|reply to FFH5 |
said by FFH5:
You need to keep government out if a company is going to make a huge profit, and screw consumers
Fixed it for ya
Man you are just begging for the government to come regulate the internet, aren't you. Net Neutrality will be used to foreclose opportunity and possible competition, not guarantee it, just like radio, just like early television, just like cable, just like the early telephone system.
You are begging for someone to come and cripple the services you like, and leave only the largest giants standing, but you're too young and stupid to actually read any history, because MTV knows better.
|reply to Jim Kirk |
The largest corporations and interests have heavy influence on our government, in order to get special benefits to themselves or to lobby against the competition.
Most of the time when government interferes, the end result is usually either more power or more benefits to the most powerful few, and usually disruptive or detrimental interference for the rest.
It's a vicious cycle.
Ever hear of the dead peasants insurance scam?
Companies like DOW chemical and Walmart have been secretly taking out life insurance policies on their own employees, paying the premium and collecting all the money when they die. (I wonder why they hire a lot of elderly folks.. hmm)
That's where government regulation SHOULD come into play, is enforcing anti-fraud laws.
|reply to omegabit |
You seem to be forgetting that the destruction of the common carrier model by the Powell FCC's fraud upon the nation was what reduced competition and eliminated innovative offerings and services from agile small ISPs who were able to respond to users requests and needs. Now we're reduced to dealing with a couple of huge bureaucracies who seem to not even be capable of internal communication to resolve customer problems
Now we're told that the FCC does not have the power to undo the Powell blunder? This is madness. Take a look at the nations around the world which are leaving the US in a cloud of dust and note that what works elsewhere, and encourages vibrant competition, is "common carrier" rules. Or are you of the opinion that because the "incumbents" own poles, wires, rights of way and metro-cable plant that they are to be endowed with a monopoly on Internet Provisioning and Services?