|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 16:58:29 GMT -5
So I was looking around and couldn't seem to find anything about this on here so far but I want to know if anyone has been following this? Internet deregulation, making sure the government can not regulate the internet, sounds like a bad idea to me unless you would like to pay extra money to go to facebook then another extra bundle of cash to use google and more cash to use youtube. There are a lot of very convincing companies out there who are persuading people to sign the petition for internet deregulation but it would hurt us badly. Let me know what you think and please research carefully.
|
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
Post by earth on Jun 2, 2010 17:00:15 GMT -5
doesn't regulating just mean monitoring? so deregulation would mean more privacy? or what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 17:04:46 GMT -5
doesn't regulating just mean monitoring? so deregulation would mean more privacy? or what? Deregulating the internet would mean that internet providers would have no limit on how much they can charge you to use websites They could start with let's say a 30 dollar monthly fee for basic 56kbps connection, then if you would like to use google pay an extra maybe 10 bucks if you want to use facebook sorry another extra 10 bucks, maybe you want to surf youtube another 10 bucks (plus addition hidden fees per video) this is all an example but if the web providers had no regulation who would stop them from doing that? |
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
Post by earth on Jun 2, 2010 17:07:45 GMT -5
oh. um. yea i think i like my internet how it is now, not more expensive, so i guess i agree with you that its not such a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 17:11:20 GMT -5
I should hope not but it may become a very real possibility
|
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 2, 2010 17:57:41 GMT -5
This is not what deregulation means. IF google wants to charge people for their services, they can do it right now and no one will stop them. Regulations on internet is what one can/can't put up on it and what web sides you can enter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 18:41:14 GMT -5
This is not what deregulation means. IF google wants to charge people for their services, they can do it right now and no one will stop them. Regulations on internet is what one can/can't put up on it and what web sides you can enter. Look up net neutrality, you are taking it too literally please research it a bit before posting. |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 2, 2010 18:50:23 GMT -5
This is not what deregulation means. IF google wants to charge people for their services, they can do it right now and no one will stop them. Regulations on internet is what one can/can't put up on it and what web sides you can enter. It's not about websites charging for their own content though, it's the ISPs charging extra for you to access certain websites. Think of it like digital cable -- you pay so much for your basic package, and then pay an extra amount for some movie channels. Well, in Internet terms this would be your ISP -- not Google -- charging you extra money to be able to access certain websites or groups of websites. For example, they might tack on an extra $10/month if you want to access any website that streams videos. Another related problem is that if an ISP finds a site undesirable they could just block it. That's what we don't want to be allowed, because the Internet would no longer be the totally open place it is now. It's a petition to ensure that ISPs cannot slow down or entirely block content on a case-by-case basis. They either offer the whole Internet or none at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2010 18:56:53 GMT -5
Internet deregulation has nothing to do with how much you spend for your internet. Nobody would do that, as the company would lose tons of money, and a company CANNOT say "You can't use Google, you must pay us", as that money would have to go TO Google...
Internet deregulation is basically the same as Net neutrality. When we say Internet Regulation, we mean that ISPs can limit the bandwidth to each website and put more bandwidth into their sponsored websites.
Net neutrality (Internet DEregulation) says that ISPs may not do this. Every site and every source of the internet gets an equal amount of bandwidth.
Right now, the government has no say in ANY kind of market. That's what we have in America, a Free Market Economy. If Wal-Mart wanted to, they could shoot all of their prices up by 500%, but the question is, would they want to?
No.
They'd lose all of their customers.
|
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 2, 2010 22:20:17 GMT -5
Well, I think that companies should be able to do that if they want to. As Robert aboove me said, market would regulate itself, so the best providers would survive, but the freedom to do so should be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 23:24:56 GMT -5
Internet deregulation has nothing to do with how much you spend for your internet. Nobody would do that, as the company would lose tons of money, and a company CANNOT say "You can't use Google, you must pay us", as that money would have to go TO Google... Internet deregulation is basically the same as Net neutrality. When we say Internet Regulation, we mean that ISPs can limit the bandwidth to each website and put more bandwidth into their sponsored websites. Net neutrality (Internet DEregulation) says that ISPs may not do this. Every site and every source of the internet gets an equal amount of bandwidth. Right now, the government has no say in ANY kind of market. That's what we have in America, a Free Market Economy. If Wal-Mart wanted to, they could shoot all of their prices up by 500%, but the question is, would they want to? No. They'd lose all of their customers. The government does in fact have a say in regulation of the internet, they do right now. The government obviously has say in our market if you simply just look at all the bail out's given out in last year and the year before, they where not used very efficiently BUT the government has a LOT to say in our "free market economy" If you look back to the 80's when cable television WAS regulated, cable was around 7 bucks a month for every single channel, hbo starz everything you got in this package, as soon as cable became deregulated the companies said oh well you have to pay extra for premium channels and you have to pay extra to watch a movie on a certain channel and that's how the cable bill jumped from 7 bucks to 35 in one month. Follow your history. In fact if a company decided to regulate all websites it would be impossible for you to stay away from the internet, the internet nowadays is almost entirely essential to the majority of America. The companies would get away with it because they know the consumers would still pay. Wal-mart is a whole other story in itself, did you know that Wal-mart got a bill passed that allows them to forcibly take YOUR land if they can prove that they can make more money off of it than you can, that downright goes against constitutional rights in so many ways it's unbelievable AND women get treated horrible, if a man and a women both enter a position on the same day, both work for 5 years with the same amount of time and effort women actually are making 80% of what the men make. Women have been fighting for years to get their rights but the fight is not well known and Wal-mart continues this sexist trend. Well, I think that companies should be able to do that if they want to. As Robert aboove me said, market would regulate itself, so the best providers would survive, but the freedom to do so should be there. Ah the free-market it would be wonderful if it could actually work, in all theory it should work but it doesn't the free market obviously doesn't work in America because the Great Depression would never have happened if it did. People are extremely greedy the oil spill in the gulf is a perfect example, BP knew very well how to put a safety valve on that pipeline but they decided not to because they didn't want to spend a fraction of their profit on it. Also 8 cents of every dollar of gas you pay goes directly to the company as a safe net for them to use against YOU if you decide to take action against them. They are using your own money entirely against you. The government is not bad, you realize that WE are the government if we as Americans do not like the government it is our duty to change it, we are allowed to change it because it is our government if we allow corrupt greedy companies to fool us into believing lies then maybe we deserve what we deserve but seriously. Government is not bad regulation should not be termed in such a negative tone |
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 2, 2010 23:40:10 GMT -5
This is not what deregulation means. IF google wants to charge people for their services, they can do it right now and no one will stop them. Regulations on internet is what one can/can't put up on it and what web sides you can enter. That would be internet restriction we are not talking about google or yahoo or facebook we are talking about the actual internet providers such as Cox, Verizon, Comcast, NetZero etc. You can restrict what people put on sites but this is something entirely different. |
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 2, 2010 23:57:59 GMT -5
This is not what deregulation means. IF google wants to charge people for their services, they can do it right now and no one will stop them. Regulations on internet is what one can/can't put up on it and what web sides you can enter. That would be internet restriction we are not talking about google or yahoo or facebook we are talking about the actual internet providers such as Cox, Verizon, Comcast, NetZero etc. You can restrict what people put on sites but this is something entirely different. I was talking about the providers. Let me just add that the free market did not fail, it has given me and you all that we have. An idea that everyone can trade freely is a great one, and much better then anything we had before that. Besides, why are you even saying that it have failed? Are you going hungry to sleep every night? |
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 3, 2010 0:57:07 GMT -5
That would be internet restriction we are not talking about google or yahoo or facebook we are talking about the actual internet providers such as Cox, Verizon, Comcast, NetZero etc. You can restrict what people put on sites but this is something entirely different. I was talking about the providers. Let me just add that the free market did not fail, it has given me and you all that we have. An idea that everyone can trade freely is a great one, and much better then anything we had before that. Besides, why are you even saying that it have failed? Are you going hungry to sleep every night? haha I never once said that it failed, technically our "free market" isn't a free market we never have had a true "free market" the government has always had a say in atleast something, which is not a bad thing, it helps keep the greedy from creating monopolies, anti-trust acts would not have been made without the government and where would we be now without those? I would admit Adam Smith's Laissez-Faire policy is a freakin awesome policy but greedy companies abuse it entirely, and us as americans fall into their traps, it's not because we are stupid but america is a busy place most of us don't have a lot of time to really search for the hardcore evidence. An economy regulated entirely by the government is no good and an economy with no regulation at all is no good. The government should be in the middle and have some regulation, (which is what we have right now) they should be able to continue the small regulation that they have right now and that is what the companies want to get rid of. There is nothing wrong with the way the internet is right now so why take away the regulations? The companies are making petitions to catch unaware americans by surprise to sign their name to something that will hurt them a immensely. It will only make the rich richer and the poor poorer. |
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 3, 2010 16:20:30 GMT -5
Eagle, I sincerely apologize for this because it is uniformly against my nature to take debates over opinions and facts and turn them personal, but I absolutely cannot stand the way you're approaching this. You're looking down your nose at the viewpoints of everyone else, and you're giving flimsy arguments and false information as you do it.
Adam Smith didn't coin laissez-faire, nor did he ever use the term, nor did he even ENDORSE the policies of laissez-faire. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, which is the birthplace of the infamous invisible hand analogy, which is a fundamentally similar, but at the same time very different concept from laissez-faire.
I don't even disagree with much of what you're saying, a lot of our views seem to align in some respects, but the way you're doing it is all wrong.
As to the actual topic at hand, Internet Deregulation is the antithetical position to Net Neutrality. The internet is loosely regulated as is, and work is being done (largely by the right-wing, lobbies, and those on the lobbies' payrolls) to reduce and further prevent regulation of the internet. I am personally all for Net Neutrality, and think deregulation is an absurd idea in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle2160 on Jun 4, 2010 16:17:55 GMT -5
Eagle, I sincerely apologize for this because it is uniformly against my nature to take debates over opinions and facts and turn them personal, but I absolutely cannot stand the way you're approaching this. You're looking down your nose at the viewpoints of everyone else, and you're giving flimsy arguments and false information as you do it. Adam Smith didn't coin laissez-faire, nor did he ever use the term, nor did he even ENDORSE the policies of laissez-faire. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, which is the birthplace of the infamous invisible hand analogy, which is a fundamentally similar, but at the same time very different concept from laissez-faire. I don't even disagree with much of what you're saying, a lot of our views seem to align in some respects, but the way you're doing it is all wrong. As to the actual topic at hand, Internet Deregulation is the antithetical position to Net Neutrality. The internet is loosely regulated as is, and work is being done (largely by the right-wing, lobbies, and those on the lobbies' payrolls) to reduce and further prevent regulation of the internet. I am personally all for Net Neutrality, and think deregulation is an absurd idea in this case. hahaha good point yeah I'm bad at arguing, nobody thus far has seemed to speak out against me though which is when I tend to begin to ramble about random stuff. I've never read Adam Smith's books but that is what I was taught in public schools, then again text books seem to cover materials in entirely different ways across the nation but that is just what I was taught. It could be wrong but honestly how do we ever really know? We weren't there haha. |
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 5, 2010 11:29:42 GMT -5
robert: While it's unlikely they would limit it as a fee-based thing, we have seen that elsewhere in the world ISPs are willing to take on the role of censor on the Internet and block content they find inappropriate. That is also a key issue in net neutrality, and the same laws that could prevent that were they made could also prevent the repackaging issue.
|
|
