The existence of corporations do not insure low prices.. thats competition. which US ISP's DO not have.

and are you saying government regulation of this industry as a utility will add competition?  Now that's a silly statement...

Now explain can you back up the stements about stuff going up and down?

Relative prices always come down for most goods and services over time in a free market.

I regretted writing that as soon as I hit the enter button because there's a lot more to that statement involving supply curves, demand curves etc...   But generally speaking, real prices for a product come down as technology improves performance. Example: when the first wave of adjustable golf drivers came out, the prices were $700. Today, you can get one better than any driver that was in that first wave for $300. Consumers wanted this product but not enough at that cost so mfg had to adjust. Flat screen TV sets, cell phones, laptops, tablets etc.. have all done the same. I pay more for my phone service today than I did 20 years ago, but I have more features today, so much so, what I do today from a communication point of view bears little resemblance to what I did back then when I had a land line and paid for each long distance call.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/12/14 at 10:39:58:


No of course not. I am saying there is no competition now, and ONE fix would be to have it declared title II, so that reality  and policy would meet and protections could be put in place.
I would prefer not to have title II, and have courts go back to saying that the FCC can tell ISP theys cant double dip and control content and speeds.  But according to the courts we cant do that if the service is just a privately owned non-utility.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 11/12/14 at 05:52:48:



Paragraph2; Instead of me proving this false.. IW needs to prove anything in this is true. its not. Obama stated that he was for net neutrality and that if title II was neede to do so he would support that.  IW cannot prove that Obama mandated anything they wrote in the paragraph.

Paragraph 3: Obama did not say he would use EO, not even hint at it. Obama is severly limited in controlling Wheeler ( Chair FCC). Of course bill was drafted, but no EO was drafted either.

Paragraph 4: "there are no gatekeepers... there are no toll roads" Incorrect. Comcast and other ISP have FORCED netflick to PAY them to allow their content. Thus in a very real sense ISP are gatekeepers and do charge a toll. What they want now is the abilty to determine speeds based on packet data. So yes they want to be gatekeepers, that is what has been deadlocked all this time.

Paragraph 5: Really "good sources state" reveal the sources or get lost.  Oh as to:" Obama has already passe a law that if your site..." sorry that was BUSH. Mill Digital Copyrights act.. I worked in a library at the time, so yeah... We still have to teach students and faculty about that.  It also let Disney keep rights to Mickey Mouse even though time is way over due.

Paragraph 6: OMG so silly... net neutral means that packets move with out regard to content or address.  how fricking twisted to now say neutral means to packet sniff.

Paragraph 7: Really??  "The public at large are totally ignorant of how law is made. It is not crafted by Congress but politicians."  OK .. right there.. this is why you dont quote IW. So congress doesn't craft laws?  However, they are correct in that non-elected agenies then do go on to make "law" via regulations.

I could go on but lunch is loong over. This piece is not a good place on which to base judgement for net neutrality.
I suggest you lok at this vid and see if we cant find some common ground. To be honest the vid is from July and I cant recall if he is for or against Title II or if he even speaks to it. Remember Net Neutral and Title II are NOT the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

Just because its o dern funny.. IW saying congress does not makes laws, politicians do....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

as long as the services and prices are equitable then yeah, of course, but how do you trust a corporation, who's only motive and only master is profit to do that.  

its like would you rather have a benevolent dictator (the monopoly) or a regulated representative governement

Like I said, I trust the profit motive of a corporation far more than a government agency with appointed decision makers delirious with power. Corporations innovate based upon my needs, governments innovate based upon what they think my needs are.

Greedy corporation gave us the motorcycle we ride, the computers we type on and the internet services that carry it. I have no idea, but I'm sure you are correct when you say the current situation is not completely a free market as it is in my industry for example. All in all, i'll side with the greedy corporation.

Besides, I'm a national account manager for a corporation and I know what we do. We respond to market demands for higher quality products that deliver value. We have to convince our customers to buy our products rather than our competitors products. The only way we can survive long term is to establish a reputation as the company to turn to when a problem arises. We beat our competition, we demoralize them, as Mike Tyson says, we want to eat their children! Our customers benefit from the greed of our owner whose greed is not necessary entirely for money but equally to reign number one in our industry. And in turn, almost everyone on this forum, has benefited from my companies products, but you would never know it.

You might be right,guys. I just have no faith in the goobs touching Anything and not making it wurser... track record and all that...