Net Neutrality is a bad thing if the government gets involved.. If you don't like a particular wired or wireless service, just switch services. That's where the consumer has the power to demand what they want from a company. When government gets involved, money gets wasted and things become politicized. Also when you give the government an inch they will most definitely take a mile and control more and more of our lives because they'll think they know what's best for us. Think and act for yourselves people! ;)
@kent99 Utter nonsense. The government did not install the underground and undersea cables that are the internet, nor have they been seriously involved in the development of the internet for decades. Private industry did that.
@kent99 No... The original AT&T back in the day built the system before the government stepped in and broke up the monopoly... Yes, monopolies are bad... Heavy government regulation is the reason why "the system" was built the way it was. I don't know where you come from saying I'm protecting the government.... I don't like when companies go in "cahoots" with each other. It's almost like creating a faux-monopoly. The FTC may have to look into this a little bit, but that's about all of the government intervention I'd allow. I like heavy competition with companies. I'll switch to any carrier quick as hell if they do not do anything in regards to Net Neutrality.
In the timeless words of Dr. Raymond Stantz: "You never studied." If you did, you would have learned about what happens when an oligopoly starts making rules for themselves. It took an act of government by, then president Theodore Roosevelt, to break up the Railroad Oligopoly for price fixing. Today, we have a few telecom companies that are trying to "price fix" in their own way by throttling down the content they don't want you to see and throttle up what they do want you to see. If we don't regulate them, whats stopping them from doing it? It has been proven throughout our history that if we let an industry get consumed by a few very large companies, the people get screwed.
@Bhima You, sir, never studied. Otherwise you would know the difference between anticompetitive practices (collusion, price fixing), which are already illegal, and market diversity (companies having different pricing schemes or services), which is desirable to everyone but bureaucrats. If companies are working with each other to stifle competition and innovation, the government should investigate as necessary. Otherwise, they should do everyone a favor and just stay out of it.
Do you not see the direct connection between anti-competitive prices and internet throttling of content? Since we don't actually have much of a choice between ISPs, in fact most US customers have no more than 2 they can actually choose from, we are left with internet at their mercy. If, say, AT&T owned CNN, and therefore they stand to make a lot more money off of advertising on cnn.com so they decide to throttle UP cnn.com and retrospectively, they throttle DOWN MSNBC, BBC, PBS, NYT etc. Now, depending on where you live in the country, you have no other option for high-speed internet BUT AT&T. They have created an unfair advantage (anti-competition) for their news source and the people have nowhere else to go.
@dacman61 I would love to switch services, unfortunately where I live, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, NYC, which should be loaded with options, has, with a few minor exceptions, two choices: crappy TWC cable, and crappier Verizon DSL. Where this a legitimate, competitive, capitalistic free market, this whole argument would be moot, unfortunately virtually everywhere in this country you have two bad choices, from companies that love to collude, price fix and rest on their laurels, rather then compte and innovate.
Understandable point, but from what I've known in some town in OH where I grew up, the single cable company in town would get in bed with the local government and write up contracts to not allow competition to operate within the town. Obviously this is a bad thing for the consumer and a big reason why government needs to get away from controlling businesses. In Youngstown, OH there are 3 different cable companies to choose from. Lucky them.
@dacman61 Switch services? So if there is only one provider in the area I live, who would I switch over to? And claiming the government involvement is bad is just pure fud. It is not to say that the government is perfection, but it is not the monster corporate shrills would want us to believe. For example, where would car safety standards be had the government not pressed for regulations?
Also the local cable company in my hometown is the main reason why AT&T's U-Verse was held up for 2 years, because they pulled some strings with the local government and they wouldn't allow it for whatever reason and created tons of red tape for AT&T to deploy it throughout the town. My brother-in-law who works as an engineer for AT&T told me this. What a bummer for the locals.
As technology and innovation naturally improves over the years, the car manufacturers would have made cars safer regardless of government intervention. The consumer would determine if they wanted to buy a car or not with safer standards based on the level of risk that they choose to accept. Freedom of choice... People who want safer cars will buy safer cars, and those who could give two crap wouldn't... Just like how I wear a motorcycle helmet because I want to protect my head, where someone else who doesn't want to wear one accepts the risk of cracking their head open like an egg.... Let WE THE PEOPLE decide not Big Brother.
@Magius Where do your iPod safety standards come from? Companies don't benefit from the negative press they receive when their products blow up, so they test them as best they can to make sure they are safe for the consumer. They are very keen to optimally balance the costs of making the product safe and and making the product cheaply, thus maximizing benefit to the consumer. Government regulators, on the other hand, arbitrarily create safety mandates that may or may not make economic sense. They have no incentive to make things cheaper for the consumer, only to cover their own asses. If government regulated iPod safety, they would be dramatically more expensive. You may be interested in this video of Milton Friedman debating with (then teenage) Michael Moore on the economic principles of just such regulation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&p=C0E89B3BB1A4AE02&playnext=1&index=6
@dacman61 Where that only true; if you check AT&T's SEC filings you will find that they've intentionally decided not to invest in U-Verse expansion, again, it's not the townships that are the problem, they're just a scapegoat for mindless focus on short-term profitability
I'm telling you my first hand account of how competition was stifled in my hometown between my local cable company and AT&T. It's fact because I heard it straight from my brother-in-law's mouth who was the lead engineer on the U-Verse project in my hometown. The issue was even published in the local newspaper.
I currently live in a small WV town, a little less than a 2 hour drive south of Pittsburgh. Where I live we still don't even have 3G. The obvious reason is that the population density is so low that it doesn't make business sense for AT&T to provide 3G service here. This is a bummer for me, but I do have the choice to switch to Sprint which does have 3G in my area (and at a better price overall). Once my AT&T contract runs out I'm switching to Sprint most likely. It's my choice to switch because of the level of service and price at which I receive the service. Free Market all the way!
@dacman61 Maybe it the case in that particular instance, but AT&T, by their own word, is not investing in further expansion of U-Verse. Also, I wish the engadget comment system pinned the response to the comment that I am replying to, not the bottom of a particular thread.
During his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs touted iCloud as a service that will sync many of your Apple devices, for free. Macs, iPhones, iPads, and even Windows computers can synchronize documents, contacts, calendar appointments, and other data.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Net Neutrality is a bad thing if the government gets involved.. If you don't like a particular wired or wireless service, just switch services. That's where the consumer has the power to demand what they want from a company. When government gets involved, money gets wasted and things become politicized. Also when you give the government an inch they will most definitely take a mile and control more and more of our lives because they'll think they know what's best for us. Think and act for yourselves people! ;)
@dacman61 I was thinking that government for the most part, built the entire system you want to protect from government. Pretty funny.
@kent99 Utter nonsense. The government did not install the underground and undersea cables that are the internet, nor have they been seriously involved in the development of the internet for decades. Private industry did that.
@kent99
No... The original AT&T back in the day built the system before the government stepped in and broke up the monopoly... Yes, monopolies are bad... Heavy government regulation is the reason why "the system" was built the way it was. I don't know where you come from saying I'm protecting the government.... I don't like when companies go in "cahoots" with each other. It's almost like creating a faux-monopoly. The FTC may have to look into this a little bit, but that's about all of the government intervention I'd allow. I like heavy competition with companies. I'll switch to any carrier quick as hell if they do not do anything in regards to Net Neutrality.
@dacman61
In the timeless words of Dr. Raymond Stantz: "You never studied."
If you did, you would have learned about what happens when an oligopoly starts making rules for themselves. It took an act of government by, then president Theodore Roosevelt, to break up the Railroad Oligopoly for price fixing. Today, we have a few telecom companies that are trying to "price fix" in their own way by throttling down the content they don't want you to see and throttle up what they do want you to see. If we don't regulate them, whats stopping them from doing it? It has been proven throughout our history that if we let an industry get consumed by a few very large companies, the people get screwed.
@Bhima You, sir, never studied. Otherwise you would know the difference between anticompetitive practices (collusion, price fixing), which are already illegal, and market diversity (companies having different pricing schemes or services), which is desirable to everyone but bureaucrats. If companies are working with each other to stifle competition and innovation, the government should investigate as necessary. Otherwise, they should do everyone a favor and just stay out of it.
@sonnybobiche
Do you not see the direct connection between anti-competitive prices and internet throttling of content? Since we don't actually have much of a choice between ISPs, in fact most US customers have no more than 2 they can actually choose from, we are left with internet at their mercy. If, say, AT&T owned CNN, and therefore they stand to make a lot more money off of advertising on cnn.com so they decide to throttle UP cnn.com and retrospectively, they throttle DOWN MSNBC, BBC, PBS, NYT etc. Now, depending on where you live in the country, you have no other option for high-speed internet BUT AT&T. They have created an unfair advantage (anti-competition) for their news source and the people have nowhere else to go.
Do you see the connection now?
@dacman61 I would love to switch services, unfortunately where I live, one of the most densely populated places on the planet, NYC, which should be loaded with options, has, with a few minor exceptions, two choices: crappy TWC cable, and crappier Verizon DSL. Where this a legitimate, competitive, capitalistic free market, this whole argument would be moot, unfortunately virtually everywhere in this country you have two bad choices, from companies that love to collude, price fix and rest on their laurels, rather then compte and innovate.
@Paul M
Understandable point, but from what I've known in some town in OH where I grew up, the single cable company in town would get in bed with the local government and write up contracts to not allow competition to operate within the town. Obviously this is a bad thing for the consumer and a big reason why government needs to get away from controlling businesses. In Youngstown, OH there are 3 different cable companies to choose from. Lucky them.
@dacman61 Switch services? So if there is only one provider in the area I live, who would I switch over to?
And claiming the government involvement is bad is just pure fud. It is not to say that the government is perfection, but it is not the monster corporate shrills would want us to believe.
For example, where would car safety standards be had the government not pressed for regulations?
Also the local cable company in my hometown is the main reason why AT&T's U-Verse was held up for 2 years, because they pulled some strings with the local government and they wouldn't allow it for whatever reason and created tons of red tape for AT&T to deploy it throughout the town. My brother-in-law who works as an engineer for AT&T told me this. What a bummer for the locals.
@Magius
As technology and innovation naturally improves over the years, the car manufacturers would have made cars safer regardless of government intervention. The consumer would determine if they wanted to buy a car or not with safer standards based on the level of risk that they choose to accept. Freedom of choice... People who want safer cars will buy safer cars, and those who could give two crap wouldn't... Just like how I wear a motorcycle helmet because I want to protect my head, where someone else who doesn't want to wear one accepts the risk of cracking their head open like an egg.... Let WE THE PEOPLE decide not Big Brother.
@Magius Where do your iPod safety standards come from? Companies don't benefit from the negative press they receive when their products blow up, so they test them as best they can to make sure they are safe for the consumer. They are very keen to optimally balance the costs of making the product safe and and making the product cheaply, thus maximizing benefit to the consumer. Government regulators, on the other hand, arbitrarily create safety mandates that may or may not make economic sense. They have no incentive to make things cheaper for the consumer, only to cover their own asses. If government regulated iPod safety, they would be dramatically more expensive.
You may be interested in this video of Milton Friedman debating with (then teenage) Michael Moore on the economic principles of just such regulation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&p=C0E89B3BB1A4AE02&playnext=1&index=6
@dacman61 Where that only true; if you check AT&T's SEC filings you will find that they've intentionally decided not to invest in U-Verse expansion, again, it's not the townships that are the problem, they're just a scapegoat for mindless focus on short-term profitability
@Paul M
I'm telling you my first hand account of how competition was stifled in my hometown between my local cable company and AT&T. It's fact because I heard it straight from my brother-in-law's mouth who was the lead engineer on the U-Verse project in my hometown. The issue was even published in the local newspaper.
I currently live in a small WV town, a little less than a 2 hour drive south of Pittsburgh. Where I live we still don't even have 3G. The obvious reason is that the population density is so low that it doesn't make business sense for AT&T to provide 3G service here. This is a bummer for me, but I do have the choice to switch to Sprint which does have 3G in my area (and at a better price overall). Once my AT&T contract runs out I'm switching to Sprint most likely. It's my choice to switch because of the level of service and price at which I receive the service. Free Market all the way!
@dacman61 It's not an example of why government running something is bad, it's an example of why government and private industry colluding is bad
@dacman61 Maybe it the case in that particular instance, but AT&T, by their own word, is not investing in further expansion of U-Verse. Also, I wish the engadget comment system pinned the response to the comment that I am replying to, not the bottom of a particular thread.
@Bhim That's price discrimination, not price fixing, you idiot.
You're the one that never studied!