IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Ok. So if its such a poor argument. So if you built a house with your money. Is it ok for the government to tell you that you can't. Paint your house green?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Repercussions of court ruling against F.C.C. and Net Neutrality
- Thread starter kamk2k8
- Start date
Ok. So if its such a poor argument. So if you built a house with your money. Is it ok for the government to tell you that you can't. Paint your house green?
mrqs
Android Expert
it's ok for the government to put restrictions on what kind of house i build with my money, yes
obviously the colour is hardly something they'd be very interested in, but there are all kinds of regulations as to what you can build
i'm not familiar with the usa laws, but at least over here you have to get your building plan approved before proceeding
again, of course your plan isn't gonna get declined because you want to paint it green, but it will if it details a ramp directing all the rain water straight to your neighbour's foundations
point is, everyone - be it an individual or a company - have to follow rules imposed by the government and imo forbidding the censorship of the internet is a very good rule to have
obviously the colour is hardly something they'd be very interested in, but there are all kinds of regulations as to what you can build
i'm not familiar with the usa laws, but at least over here you have to get your building plan approved before proceeding
again, of course your plan isn't gonna get declined because you want to paint it green, but it will if it details a ramp directing all the rain water straight to your neighbour's foundations
point is, everyone - be it an individual or a company - have to follow rules imposed by the government and imo forbidding the censorship of the internet is a very good rule to have
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Ok how about this. What if the government said you cant let your brother or son or family member of some sort live in the house unless you take in a homeless person first
mrqs
Android Expert
when you read a post, think to yourself what the most important aspect of it is, the one thing that the person is trying to say - this is called "a point"
the point is what you should consider and respond to, not cling on to the metaphors and semantics
finding the point in a post is extra easy when the poster says where it is, like this:
the point is what you should consider and respond to, not cling on to the metaphors and semantics
finding the point in a post is extra easy when the poster says where it is, like this:
this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, there's no metaphor in it, it's off topic and just plain stupid
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Well no offense, really no offense, but I'm trying to dumb it down for you so you can se ethe point.
mrqs
Android Expert
no you're not, you're either:
1) making exaggerated pseudo-metaphors that make no sense
in which case, i'm to assume the "me" in that is the isp - so who are the "family members" and who's the "homeless person"? 'cause i don't know of any isp that gives free internet access to any customers, be they somehow preferred ("family members") or not ("homeless person")
or
2) giving a stupid example to point out how all government interference of any kind is inherently bad (which it obviously isn't, it's necessary)
1) making exaggerated pseudo-metaphors that make no sense
in which case, i'm to assume the "me" in that is the isp - so who are the "family members" and who's the "homeless person"? 'cause i don't know of any isp that gives free internet access to any customers, be they somehow preferred ("family members") or not ("homeless person")
or
2) giving a stupid example to point out how all government interference of any kind is inherently bad (which it obviously isn't, it's necessary)
Caloy
Android Expert
Even if you buy your own home, you have to abide by the fire-code, city code, association code etc. When you do a major home improvement project you need permission from the association and the city. This not only makes sure your home is safe, but your house will retain it's value as well as make your neighborhood esthetically pleasing.
Let's put at it this way, if Comcast starts adjusting bandwidth based on sites and usage, I'm leaving them for good. I don't care if the other service has less bandwidth or is asking for a higher price. Limiting the bandwidth on where I want to use them just doesn't taste right in my mouth.
Let's put at it this way, if Comcast starts adjusting bandwidth based on sites and usage, I'm leaving them for good. I don't care if the other service has less bandwidth or is asking for a higher price. Limiting the bandwidth on where I want to use them just doesn't taste right in my mouth.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Ugh maybe you don't value free enterprise or the merits of capitalism in the truest dorm over there in finland but in the usa we do.as apparent with the courts ruling
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
And that is your r to do so.
OK, what if there is no other choice? For a lot of us, that is the reality. We have exactly 1 choice for an ISP. Are you willing to go back to dial-up (provided your phone company hasn't already ripped out your copper lines) or give up Internet access altogether?
Caloy
Android Expert
Court rulings can be overturned by a higher court. The court only rules over what is in the Law, not necessarily what is right.
mrqs
Android Expert
that's true; as far as i can see, most of the world's countries aren't as big fans of capitalism as the usa apparently is - it's more frowned upon than commended over here in finland (generally speaking of course)
anyway, are you saying you actually are arguing the point that all government interference is inherently bad - that companies should be able to do what they want?
(and please don't try to make another half-assed metaphor or exaggeration, just answer the question)
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
Actually, the neighborhood association does this. In fact, there are some that dictate what color you can paint the inside of your house.
This is pointless and has no bearing on the subject.
Capitalism and free enterprise don't mean making more money by taking advantage of your customers, the system is supposed to operate on a "fair market" principle. This is a case of businesses doing what they want at the expense of the customer.
Caloy
Android Expert
Free Enterprise is only good if there is competition. If it's a Monopoly, then your slaves it's every whim. A company couldn't care less what their customers think especially in a monopoly. If they can milk you dry, they will! The main goal of a corporation is to acquire the biggest profit. For them, a customer is just a statistic not an individual.
SamuraiBigEd
Under paid Sasquatch!
Don't do us any favors. We will just have to try to understand your overly complicated points.
mrqs
Android Expert
Caloy
Android Expert
Because it's my money that they need to generate a profit.
If you think we owe the companies because they are providing a service, then I think you're wrong. They owe us simply because we are the ones that put them in business.
Exactly right. And the problem with ISPs is that for the most part, they are monopolies and will never have significant competition. Since competition isn't something that is coming, some sort of net neutrality regulation is absolutely needed to prevent these monopolies from limiting what their "customers" can access. Heck, Verizon execs have said on multiple occasions that they want to charge content providers a fee for using the Verizon network, even if Verizon isn't their ISP. How would people feel if Apple were cutting a deal with ISPs that allowed access to iTunes only if the ISP prevented all sites supporting Android? That isn't that far a step from what Verizon has said they want to do. And it would be perfectly legal without some net neutrality regulation.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Ok anti monopoly I believe in! And if I you ate in am area that only has one broadband providerthen that should fall under some antimonoply clause. But government regulation is not needed! Competition is! And since when does a company owe you more than what's advertised? Now false advertisement is another issuue altogether. If a company advertisemes unlimited internet, then it should in fact be unlimited, unmetered unfiltered access.I would support a law that would require them to disclose the exact services required.that would work.but it seems a lot of you think internet access is some sort of god given right, and it is not. It is not necassry for survival, it is a nice to have. If you feel otherwise, then please go to a country where they barely have electricity and tell them that.
Edit: about the association thing, you can remove yourself from any association at will. It can be complecated, if you lived on shared property, I.e. condo or townhome, but it can be done. If you own your property, there not much an association can do to you. In fact, you can file restraining orders on any member of the association should you please.
Edit: about the association thing, you can remove yourself from any association at will. It can be complecated, if you lived on shared property, I.e. condo or townhome, but it can be done. If you own your property, there not much an association can do to you. In fact, you can file restraining orders on any member of the association should you please.
Net neutrality is all about competition and not government regulation. This ruling is directly against fair competition in the market.
mrqs
Android Expert
congrats iowa, you've finally made a post that's mostly on topic, to the point, and actually makes sense (even with all the grammatical errors) - tho' i still think your opinion is hypocritical and naive 
hence localized monopolies are inevitable
hence government regulation is needed
and even if there was competition, believing that those companies wouldn't make deals with each other to screw the customers over is fairly naive
if i thought it was that, i'd be requiring free internet for everyone
no one's even saying that everyone should have access to an internet connection - it's perfectly understandable if some backwoods cabin is too far away from any hotspots
what i'm saying is that if someone wants to found a company providing internet access, then they should not be allowed to censor or manipulate that access in any way
for the off topic bit:
competition isn't just magically going to appear even if you close your eyes and wish really really hard; especially in a field like internet service providers
hence localized monopolies are inevitable
hence government regulation is needed
and even if there was competition, believing that those companies wouldn't make deals with each other to screw the customers over is fairly naive
no one's claiming they do
i'd be very surprised if that law didn't already exist in the states
this is a part you don't seem to get
if i thought it was that, i'd be requiring free internet for everyone
no one's even saying that everyone should have access to an internet connection - it's perfectly understandable if some backwoods cabin is too far away from any hotspots
what i'm saying is that if someone wants to found a company providing internet access, then they should not be allowed to censor or manipulate that access in any way
for the off topic bit:
caloy mentioned three things: fire-code, city-code and association-code; you've rebuted one of them, the others are valid
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
congrats iowa, you've finally made a post that's mostly on topic, to the point, and actually makes sense (even with all the grammatical errors) - tho' i still think your opinion is hypocritical and naive
competition isn't just magically going to appear even if you close your eyes and wish really really hard; especially in a field like internet service providers
hence localized monopolies are inevitable
hence government regulation is needed
and even if there was competition, believing that those companies wouldn't make deals with each other to screw the customers over is fairly naive
no one's claiming they do
i'd be very surprised if that law didn't already exist in the states
this is a part you don't seem to get
if i thought it was that, i'd be requiring free internet for everyone
no one's even saying that everyone should have access to an internet connection - it's perfectly understandable if some backwoods cabin is too far away from any hotspots
what i'm saying is that if someone wants to found a company providing internet access, then they should not be allowed to censor or manipulate that access in any way
for the off topic bit:
caloy mentioned three things: fire-code, city-code and association-code; you've rebuted one of them, the others are valid
Yes I am the niave one, when you think your semi-socialist philosophy is the right one. When you think the government has the right to strip companies of their rights, to please people like you. It is the company's network, so why should they not be able to do whatever they want with it. If you had a home network, (and you probably do) and for some reason you wanted to censor your sons line, or give certain priority of certain tasks. And the government said oh noo noo you can't do that. Would you still feel that is ok?
What does grammar have to do with an internet forum? How do you know english isn't a third or second language for me? Citing grammar is a very chilish argument at best.
Also, fire/city code are for saftey reasons, and are completely unrelated to the discussion. Keeping people safe is far above any corporate policy involving internet regulations, so I'm not sure why it was brought up in the first place.
So you are anti monopoly but you don't think the government should be able to regulate companies? You can't have it both ways.
mrqs
Android Expert
see what i mean about the hypocrisy?
you seem to be perfectly fine with all the stripping of rights that have occured so far, so why not this one? you do realize society would ultimately benefit from it? not just "semi-socialist people" like me
again with the stupified metaphors, i thought you were past this - i'm not falling victim to this idiocy again
what does grammar have to do with a discussion in a written medium?
was that a rhetorical question?
sorry, i don't often do that, but judging by what i've seen, even if it's not your first language, you obviously know it well enough to form cohesive sentences
so when i see stuff like "And if I you ate in am area", i can only conclude that you're not really paying attention (also evidenced by the fact that you usually miss the point of most posts)