WELL I DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING.
Going back to the discussion we were having earlier: digital bill of rights, guaranteeing open, private, and neutral access to the internet. I take it we're all in agreement that this would be a very good thing to have?
Homer, you statist parasite. You're poking Hank Reardon in the ass, without the benefit of lube or even a reach-around. You fucking cad. The free market sets the price!
Plus, you're conflating issues.
Well, two points. First, bills of rights are less about regulating markets and more about regulating states. Our own Bill of Rights does not set limitations on citizens, so much as they set limitations on government authority; they define boundaries beyond which the state can't trespass. In a state of nature, of course, such Bills of Rights would be unnecessary, as there would be no state to encroach on our freedoms (related point: support the Darknet!!). However, it's becoming clear that, just as a neutral internet cannot exist without some formal net neutrality provisions, so to can a free, open, and private internet not exist without some legal limitations on state agencies. If we don't enumerate their powers, the ruling class will simply lay claim to any and all powers they'd like to have.
The second point, at least in relation to net neutrality and regulatory oversight of ISPs, is that internet service is NOT a free market - that is to say, an open market with genuine competition and choice for the consumer. The ISP market is composed of a small number of highly entrench, regional monopolies, somewhat analogous to the health insurance industry. While the telecom industry was vastly improved by the breakup of Ma Bell (a half dozen regional monopolies is always preferable to to a single national monopoly), it is still a mercantilists' wet dream, and, as an industry based largely upon costly, heavily regulated infrastructure, that is not likely to change anytime soon. I cannot buy an ISP from China. I cannot create my own ISP. I cannot hire immigrants labourers to stand on my roof and throw data packets back and forth. Where I live, I can choose from one of two ISPs, both of whom are assholes, and both of whom are starting to throttle data. (subtopic: the Two-Party system and "sham democracy"). Competition law is not antithetical to a free market; a point which I trust even a born-again Objectivist like yourself can readily concede.
Also, in what way am I conflating issues? Explain. I am _not_ saying that net neutrality is the same thing as blatantly unjustified party-vanning. However, they are both aspects of our brave new digital world which are sorely in need of addressing, before we all turn into Australia.
Couldn't you use public internet or mobile internet?
|infinite zest |
I like how you can get the video all the way up to 2160p and the intro to You Can't Do That On Television still looks the same.
I was all ready to get mad at Verizon.
Then I saw he was on a Mac.
The hell does him being on a Mac have anything to do with anything?
This isn't the first time this has happened, is it? I seem to recall something very similar going on within the last year but I don't feel like searching for it right now.
The tinfoil hat society is probably going into full "VERIZON IS INTENTIONALLY CAUSING THIS! THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTERNET HAS STARTED!" Mode, but honestly its probably just incompetence. Nearly every ISP I've had has random days where Youtube, Google image search, Steam, and PSN will drag to dialup speeds for no apparent reason yet if I pick up my smartphone or go through a proxy it runs fine.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|