- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWish I could get that deal. I pay much more than that and certainly more than I paid in '76 for phone service.
Exactly how much "bureaucracy" does forcing ISPs to offer what they are selling cause? All it takes is a handful of people around the country who test the bandwidth and see if ISPs meet their promises. In return the market will be more transparent, which will reduce costs and improve services. By the way, "free market capitalism" implies government inte ...[text shortened]... ent so I don't know how expensive it was. Right now I'm on a 10/3 mbps connection, $13/mo.
The US is approximately 16th in broadband in the world and slipping. The free market is working so well most of us will be down to tin cans and string in no time.
As I said before: the thieves only bring up political speech because they know they can win that battle in court and have no restrictions. That is the equivalent idea behind the Google and Verizon deal. "Just let us have this little thing now. You won't miss it. (Until we charge you to get it back!)"
1 edit
Originally posted by TerrierJackYes, Europe is so great.
Wish I could get that deal. I pay much more than that and certainly more than I paid in '76 for phone service.
The US is approximately 16th in broadband in the world and slipping. The free market is working so well most of us will be down to tin cans and string in no time.
As I said before: the thieves only bring up political speech because they let us have this little thing now. You won't miss it. (Until we charge you to get it back!)"
Except that the EU has NOT legislated net neutrality to this point, although they're debating it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_the_European_Union
The European Union plans to take active action to legislate network neutrality, countering the potential damage caused by non-neutral broadband access. The European Commission, within the proposals to amend the European regulatory framework for the electronic communications networks and services published on 13 November 2007, considers that prioritisation, or in other words product differentiation, "is generally considered to be beneficial for the market so long as users have choice to access the transmission capabilities and the services they want" and "consequently, the current EU rules allow operators to offer different services to different customers groups, but not allow those who are in a dominant position to discriminate in an anti-competitive manner between customers in similar circumstances."
emphasis mine
So, how does that dovetail with your theory that big bad anti-net neutrality corporations are causing the US' (in which there has been some enforcement of net neutrality) broadband rankings to slip against Europe's (in which there is none)?
Oh, and as for "tin cans and string," the inexorable movement is the other way, towards faster, cheaper, more efficient and crisper communications. It has been that way for years and shows no signs of letting up. Whether Europe, in which communications are also based on a free market model, may be doing this a bit faster than the US is immaterial.
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76[/i]I just argued what I think the law should be like, I didn't say it was like that here. I can list plenty of things wrong with this country and with the EU if that will make you feel better.
Yes, Europe is so great.
Except that the EU has NOT legislated net neutrality to this point, although they're debating it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_the_European_Union
[i]The European Union plans to take active action to legislate network neutrality, countering the potential damage caused by non-neutral broadband access. T of net neutrality) broadband rankings to slip against Europe's (in which there is none)?
There are more people per capita on broadband connections here (that is, the Netherlands, not the EU as a whole, people in e.g. Bulgaria are barely online relatively speaking). I think the main reasons for that are the fact that the Netherlands is much more densely populated (making it cheaper to build the infrastructure - it's impossible to go beyond 50 miles of a 100,000 city inside the country) and that there is less poverty (everyone can afford a broadband connection). I don't think it has anything to do with net neutrality.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLawmakers are people.
Well, add up everyone who has ever bought anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine, and you have quite a large group already.
Law should not be based on the assumption that people are rational, because they are not.
Governments should not be based on the assumption that those is power are more rational than the governed.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOn your merry go round again KN
Well, add up everyone who has ever bought anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine, and you have quite a large group already.
Law should not be based on the assumption that people are rational, because they are not.
People are stupid, they need other people who tell them how to live their lives.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, and that's why my post was direct towards TJ, not yourself.
[/i]I just argued what I think the law should be like, I didn't say it was like that here. I can list plenty of things wrong with this country and with the EU if that will make you feel better.
I was not going into who is "better" but rather establishing that Europe's advancement is certainly not an argument in favor of net neutrality.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGo on guy, you can say it, you think you're more qualified at running many peoples lives than they are themselves.
Well, add up everyone who has ever bought anti-wrinkle cream or homeopathic medicine, and you have quite a large group already.
Law should not be based on the assumption that people are rational, because they are not.
Remember: Above all else be true to thine own self.
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyIt's good to know you know what I think.
Actually, I don't think you do.
If you think the government ought to allow corporation to freely deceive, misinform and mislead consumers then you are clearly an opponent of capitalism. The free market depends on transparency and easily accessible information to efficiently function. If consumers have to wade through 50 pages of small print to know what they are buying, they won't know what they're buying. And if they don't know what they're buying, competition is severely distorted and the free market will not function optimally.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, it's better to avoid the product with 50 pages of small print.
It's good to know you know what I think.
If you think the government ought to allow corporation to freely deceive, misinform and mislead consumers then you are clearly an opponent of capitalism. The free market depends on transparency and easily accessible information to efficiently function. If consumers have to wade through 50 pages of small print ...[text shortened]... buying, competition is severely distorted and the free market will not function optimally.
How many pages make up the laws of an average country?
Transparency eh?