• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Net Neutrality - thoughts?

Deacon923 said:
This is what happens when there is a lot of competition instead of monopolies.
Click to expand...

Ummm, okay. And in something a little more important and world-changing than internet speeds in Romania, this is what happens when governments unnecessarily break up successful businesses in the name of antitrust:

http://business.time.com/2012/03/27...labs-and-the-end-of-game-changing-innovation/

From wiki for those millenials who don't know:
"Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Eight Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs

But fuck it, none of those innovations are important in the face of protection from monopolies, so let the government kill it.
 
Completely stunned to find out that 2&2 is against Net Neutrality.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Completely stunned to find out that 2&2 is against Net Neutrality.
Click to expand...

Haha, way to ascribe that to me. I know nothing about net neutrality so am neither for nor against it, so I will go along with whatever you all decide. I am against unncessary anti-trust regulations in response to 923's post. Sorry for the hijack.
 
2&2 comments on a thread about something he knows nothing about yet makes a very passionate argument.
 
So the argument is that if Net Neutrality is preserved by the government, then innovation will be stifled because a few large firms can't essentially take it over and run it? Is that the argument?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Ummm, okay. And in something a little more important and world-changing than internet speeds in Romania, this is what happens when governments unnecessarily break up successful businesses in the name of antitrust:

http://business.time.com/2012/03/27...labs-and-the-end-of-game-changing-innovation/

From wiki for those millenials who don't know:
"Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Eight Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs

But fuck it, none of those innovations are important in the face of protection from monopolies, so let the government kill it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that article says anything resembling the conclusion you are drawing.
 
The conclusion is pretty easy to draw. You can try this one instead:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-end-of-att

"Nor could AT&T charge customers for the technology except through its fees for telephone equipment and services. When it was a regulated monopoly, the company could build into those charges a pittance devoted to risky future-oriented research, such as setting up a solid-state physics department in the postwar years. ... We the customers are the ultimate losers. A vigorous, forward-looking society needs mechanisms like this to set aside funds for its long-term technological future."

ETA: Again, sorry for the hijack.
 
Last edited:
1. Make up my mind
2. Draw analogy that doesn't make sense.
3. Find article to support my original idea that I already made up.
4. Profit
 
There is certainly some collateral damage involved in trust busting. Obviously having a huge monopoly is good for the monopolist. It's hardly ever good for the consumer though. If the concern is that bringing some antitrust scrutiny to bear on TWC, Comcast, and the rest of the gang will somehow slow down those companies' world-class in-house R&D departments.... well, take a look at the circa 2010 tech in your cable box, which is connected to a cable that was invented and laid down probably in the 1980s, and tell me why that is a concern again.
 
I though we were having a pretty good discussion until the political party divide became clear today (not that it wasn't clear-cut what that divide would be based on ideologies) where we all generally agreed that net neutrality is something we should strive for.
 
What does the "party divide" have to with anything here?
 
WakeandBake said:
tjcmd goes right to Cato to figure out his position, then can't explain what it means. Government bad!
Click to expand...

I view the internet now as sort of like health care and private college education used to be: minimally screwed up by the government. But there is certainly no reason why that happy situation cannot be undone and internet development slowed far beyond what would otherwise happen. The CATO just gives a lot of good background articles that are quick reads. Here is another:

http://www.cato.org/blog/fccs-net-neutrality-rules
 
tjcmd said:
I view the internet now as sort of like health care and private college education used to be: minimally screwed up by the government. But there is certainly no reason why that happy situation cannot be undone and internet development slowed far beyond what would otherwise happen. The CATO just gives a lot of good background articles that are quick reads. Here is another:

http://www.cato.org/blog/fccs-net-neutrality-rules
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize how much that would kill small businesses. The barriers to entry would be impossible to overcome if an internet start-up had to pay every single internet provider simply to ensure customers could use their site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top