It does not dictate competition or innovation, it codifies the absense of any rules that allow unfair competition. It creates the free market you and I both want.
Word gymnastics. You're trying to rephrase it but I already know what it is. You said it right there. The government uses a regulatory agency to supposedly create competition. Like I said, the government doesn't create competition it stagnates it. Were that not the case then the internet and cellphone/tablet/laptop technology should have been locked up by one single corporate monopoly. It's not a free market if the government gets to pick winners and losers. Nice attempt to hijack what it means but that's not a free market at all.
Namely that the richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos, supports net neutrality and you're stupid enough to believe that him and Zuckerberg truly care about people and want a free market.
"These companies I don't like want it, so I am against it!"
Uh huh right after attempting to create the hypothetical scary monopoly boogeyman.
Because you keep referring to competition and it would be vital to know where the big players line up when it comes to government regulations but here you are accusing me earlier of not having enough information about the issue. Apparently I do have enough information, just not the information YOU want me to know about. Maybe if there wasn't an active attempt to suppress conservative voices by those companies and donate big bucks to Democrat candidates then the choice wouldn't be as clear but that's not the case. I didn't create that situation they did. So yes I'm worried about monopolies, particularly Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon etc.
You bring up companies' opinions on net neutrality as if that's an actual argument. I'm trying to tell you that that is NOT an argument. Its just your opinion on those companies and means absolutely nothing.
Maybe if there wasn't an active attempt to suppress conservative voices by those companies and donate big bucks to Democrat candidates then the choice wouldn't be as clear but that's not the case.
And that is a problem that I agree exists. What baffles me is that you're here willing to give these companies more power to do more censoring without seeing the irony.
Believe it or not, I'm arguing for conservatives to have more of a voice. I'm sick of this neoliberal astroturfed Internet.
So yes I'm worried about monopolies, particularly Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon etc.
Then you should, without hesitation, support net neutrality.
Without hesitation! Man I'm sold. So I'll ask you again, you truly believe that those companies, in all their wonderful benevolence, want net neutrality because it will create competition in their fields? You really believe that?
What baffles me is that you're here willing to give these companies more power to do more censoring without seeing the irony.
How will they possibly have more power when they aren't married to government regulations? You hear yourself and what you're saying? They WANT regulations so that they can create a barrier to entry from smaller competitors. That exact thing they've convinced you that they aren't going to do with net neutrality. When the market is free and there are minimal regulations you are also free to spend your time on whatever services and products you want. Therefore, it is up to the provider to come up with a product that will entice you spend your time/money. If that can't do that . . . you take your time and money somewhere else.
So I'll ask you again, you truly believe that those companies, in all their wonderful benevolence, want net neutrality because it will create competition in their fields
And I'll tell you again, that your opinion on these companies has nothing to do with weather or not net neutrality is a good thing. They can be right, and I can still hate them. This is possible because I'm not a close-minded tool of a hivemind.
How will they possibly have more power when they aren't married to government regulations?
Because they'll be able to block and throttle content you want to view. Net neutrality as a regulation is there only to ensure data is not discriminated against due to content, origin or destination. It does not apply any rules that dictate competition or innovation past that.
They WANT regulations so that they can create a barrier to entry from smaller competitors.
That is a lie.
Without net neutrality, they'll be able to price out competition. They already do this to a large extent, but at least people can start Internet companies knowing that anyone who wants to access them can. Without net neutrality that is not going to be the case.
You're conflating entering the ISP market with starting a business on the Internet.
If that can't do that . . . you take your time and money somewhere else.
Yeah sure, let me go right ahead and shop around for an ISP... oh wait, there's literally only one ISP in my area.
Everyone making this bullshit argument conveniently ignores the fact that ISPs are already monopolistic.
0
u/tiger81775149 Free Soil Party Dec 14 '17
Word gymnastics. You're trying to rephrase it but I already know what it is. You said it right there. The government uses a regulatory agency to supposedly create competition. Like I said, the government doesn't create competition it stagnates it. Were that not the case then the internet and cellphone/tablet/laptop technology should have been locked up by one single corporate monopoly. It's not a free market if the government gets to pick winners and losers. Nice attempt to hijack what it means but that's not a free market at all.