Originally posted by TerrierJackI'd like to see a bit more than a general conceptual quote from one guy before I determine what the "Tea Party position" on this matter is.
So, you oppose the Tea Party position. Just more evidence that you are not a conservative.
But, to respond to the implication, I do not at all consider myself a Tea Party sympathizer. I do agree with its positions on some issues, but I disagree with its positions more often than I agree with it.
I think I'm going to give up on labels. I don't even know what's considered "conservative" any more. I would think the conservative position would be to cut unnecessary military involvement overseas; but that apparently is not the case; or may be the case, depending on which "conservative" you ask.
I believe in free market capitalism WITH reasonable limitations and regulations to prevent abuses. I know some people would have one take one position or another to the extreme and never admit that anything is a gray area. I am not prepared to do that.
Originally posted by sh76Even so, it will cost society quite a lot. Implementing a simple rule will prevent the need for such lawsuits, and incidentally is also a lot easier to enforce than saying ISPs may violate net neutrality, but not for political (or commercial) reasons. In the latter case you not only have to test bandwidths, but also investigate why ISPs are limiting it.
If there's a case to be made, class action lawyers will do it on contingency. It shouldn't cost the plaintiffs a dime.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't know we bother to have a law against murder. The survivors could easily just file a suit against the suspected killer, right?
Even so, it will cost society quite a lot. Implementing a simple rule will prevent the need for such lawsuits, and incidentally is also a lot easier to enforce than saying ISPs may violate net neutrality, but not for political (or commercial) reasons. In the latter case you not only have to test bandwidths, but also investigate why ISPs are limiting it.
Originally posted by TerrierJackYes, it's called a wrongful death action. Happens all the time.
I don't know we bother to have a law against murder. The survivors could easily just file a suit against the suspected killer, right?
We also have criminal sanctions for murder. If you think that because there are criminal sanctions for murder, there should ergo also be criminal sanctions for unequal allocation of bandwidth, then I'm sorry, I can't help you.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA rule won't prevent lawsuits unless it's enforced.
Even so, it will cost society quite a lot. Implementing a simple rule will prevent the need for such lawsuits, and incidentally is also a lot easier to enforce than saying ISPs may violate net neutrality, but not for political (or commercial) reasons. In the latter case you not only have to test bandwidths, but also investigate why ISPs are limiting it.
The Comcast case was after a rule was enacted and Comast violated it; causing an action to be filed against it by the FCC. Any rule will require lawsuits, if for no other reason than to test its constitutionality.
Regulatory oversight boards are quite capable of enforcing the rule, however it's drafted. That my proposed rule may be a bit more difficult to enforce is not a reason to make a bad rule that's a bit easier to enforce.
Originally posted by sh76But why do you think it's a bad rule - it can't be "bureaucracy" since you just conceded it would result in less bureaucracy?
A rule won't prevent lawsuits unless it's enforced.
The Comcast case was after a rule was enacted and Comast violated it; causing an action to be filed against it by the FCC. Any rule will require lawsuits, if for no other reason than to test its constitutionality.
Regulatory oversight boards are quite capable of enforcing the rule, however it's drafted. ...[text shortened]... more difficult to enforce is not a reason to make a bad rule that's a bit easier to enforce.
Incidentally there was a piece about net neutrality in the paper today. Turns out mobile internet providers have already blocked Skype in the past in order to prevent users from bypassing making "real" phone calls, which are more profitable. Really, the potential for all sorts of market distortions, conflicts of interests and cartels is endless.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's a bad rule because it makes sense to discriminate in favor of certain types of traffic under certain conditions. To make a blanket ban is nonsensical.
But why do you think it's a bad rule - it can't be "bureaucracy" since you just conceded it would result in less bureaucracy?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThen the other providers should advertise "Hey, look Wireless X blocks Skype. Come to us and we won't."
Incidentally there was a piece about net neutrality in the paper today. Turns out mobile internet providers have already blocked Skype in the past in order to prevent users from bypassing making "real" phone calls, which are more profitable. Really, the potential for all sorts of market distortions, conflicts of interests and cartels is endless.
In any case, if Skype takes away their profits by circumventing the main way in which they make money, perhaps allowing Skype would hurt providers in general and force them to raise their rates for data.
One way or the other, the free market is quite capable of handling that sort of thing.
Originally posted by sh76It would make a heck of a lot more sense for telecom providers to agree to all block Skype. Precisely the kind of thing that regularly happens in a "free" market which does not prevent cartels effectively.
Then the other providers should advertise "Hey, look Wireless X blocks Skype. Come to us and we won't."
In any case, if Skype takes away their profits by circumventing the main way in which they make money, perhaps allowing Skype would hurt providers in general and force them to raise their rates for data.
One way or the other, the free market is quite capable of handling that sort of thing.
Originally posted by sh76It's a terribly difficult thing to prove that a verbal agreement exists in court.
That's collusion and violates anti-trust laws.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." - Adam Smith
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn the late 1980s, the Major League Baseball owners got socked for collusion. It can be proven. Disgruntled employees, whatever.
It's a terribly difficult thing to prove that a verbal agreement exists in court.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be exe ...[text shortened]... o do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." - Adam Smith
Anti-trust laws have existed for over a century. They can be enforced.
Adam Smith never read the Sherman or Clayton Acts, which of course, would make sense, given that they were passed when he had been dead for over a century.