: the FCC was upholding the principles of net neutrality and opening investigations as early as 2004. 

    These pre-2015 cases that were sorted out occurred in the context of the threat of intervention form the FCC. It wasn’t just “the market” that stopped companies from creating multiple tiers and blocking sites it was the threat of regulatory intervention. ...
    Yes, the principal of net neutrality has been around, there just has never been a law. And, you might be correct that the threat of heavier regulation played a roll. I guess we'll see. This could be a signal that they have a few years to go wild, but they also know they will really get smacked in the future if they get too carried away.

    But, be *really* careful about Wikipedia, especially concerning controversial topics. Those articles are typically controlled by teens in their underwear in mom's basement.
  • Reply 56 of 103
    It's so terrible that everything isn't free.  /s
    No, what's terrible is paying twice for the same product or service. If you want a user-pay system, gimme back my taxes. The present system is based on the premise that some things are better managed collectively, so don't pass the hat when I use them because I gave at the tax office.
    I'd love to refund your taxes, but I don't have them. ;)
    Are you actually admitting to being one of them tax freeloaders you so loathe?

    How sweet... I mean, ironic...
  • Reply 57 of 103
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather risk dealing with pirates than playing games with the pirates who got sneaky and put on guns and badges and more expensive suits. And for the record, I've been robbed by real pirates. And while the amount of personal property they stole from me was not insignificant (~$10k), it pales in comparison to the property government pirates rob from me every year. 
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
  • Reply 58 of 103
    macwise said:
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather risk dealing with pirates than playing games with the pirates who got sneaky and put on guns and badges and more expensive suits. And for the record, I've been robbed by real pirates. And while the amount of personal property they stole from me was not insignificant (~$10k), it pales in comparison to the property government pirates rob from me every year. 
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
    All of that may be true, but I'll take my chances with government and rules because I don't want to have to take a sword or gun with me just to get to work without someone trying to steal my shoes or eat my face. I don't disagree that majority rule sucks, but there are so many anti-social people in the world that it's just not practical for everyone to be their own police force, product tester, educator, and infrastructure builder. For all its flaws, and all the mistakes it makes, representative government is still better than anarchy or authoritarianism.
    cgWerksSpamSandwichmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 59 of 103
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,998member
    macwise said:
    cgWerks said:
    macwise said:
    ... If you think government is the solution to allowing smaller, more localized regional players to rise up and thrive, then you're not paying attention. Government is the REASON huge corporations with massive monopoly force are a thing. Get rid of burdensome rules and regulations, and lean startups can take the market by storm. ...
    Bad government is the reason. But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. The key is to have good rules and regulations, and a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    > Bad government

    Redundant.
    But, without rules and regulation (kind of the purpose of government), there would be a whole other set of problems. You can't understand what a free market is until you properly understand human nature. Having no rules and regulations wouldn't work. 
    This is the sales pitch of government. Also the mafia. "Pay us to protect you from the pirates. If you don't pay, you'll see our own pirate side." Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather risk dealing with pirates than playing games with the pirates who got sneaky and put on guns and badges and more expensive suits. And for the record, I've been robbed by real pirates. And while the amount of personal property they stole from me was not insignificant (~$10k), it pales in comparison to the property government pirates rob from me every year. 
    ...good rules and regulations...a government that isn't being bought by the corporations (or trying to achieve their own selfish agenda).
    "Good" in this context is about as subjective as "favorite food", or "favorite movie". There are literally billions of opinions on what makes a government or policy good or bad. Democracy in this sense is a lie. It is violence, only more masked. If 51% say they have a right to life, liberty, or property of 1%, so it is. There is nothing moral, just, or inherently "good", about it, nor does there need to be — it simply "is", because the majority says so. In a "republic" where representatives swear to represent the group, it's even worse, since it only takes a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the group in order to commit the same offense against one or all. 

    We have been lied to. If a pirate comes along to harm or hinder me, I am championed when I conquer him with a swift bullet to the face. But should that same pirate approach while wearing a badge, then my neighbors go from hosting a parade in my honor to calling for my hanging. 

    Government is only ever about its own selfish agenda. Governments never fully mature until they maintain leverage against every single citizen they claim in their jurisdiction. Don't believe me? Just look at history. It'll back me up.
    If you are opposed to taxes there must be a libertarian paradise somewhere where there are no taxes. I believe Libreria comes to mind. 

    Of course some taxes are totally wasted, like the taxes for continuous wars. In general Republicans support all those wars. And government expenditure there often is spent overseas. Some taxes are very useful for a sane and normally functioning society. In fact this very internet we are discussing originated via government funding. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 60 of 103
    cgWerks said:
    One thing to keep in mind in this debate, is that the policy was never law. So, if it had any impact, it just kept the telecoms scared that it might someday.
    cf. 10m20s in https://congressionaldish.com/net-neutrality/

    Soli said:
    But that does affect users. It means that the costs are passed onto the users from Apple (an overall minor issue), and it means that corporations, like Apple, can afford to ink deals that push their services ahead of others, as well as squash smaller competitors (major issue for the free market).
    I think we need some form of net neutrality (the principal), but w/o the baggage. But, first, we need to get control of our government so we can keep them from doing worse than the corporations. Also, whatever form it takes, it will have to include some kind of common-sense aspect. For example, companies like Netflix and Apple can afford and currently put systems in place that give them unfair advantages to any competing service I might want to startup. All content hasn't been treated equally for a long time.

    To me, it's more about evaluating any collusion between a content producer and the distribution network. A content producer cutting some kind of deal with a particular content distribution mechanism is problematic. For example, if Disney wants to implement some kind of localized caching boxes to speed delivery of their content, they can't do so only with Comcast, or stuff like that.
    Corporations only lookout for themselves, Governments represent the citizens' interest by keeping monopolies from forming and breaking them up when they block competition (destroy innovation) and limit options and take it or leave it pricing. You don't let the fox guard the hen house and you don't let huge corporations, including banks, Wall St and insurance companies regulate themselves. We should have learned by now but 2008 real estate and stock market crash has happed before, early 2001, 1990, 1980 and of course the big on in 1929. Each of these times Government unleashed the capitals to their on devices and their greed got them and us in a pickle. 
    GeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.