Post

Sseroffa wrote:

I am amazed so many capitalists here are happy to see the internet go the way of cable. Channelization and the breakup of the free market. Net neutrality enforces free market competition, it ensures all internet providers play on a level footing. Without net neutrality, the internet will turn into what the cable industry is already:

http://www.wordstream.com/images/what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg

That image above is what the internet will be if net neutrality loses.

1. So, you're for more government control? Regulation of the Internet, which is one of the freest and most successful operations of private commerce the world has seen, is pleasing in your mind?
2. This could lead to cable companies, if I would have to guess, forcing bandwidth to be reduced significantly as the demand on the system would go up. Due to the lack of means to make a profit, (you know, that bad thing companies have to make in order to stay in business?), costs won't go to innovating or improving the network, it will be focused on maintaining what already exists... Of course, unless the government winds up being the agent of maintenance of the network, we would know how that would go...
3. I would see far less choice down the road, smaller companies would most likely be gobbled up by larger companies due to rising costs in network maintenance, customer service would be moot, and what would stop the bigger corporations just buying off politicians and FCC regulators to allow them to slow the network speeds to a crawl? I mean the people would have little choice in where they could go for an alternative. That alternative being pretty much the same kind of company with another name slapped on it. It's like the health insurance plans, the government decides what is fair, equal and what is to be included.
4. On that note: This would increase costs for the consumer to get the same product or it would force consumers to get less bang for what bucks they're spending. Think about it this way...

Person A wants to purchase the premium version of Product A and has 40,000 dollars to spend on it.
Person B wants to purchase the basic version Product A but only has 20,000 dollars but needs 5,000 more to afford it.

The government comes in and says: "That's not fair, lets make it equal"

The government then regulates Product A, therefore raising the cost of Product A to 45,000 dollars. The Government then offers a slightly worse version of Product A, priced at the original price of Product A.
Person A scoffs and takes the deal for the slightly worse version.

The government then takes the 5,000 dollars and gives it to Person B, who in then turn, purchases the basic version of Product A.

While both people were able to purchase versions of the products they wanted, person A was forced to accept a slightly worse version for the original amount because the government rose the cost in order to allow person B to get the basic version of the product.

However, Person A's costs didn't go down but the quality of the product available did. This was done to benefit person B, of which person A had say on whether or not person B got the money.

The cost of equalizing the 'market' through distorted prices is not capitalistic in nature, nor is it a free-market idea. It's just redistribution disguised as an idea to benefit the masses.

I pay 90 bucks a month for 10 gigs of data usage and it's 4G capable. Now, either my gigs are going to remain the same and the price will go up to 120 dollars a month or the gigs will be less for the same price I'm paying now so someone else can get the 3 gig version of the plan for a 'lowered' price.

See how that works?