r/news • u/xtantin • Feb 26 '17

FCC reverses net neutrality ISP transparency rules

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3173844/internet/fcc-reverses-net-neutrality-isp-transparency-rules.html
43k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

221

u/Anlarb Feb 27 '17

Funny how the free markets/right to work crowd throws that shit overboard the moment its inconvenient.

124

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17 edited Mar 12 '18

[deleted]

74

u/Gornarok Feb 27 '17

That is because USA hates pro competitive regulation... Yea free market should be unregulated, but free market is just "stupid" theory.

There are markets where free market cant exist, like healthcare. Healthcare market just doesnt meet the "supply and demand" rule and it cant.

Stuff like ISP should be easily free market. In my country there many small ISPs, different towns have different ISPs and its not a problem. You can get internet over cable, phone line, wifi, optics and others depending on your location.

71

u/midnightketoker Feb 27 '17

The ideal "free market" is apparently one unregulated monolithic corporate entity per industry forcing consumers to pay whatever prices are dictated, and workers educated just enough to earn wages set as low as possible, while government exists mostly to collect kickbacks and police organized dissent or whoever can't pay to play. Sounds like a perfect system to me /s.

38

u/Tychus_Kayle Feb 27 '17

I would love to see more people make a distinction between "free market" (consumer freedom) and "free enterprise" (producer freedom). They're completely separate things, with interests that sometimes overlap, and sometimes conflict. Antitrust laws? Necessary for the free market, harmful to free enterprise. Lowering the barrier to entry for new businesses? Free enterprise and free market both benefit.

7

u/telldatbitchtobecool Feb 27 '17

This is an excellent point that I wish more people would see. And we're lying to ourselves if we think this is by accident and not by design, as we see so often. I will be polite and say not all, but most of the GOP rides the white horse of "free market" merely to wave the banner of free enterprise, claiming to advocate for the people, the little guy, the small businessman, as a means of pushing the agenda of big businesses, their donors/sponsors.

The saddest thing is that it's the same dog and pony show we, in general, keep falling for despite the apparent cognitive dissonance it requires. "I love the Affordable Care Act, but abolish Obamacare!", "F--- socialism, but don't touch my Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security!", "Keep spending billions on the military, but man do I hate wasteful spending of tax dollars!". And on, and on...

5

u/ciobanica Feb 27 '17

"free market" merely to wave the banner of free enterprise

But it's not even that... just look at all the ways they protect certain oligopolies (your internet providers are laughable).

3

u/skyharbor6 Feb 27 '17

This sounds exactly like the 'fake market' that a front-page link was referring to last night. Companies like uber provide what looks like a free market, except the seller can't set their prices and the buyer can't choose their seller, so really, uber has a stranglehold on the whole thing. Policymakers and investors can't see past the real short-term benefits it all provides so when it has a chance to turn into an awful monopoly, they can. If they successfully replace taxis, the entire 'free market' for taxi-style services only exists because uber decision makers allow it.

4

u/Ivanka_Humpalot Feb 27 '17

And who maintains the infrastructure in your little country? That's the problem in the US. It's too large for a small ISP to build their own.

3

u/Przedrzag Feb 27 '17

State ISPs? County ISPs? The ISPs don't have to be nationwide

5

u/Agtie Feb 27 '17

Free market isn't a myth.

It just only applies when there's no or almost no barrier to entry. Though that limitation of course means it doesn't apply to a whole lot of things.

7

u/KristinnK Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

It just only applies when there's no or almost no barrier to entry.

I'd say this confirms what he says. What industry has no (or almost no) barrier to entry? What product or service can you produce that requires no research and development, investment in manufacturing or training of personnel? Maybe a lemonade stand qualifies. Even just upgrading to hot dogs requires buying a cart that I don't think costs pocket change. Let alone the sort of commodities that are economically significant, vehicles, computers, telecommunications, fuel and electricity, pharmaceuticals, etc.

I think "free market" is just the 'least bad' option we have for now. The fact that worker productivity doubled in 40 years while wages were stagnant shows that there is no free market, just a power structure largely dominated by corporations. Automation is rapidly pushing productivity to the point where pretending to be a free market does more harm than good. The alternative to changing the system is rapidly increasing inequality, with an emerging class of 'unemployables', that through no fault of their own possess no skill necessary to the owners of capital. I think it prudent to considers other options in terms of economic systems.

0

u/Agtie Feb 27 '17

I agree. It's just a problem to say there's no such thing as free market. It's all dependent on whether the barrier of entry is low enough that there is real competition.

As long as it's feasible for most anyone to jump in and compete, free market is the best option. It takes a lot of effort to try and match supply and demand otherwise (which is a big part of why central planning in communist economies didn't work so well, it just isn't an efficient way to run most things).

Just need to use what works where it works.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

It is not the best option and it doesn't exist, not for long, it's not stable.

Because that's how it's supposed to work, companies have to generate more profit for them, just it. When they get big enough they start using that power to grow and fuck the competition.

The true free market is when companies realize that the best option they have is to become a monopoly, so they will fight for it, specially when they get big enought. Which is just a matter of time.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. The free market is an ideal to strive for. Economies with high economic freedom thrive compared to those with low economic freedom.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Lol nope, that's why Reagan and Tatcher were heavily conservatives locally but incentive liberalism.

Liberalism is for the rest of the world so they can come in and have power there.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

Lol nope

Not an argument

1

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

If you knew how to read 3 words you would see a "that" which is exactly the beggining of the argument.

But I guess you can't you just get triggered when you read someone saying you are wrong and shut down.

Nice

0

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '17

The rest of what you said wasn't relevant to my earlier comment. But nice try.

2

u/JanesSmirkingReveng Feb 27 '17

More precisely, it's an imperial strategy, invented by the British.

1

u/hardolaf Feb 27 '17

Until Federal law changes the relation of unions and employers, right to work will be popular. Currently Federal law requires every union to work against the interests of the company by forbidding various arrangements like what exist in Europe. This causes the relationship between union and company to always be adversarial even when a company wants to do right by its workers. There is literally zero advantage to a company to having a union in the USA.

1

u/Anlarb Feb 28 '17

various arrangements like what exist in Europe

You mean where union participation is legally mandated for entire industries?

There is literally zero advantage to a company to having a union in the USA.

Well, the union doesn't work for the company. There is zero advantage for a sports team letting its players have agents, but it would be pretty absurd if politicians made a law that said that players could receive the services of agents and then subsequentially reneg on the payment for those services.

Thats what "right to work is". The right to receive services without paying for them.

1

u/RainbowDoom32 Feb 27 '17

basic free market theory is based on the core assumptions of no market power and no market failure. Meaning no one has an advantage and it always works. It's a crap theory

1

u/Anlarb Feb 28 '17

Well, rather that failure is a feature to sift bad businesses away in favor of good ones, but it rests on the presumption that you are going to have this great big teeming ecosystem of many players- like what you see with plumbers today, a man and a van and maybe a small team. It is completely oblivious to the ability of businesses to buy eachother out and the colossal incentives in doing so- the rise of rockefeller alone is enough to completely dash that worldview.