6 GOP Senators(Including Vitter) are Introducing an Amendment to Block Net Neutrality Policy (1 Viewer)

Our ISPs still kick Greece's ***:

broadbandspeedchart.jpg


I can only pray that with time and luck, we'll catch up to the technologically advanced Poles.

To be fair, that was from 2007, and we're falling behind much faster now. Rwanda should pass us soon.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090826/cwa/

It only took 4 minutes to open the main PDF cited in the blog (would have been less than a minute in Korea or Japan).

The good news for Louisiana is that they are better off than most Americans (17th) -- they're almost as good as the Belgians (for the record there's no graph in the 2009 report showing all 28 countries reported on, but it is repeated often that the US was dead last of those 28). Alabama (32nd) and Mississippi (46th) are below the US Average. I'm not that surprised that Washington is 6th best, but I am shocked that I'm in a little dark high-bandwidth area that beats the Seattle area now :( LA got about a 30% improvement from 2008 to 2009, and WA actually fell backward 5% :(

For the record Rhode Island is #1 and Alaska #51 (DC was included and was #5).

LA8cP.png


3HfpF.png


2688H.png
 
I don't either, but without government regulation a market sector will eventually and always morph into a oligopoly or monopoly which will have a very real ruling class that will jack prices well over a free market price and take steps to increase demand, thus ensuring that the imposed higher price stays high.

For a free market to function freely, there must be imposed equality in competition. That's basic economics.

I don't agree. Government creates artificial oligopolies and monopolies, not free markets.

In a free market, if a company obtains enough market share to be called a monopoly, they did so by most efficiently meeting the needs of the market. If they stop doing so, they are immediately open competition.

Here's an article on the subject:

http://monopoly-politics.com/
The key to attaining and maintaining a monopoly, in order to sell at a higher-than-competitive price, is to find some way of keeping others from selling in your market. But, as previously noted, purely market means have seldom if ever worked to achieve that kind of monopoly, at least for any period of time.

So, how do you keep others from selling in your market? You get government -- the political state -- to run interference for you. You get "fair trade" laws against "unfair competition" or government price floors or restrictions on imports or some other political measure to give you the edge. You go to government to artificially "fix" prices by law to stifle the dynamic competitive nature of the marketplace.
 
No, I don't trust them.

As I indicated in those above posts from September '09, the fact that these quasi-government funded networks provide a huge barrier to entry is a problem.

But I'd rather trust market dynamics than any sort of government.
Free markets mostly benefit corporations as evidenced by this graphic:

broadbandspeedchart.jpg
 
I don't either, but without government regulation a market sector will eventually and always morph into a oligopoly or monopoly which will have a very real ruling class that will jack prices well over a free market price and take steps to increase demand, thus ensuring that the imposed higher price stays high.

For a free market to function freely, there must be imposed equality in competition. That's basic economics.

Though, and to be fair to one of your points, I do agree that the US government is run by people that I wouldn't trust to hold my wallet.



I'd like to thank you for allowing me to use the following image in a appropriate and comedic way.

barack-obama-yes-we-can.jpg

A regulated Free Market. Isn't that an oxymoron?
 
That sounds like a government problem, no?

Seriously, are you really feeling this froggy? Don't you have a Mcmansion to build? :)D)

We've been down this road before and we get nowhere. I spew some esoteric free market bull****, you disagree, and we realize we have different philosophies. You think I'm a naive idealist, I think you're somewhat guilty of your success and a born contrarian who loves giving fits to the fat, cigar-smoking, Tommy Bahama-wearing, fox news-parroting captains of industry in a redneck state, even though you aren't quite comfortable with the big government of the left.

Aren't we wasting our time? Let's just skip to the part where we decide we sort of like each other.

We do disagree, but I'm curious as to why. I just don't get the level of distrust and the problem you describe above is a government problem, but one borne of bad government that's been manipulated. Simply, government gets manipulated and when the original intention has been perverted it needs to change, but that doesn't mean we should hate it.
 
I don't agree. Government creates artificial oligopolies and monopolies, not free markets.

In a free market, if a company obtains enough market share to be called a monopoly, they did so by most efficiently meeting the needs of the market. If they stop doing so, they are immediately open competition.

Here's an article on the subject:

http://monopoly-politics.com/

You're seeing things the way you want to see them in order to agree with your beliefs. Government doesn't create artificial market conditions. Monopolies happen given the nature of the market. They're not a function of government. And companies don't always achieve market domination due to competition and especially not when competition involves buying certain regulations and regulators in order to further their interests.

A monopoly begins as happenstance and, in some cases, the problem is exacerbated by the entity buying or manipulating to get more market power. That monopoly continues to exist until it pushes too far and ****** off the market that then demands government intervene or never.
 
This is interesting because you have ISP's saying they can't provide more bandwidth because of bit torrent hogging it all.

As pointed out by others, the broadband access in the U.S. sucks.

Public opinion is not with ISP's right now. No one sees them as the victim of evil bit torrent users.

The government just put up billions to help increase speeds and availability of broadband to rural markets. Also, you have companies like google putting their hat in the ISP ring making bold predictions that they could give most of us 1gps. Also, 4g is coming out, that should over 50mbs download speeds.

All told the competition is about to pick up in every market. So good luck ISP with your content filter, everyone is going to have a choice in the coming years.
 
I think Net neutrality is all well and good, but I'm unconvinced we face a monopolistic hellscape if it ultimately falls. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe the idea that we'll see MCI-style competitors backed by the specter of antitrust penalties is Pollyannaish. But it's that or trusting our politicians to perpetually protect our interests against encroachment by one of the largest industries in the country. I think I'll take my chances.
It's no secret that many ISPs have taken it upon themselves to throttle back bandwidth for some P2P clients among other offenses such as charging for what they deem "excessive" despite the consumer purchasing "unlimited" access.
 
FAP sux... I currrently have Satellite internet from Hughes... I can download 425 mb a day before they cut my bandwidth to below dial up speeds. Unlimited downloads from 1am to 7am.....
 
mongoose "works" for microsoft... of course he trusts and supports monopolies.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom