[MSNBC] U.S. court rules against FCC on ‘Net neutrality’ - Page 14

You mean like AOL & Time-Warner's merger?

Meh...didn't seem to amount to much after all the hullabaloo that people were freaking out over.

Here's a good, albeit slanted, article about that and various other mergers like Comcast/NBC, Sirius/XM, and News Corp/DirecTV: http://techliberation.com/2009/12/02...o-comcast-nbc/

I know that your comment about not being qualified to discuss theoretical economics wasn't directed towards me...but, as I mentioned, unless your're Robert Barro or a peer of him, you really aren't either. It's not a good idea to throw rocks from within a glass house.

You must have missed that I posted on the first page of this thread and several other times. And I've been reading every post within. Regardless, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

This point holds no water because up until just now, net neutrality was a law, so they couldn't do anything. That and even before AOL and TW merged, AOL was hemorrhaging customers because they did not own any high-speed service. There are a ton of 56k competitiors to go to if one wants to start censoring, but most major cities only have 2 high speed ISPs. One DSL, one cable.

Plus, as we all know, companies play nice when lawmakers have their eye on them. Like how major banks recently did a severe reduction of their Overdraft fees because congress was considering a bill to limit overdraft fees. I know because i work for a major bank that made a press release about it......IN OCTOBER. It is now March and they have yet to actually enact the supposed changes they stated they would, and mainly because they just wanted to stall out lawmakers.


I think you are misreading my post. Pickledstiff has a great understanding of the basics of economics and of how they're theoretically supposed to work.

And no, I have plenty of expertise to talk economics.




What does his debate strategy have to do with the topic? It's quite frustrating to converse with someone who constantly leads off with a straw man fallacy. For instance, we're talking about net neutrality and he'll somehow end up talking about communist Cuba through a link of association.

Me, Drizzt5, Urufu_Shinjiro, slipstream808, MrDeodorant, Cesaro Summability, Mootsfox, Riou, kaxel, Shadin, pbpenguins412, etc etc.... : Net Neutrality is good

PickledStiff:
Net Neutrality is slightly socialist
Socialism gets equated to communism alot
communists run Cuba
Communism has failed Cuba because Cuba is poor and has an abusive Govt.
Therefore Net Neutrality will also fail.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 4/9/10 at 12:45am

So do Tim G, and Helicopter Ben, expertise doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about. While you might be good at ignoring counter points and parroting the talking heads on TV, your 'expertise' means little.


Who is pulling straw mans?

I've made it clear numerous times that I think net neutrality is a great thing. but I oppose the net neutrality ACT.

Your whole argument for the act is that corps can't be trusted but the gov't can. Where I say corps can't be trusted, but the gov't can't be trusted even more, because a corp can't force you into a contract, or force you to pay for something if you don't use it but the gov't can. I don't think net neutrality act will fail, I think giving that power to the FCC will be abused. And by virtue of who holds monopoly of force and who is burdened by market forces, I'd much rather a corporation abuse its power than the gov't. There is a great degree of moral hazard in giving the FCC regulatory powers over the internet/ISPs

It's very easy for me to not buy a product if I don't like x company. The worst that will happen is I won't have said product and will have to live without it. But if I don't buy what the govt is 'selling' then I go to jail.

And no, Net Neutrality was never a law as far as the internet and broadband goes. This court ruling explicitly stated that that FCC cannot draft Net Neutrality regulations unless such a mandate is passed by congress, which it hasn't. And ISPs are not classified as common carriers, and as far as I know never were, so common carrier laws don't apply.
Edited by PickledStiff - 4/9/10 at 6:18am

Oh how very wrong you are, and after reading this bit I understand the problem clearly.

Corporations cannot be "trusted", as it were, because they are profit-driven. No level of trust is assumed, and the wise consumer will bear this in mind. Caveat emptor, if you will.

Then you have the Government. The Government cannot force you to do anything without the will of the People... or at least our Government cannot. Think long and hard about this matter, for it is absolute truth.

The blame for failings of a representative democracy fall squarely on the shoulders of the People.

LoL please explain how I do either.




That would be you. I gave you an example of what you're doing. It doesn't get any simplier than that.

Ok, lets stop going round and round. Why do you oppose it?

No. Me and plenty of others keep trying to beat it into you that it has nothing to do with 'trust' in this case. We are basing our decision on THIS BILL based on this bill alone.

Since when does the Govt force you into a contract? And since when has Net Neutrality been about taxes?! Feel free to be anti-tax if you want to but try not to bring your anti-Govt bias to an issue that has nothing to do with taxes.

And I have asked you this before: How do you think Net Neutrality will be abused?! By the very definition of Net Neutrality, it CAN'T be abused. Throttling can be abused and selective bandwidth can, but how can Net Neutrality?

Again, you're showing your bias and adding to the whole straw man argument theme. Your starting to add a red herring to your repertoire. What is the Govt selling with Net Neutrality? Stay on topic.

You make a good point but ISPs have abided by the guideline, rule, MO, principle or whatever title you wanna give it.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 4/9/10 at 8:57am

Government most certainly can force people to do things under threat of fines or imprisonment.

H.R. 3692 is a very recent, fresh example that was just signed into law a few weeks ago. In a few years, every American citizen (excepting a few excluded groups for religious reasons) will be required to purchase health insurance. If they don't, they will be subject to a fine of 2% of their income. According to many polls, the public did not want this bill but it was made into law anyway. (Please don't let this start a debate on health care...I'm merely bringing it up to show that the government can and does force people to do things)

If you don't abide by EPA or FCC rules (the EPA and FCC are not elected bodies and their rules are not laws), you can be fined or imprisoned.

If you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will fine or imprison you. The IRS is also not an elected body and tax code is not something created by the legislative branch.

You didn't read the article, did you? There were more examples than just AOL/Time Warner.

Wouldn't you? You slow down when you see a cop driving near you, right?


Ok, Robert Barro.

That's exactly my point!!!

It's a huge article man, of course I didn't read it. I'm barely able to post at work as it is. Regardless though, most of the examples seem to be quite a bit different from a current day ISP merger in that all of these examples are of companies that have major competition.

Comcast in most major markets has 1 competitor, DSL.


But that's not the point. You can't point to good behavior by those businesses while simultaneously acknowledging that they're only behaving good because you're watching.


And yet, I don't need to be him to talk the level of econ that we're talking so I guess I don't see your point. In order to have enough knowledge and expertise to talk at a college level of econ I need to have a Ph.D in it? I would have to have a comparable level of expertise and education ( to Robert ) to debate Robert Barro, but I'm not doing that.



I'm semi-confused. You cut out my answer and just quoted me rehashing the question you gave me. Why don't you summarize your point for me so that way we can be on the same page, please.

So I can summarize my understanding of this part of our argument. I said he's been using straw man fallacy, you said I was close to it myself, i basically said it may seem like the pot calling the kettle black but I'm merely summarizing his debate strat. You then asked me why his debate strategy matters......then I answered your question.....which i don't understand is how my answer was exactly your point.
Edited by FuNkDrSpOt - 4/9/10 at 10:12am

I oppose it because it sets precedent to give the FCC regulatory control of the internet, I've said this numerous times before. Something that is constitutionally not the role of the federal government. How do you not see how giving regulatory powers of the internet to the government can be abused? Did you look at the patriot act and say 'Gee this is a good idea, how can making a country safer be abused?'

The issue is indeed about trust. By giving the government expanded powers you are trusting gov't to not abuse them. You can't base a decision on THIS bill alone. You have to base it previous bills, and current trends in government. With a system based on precedent it is impossible to base your decision only on THIS bill. Because this bill sets the stage for all future related bills.

What is the government selling? Nothing per se, but funding an expanded FCC isn't free. In order to regulate, you have to enforce, because regulation without enforcement doesn't work. In order to enforce, you need resources. The money will have to come from somewhere. I'll give you three guesses as to where it will be coming from. Hence, I have to pay for it even if I don't want it. Even if taxes are not increased to fund this project, there is an undeniable opportunity cost.

And stop taking my examples and pretending that they are a core argument, then running off calling them straw mans. Me stating that it is much easier to not pay for a service offered by a corporation than a service offered by the government doesn't make my argument about taxes. It is simply one example to illustrate as to why imo, it is preferable to have a corporation abuse power than the government abuse power. Much like this post is not about 9/11 now that I mentioned the Patriot act, nor am I arguing that the Net neutrality is the patriot act.
Edited by PickledStiff - 4/9/10 at 11:58am

I can't stay silent here. The US Constitution is quite clear that it allows congress to REGULATE interstate commerce.

Uhm, the tax code was absolutely created by the legislative branch. ALL LAWS are created by the legislative branch, except those that have been established in our constitution(which was created but a legislative body LOL).

The EPA does not really effect every day citizens at all, it is a regulatory agency that deals with the environment. I'm going to stop because personally, it's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The US Government's role in America is to PROTECT the foundations it was built upon. Business does not have that charge, nor do they want it, and could probably function just as well without it.