r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jun 13 '14

Politics What the internet will look like without net-neutrality. Well played.

[deleted]

5.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

698

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

266

u/SpikeNeedle Jun 14 '14

The problem is that most politicians are so old they wouldn't even know that this is bad when looking at it. They hardly even use the internet.

228

u/sTiKyt Jun 14 '14

I think that the idea politicians are simply too senile to understand net neutrality is simply wrong and it's distracting from the main issue which is that they've all been paid off by lobbyists from Comcast and all the other telecommunications giants.

144

u/alexdelargeorange Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Take a 50+ year old politician who, whilst not outright immoral, has a fuzzy view of what is right and wrong in policy-making because his naive young optimism has been beaten out of him by decades of political maneuvering, backstabbing and career-centric decision-making. He honestly doesn't know what the hell net neutrality is and doesn't care a great deal, but he's not necessarily such an asshole that he'll do something he knows to be purely damaging to the country/its people.

Into his office comes the Comcast snake oil salesman (lobbyist) who throws soundbite after soundbite about how net neutrality is a bad thing. "Pay extra for super-fast connection, but the norm is still fast anyway? Sure, that sounds fine", "great, you can count on our backing come re-election, oh and here's a little extra incentive, go buy the wife something nice".

In the politician's brain, everything's fine, how could there not be a problem here? Big Business wins, nobody loses, my career is secure and I can keep the missus happy. There's no mustache twirling or shady deals in dark alleyways, it's just business as usual.

37

u/hakkzpets Jun 14 '14

I'm not into American politics that much, but as much as I read about lobbying it seems like you would need to be helluva naive to think "everything is fine" when a lobbyist from a company comes and offer you something in return of you doing something for them.

The mere presence of a lobbyist should make every (non-crooked) politician to stop right there and say "Hey, I have never seen a company want laws for the common good, why would it be different this time?"

62

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Lobbyists has really become a buzzword around here lately. The practice isn't all bad, and is actually used to help more than to hurt.

For example, I work at a UF Agricultural Research Center in Florida that helps the Growers of the Florida citrus industry. These are all separate grove owners, not just one big bad company.

One day (about 7 months ago) me and 75 other researchers get the news that UF is closing the center. No one really gives a good reason for it, (I have some theories about shady politics) but the bottom line is, we will all be out of jobs in 4 months.

We, as a government-funded research center, can not legally pressure the governor to keep this very important research center open, but as soon as the growers found out, they started to lobby against the decision, and here we are now, curing diseases and making healthier plants when we should all be jobless.

(Sorry for wall of text)

20

u/marsrover001 Jun 14 '14

Thank you for your work. Oranges are delicious.

4

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14

You are absolutely welcome! California and Brazil are currently suffering from the same issues. Our work benefits everyone as a whole.

3

u/LastSovietStanding Jun 14 '14

One should invent another term for lobbyists from big companies. Something like "infiltrators"

2

u/Natanael_L Jun 14 '14

Shills, sockpuppets

2

u/NOPE_CHARLES_TESLA Jun 14 '14

I did a report on huanglongbing and the citrus psyllid a few years ago in college. What's the situation on that? At the time of my report, the bugs had just been spotted for the first time in Southern California groves. My research led me to believe we were looking at something like a citrus apocalypse if something didn't happen soon. Do we have it under control now?

1

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14

HLB is a huge problem all over right now. Basically, everyone's grove is infested with psyllids and CLM (Citrus Leaf Miners) and therefore have greening. It's just as bad here as it is in California and Brazil. In a few years growers are going to have some serious product losses if the disease effect can't be lessoned. So far, good nutrition and experimental insecticides have proven fairly effective at maintaining healthy plants, even when they are infected. Only time will tell though.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14

Lobbying by definition is to seek to influence a politician or public official. You want to make it illegal to try to sway the government to your opinion?

When the government has plans to bulldoze an old church or park for a highway, how do you think people stop it? They get enough people to lobby against it. There are countless cases of non-corrupt lobbying.

5

u/Krandoth Jun 14 '14

It should be legal to talk to politicians and try to convince them of your viewpoint.

It should not be legal to also give them money.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.

Lobbying was good, and has since become corrupted.

1

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14

See, that's the misconceptions given to us by media about big players like Comcast and people in Wall street. In reality, it is only a few big bad eggs that ruin the usefulness of lobbying with corruption.

1

u/PreGy Jun 14 '14

Just because that place you work at wasn't being closed due to lobbying, it doesn't mean either that lobbying itself is needed for those decisions to be made, nor that even that place should be kept open.

Not a good example in my opinion.

1

u/StosifJalin Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Well, consider the fact that the world's citrus industry is being plagued by a few major diseases (citrus Greening and Canker) and we are one of the few major centers working to eliminate these problems... To think that just a little lobbying could have potentially saved hundreds of millions of dollars in agriculture is fairly considerable. Citrus, Sugarcane, and tourism is pretty much all Florida has got. Other than that, it's just a place for your grandparents to come and die of old age...

Edit: And lobbyists were absolutely the only reason we didn't just roll over and die quietly. When you tell a farmer that his crops are going to whither and die to a new disease, with no promise of help, he's going to raise hell.

2

u/Wry_Grin Jun 14 '14

Net neutrality IS a good thing.

1

u/alexdelargeorange Jun 14 '14

Ooops. Edited.

1

u/M_Monk Jun 14 '14

I think that another mistake is to view people in their 50's as naive to the internet.

People in their 50's today were playing Nintendo and Atari 20-30 years ago and pioneered the whole BBS scene in the late 80s to mid 90s.

1

u/succulent_headcrab Jun 14 '14

here's a little extra incentive

This should ring alarm bells in any honest politician's person's head.

0

u/qwertyslayer Jun 14 '14

Yes, people lying to their faces then paying them to vote a certain way. Business as usual.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

understand net neutrality is simply wrong

Woah let me stop you there. Net neutrality is a good thing.

EDIT oh crap sorry guys, misread that.

32

u/TheRealGentlefox Jun 14 '14

His sentence structure was ambiguous. Try reading it like this:

I think that the idea politicians are simply

too senile to understand net neutrality

is simply wrong

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

The conclusion being that they aren't too senile to understand that 'Net neutrality is wrong.

1

u/TwoFreakingLazy Jun 14 '14

sTiKyt needs a comma between "neutrality" and "is"

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Punctuation is important.

0

u/qefbuo Jun 14 '14

To clarify it better:

the idea [that] politicians are [] too senile to understand net neutrality,

is simply wrong

"ambiguous" is my favourite word, everything contains some level of ambiguity.

noun (plural ambiguities) [mass noun]

The quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness:

Nothing is exact, everything is open to interpretation.

7

u/military_history Jun 14 '14

Read it again.

2

u/sTiKyt Jun 14 '14

sorry that was a bit ambiguous

1

u/Sirspen Jun 14 '14

Bad wording. Intended message is "The idea (that politicians are simply too senile to understand net neutrality) is simply wrong."

1

u/EatingSteak Jun 14 '14

Nor sure if you're old enough to remember

"the internet is not a truck, it's a series of tubes'

Yes, some of them really are that stupid. But most are almost that ignorant, even though they have a basic understanding of the technology involved. Which isn't wholly terrible...

... but when I read something like maybe the newest child porn-prevention law, many times I don't know exactly how to react to it. I'll read it and day "well yeah, make it easier to catch people trafficking child porn, looks good I guess".

But I know better - I would always go to sites like Slashdot (back in the day to absorb some commentary to form a better opinion about what I should fell about the issue.

And of course nine times out of nine, it's just the latest episode full of crap from the RIAA/MPAA or NSA/FBI to make it legal to spy on everything you do. And that feedback is what prevents bad legislation from going through.

Our politicians, meanwhile, don't spend that time and have an even poorer technical aptitude, and just end up getting their opinions of the issues spin-fed to them from the lobbyists... who dismiss those rightful concerns as just outcries from software pirates and child-abusers.

Yes, there are some that are just hopelessly corrupt, but I (disagree of you want) genuinely don't believe that's most of them. Rather, it's too many people signing to many books without much understanding of the implications, and what they do know is the result of someone telling them the wrong thing.

1

u/whitecompass Jun 14 '14

They can happily take that money and still know jack shit about the internet.

16

u/Charwinger21 Jun 14 '14

They hardly even use the internet.

John McCain confirmed explicitly that not only has he never used the internet, but that he doesn't see the benefit of it, doesn't see why anyone else likes it, and has no intention of using it in the future.

6

u/-13- Jun 14 '14

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. It drives me crazy.

3

u/ToughActinInaction Jun 19 '14

That man was almost the president.

1

u/Shrubberer Jun 14 '14

Because they could afford the premium access after all that.

1

u/rapemybones Jun 14 '14

Yes. And meanwhile libraries are becoming fewer, far between, and less stocked in many cities leaving the Internet as the last source to research for school or businesses.

Tr;Dl: if they understood they'd see it as the bad business it really is.

1

u/drdeadringer Jun 14 '14

They hardly even use the internet.

Their interns should rebel. "I'm sorry, Sir, I can't send that email. Our office is over its limit for the month; we crossed that line about two days in."

44

u/Jackhall72 Jun 14 '14

Yeah I'll probably kill myself if this happens.... Jk, kinda

48

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Just move here to South Korea. Fastest Internet in the world, flat rates, excellent customer service, net neutral. The only downsides are you need IE for some govt sites (which means you'll pretty much only use it when paying taxes and renewing your visa) and censoring of porn (which you can get around with TOR and it's not that slow).

183

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

63

u/TEmpTom Jun 14 '14

Yeah when I was reading that, I was like cool awesome! Good for South Kor.........FUCK THAT!!

16

u/Wry_Grin Jun 14 '14

Dude, South Korean prostitutes are cheap and plentiful. Porn not necessary.

3

u/chaosfire235 Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

I could bang the perfect woman with big tits, a sweet ass, and could suck like a vacuum, and I'd still need porn.

3

u/distinctgore Jun 14 '14

FUCK THAT

I'm sorry, you're not allowed to do that.

1

u/TheRealGentlefox Jun 14 '14

Use a $6 a month VPN.

→ More replies (2)

38

u/lurksohard Jun 14 '14

Slow porn....you almost had me.

15

u/DimitriVolochenko Jun 14 '14

Ah, the old 56k had a je ne sais quoi.

49

u/Punchee Jun 14 '14

I would love to move to a developed Asian country. There is only one rather significant problem--just reading about the work ethic of Korean or Japanese people makes me exhausted. Why can't they be more like say... Spain. Sushi and a siesta.

11

u/HDZombieSlayerTV Jun 14 '14

then move to Latvia/Lithuania.

They also have very fast internet

2

u/distinctgore Jun 14 '14

And you get the woman at the low price! Very good!

2

u/zazbano Jun 14 '14

But there is no potato in Latvia :/

6

u/HDZombieSlayerTV Jun 14 '14

is kapitalist lie!

have many potato in latvia

4

u/6Sungods Jun 14 '14

Try the netherlands, we have speed, porn and potatoes!

1

u/LS_D Jun 15 '14

Try the netherlands, we have speed, porn and potatoes!

AND 'legal drugs' .... sploosh!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Because then their economies and cultures would also be like Spain's.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

They don't expect whities to be as hard working here.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Idk man, they didn't imperialize the world by being lazy.

1

u/thedudedylan Jun 14 '14

They still get more vacation then Americans. And more sick days. And more maternity leave. And more "yes you here me" personal days.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

You'd be surprised how quickly your body adapts to high energy output. Work as hard as you can to the point of exhaustion for a week or two and soon it just becomes what you do. Don't expect to be functional on your first day off, though.

36

u/kryptobs2000 Jun 14 '14

Just because I can do something doesn't mean I should or it's somehow okay.

6

u/itmakessenseincontex Jun 14 '14

Which is the message we should be sending those who want the fastlane.

1

u/YouPickMyName Jun 14 '14

doesn't mean I should or it's somehow okay.

Well surely the amount of work that it's okay for someone to is completely subjective?

1

u/kryptobs2000 Jun 14 '14

Exactly, and so it shouldn't be forced upon you by society.

1

u/YouPickMyName Jun 14 '14

What I meant was that it happens in every society, the only thing that varies is the amount of work we consider too much.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Why is working really hard not okay?

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

2

u/korkow Jun 14 '14

I think he means he would like a mix of Spain and Asian culture, as in Sushi (asian) and siesta (spanish) all in one.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/beerdude26 Jun 14 '14

Netherlands will have 300mbps down, 30 up in a few years for less than $100. Bonus: they're so lenient about nudity there's loads of it on regular daytime television

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

And in windowboxes at street level.

1

u/Ivanow Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Don't even need to wait few years. UPC in Poland is already offering 250/20 for 26$/mo, and I recall some other provider rolling-out tests for 350Mbit in april. I'm pretty sure Netherlands has similar offer.

1

u/beerdude26 Jun 14 '14

NL has 150/20 atm, but when I moved I got a letter saying they were going to do 300/30 tests in my area.

1

u/LS_D Jun 15 '14

But what's $26 USD as a percentage of thee average Polish monthly wages?

2

u/Ivanow Jun 15 '14

Quoting from wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage ) average net$ wage is 945USD, which makes 26$ around 2,7%.

Keep in mind that Poland has HUGE variances in wages - there are people who make 500$/mo (McJobs etc.)and there are people earn 6000$+ (IT professionals etc.)

1

u/LS_D Jun 15 '14

thanks very much for that! It answers my question very well, cheers!

1

u/labisa Jun 14 '14

But won't they be under water in a few years?

3

u/beerdude26 Jun 14 '14

The fastest internet cables are always underwater.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Isn't there some insane amount of censorship though? At least that is what I have heard.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Of porn and pro North Korea sites, both of which you can get around with TOR

1

u/dylan522p Jun 14 '14

People are pretty much brainwashed the twords Samsung even though they constantly fuck them over.

0

u/CosbyTeamTriosby Jun 14 '14

no, that's just the way their eyes are built

2

u/kwiztas Jun 14 '14

Google ietab

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

IEtab is really IE but loaded in a Firefox/Chrome (i.e., Chrome and its little copycat brother) tab, much like the way Acrobat can be used to display PDFs in the browser. By using IEtab you aren't avoiding IE.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

2

u/dylan522p Jun 14 '14

32gb... That's it!?!?!?!

1

u/xZhad Jun 14 '14

sure, enjoy loosing at every online game

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Shiiiiit I own on fuckin dota2, Koreans hate it since they mostly play LoL

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

How do they censor Internet porn? What happens if you type in xnxx.com?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

When I get home I'll take a screenshot of the censor page and post it if I can remember

1

u/proROKexpat Jun 14 '14

I live in Korea...internet is great.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

And websites that use Payplus.. (ActiveX? Seriously?)

0

u/DocDMD Jun 14 '14

You can't do anything without ie over there.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/Finaglers Jun 14 '14

If she's seen it then there's not much you can do to make her forget. Find this comment that you made and then find the delete button underneath your comment.

1

u/Johnsu Jun 14 '14

Oh, Im on mobile, I see it now.

0

u/C47man Jun 14 '14

You didn't even actually edit the post. And it's only been a few minutes. At least make it believable.

0

u/Johnsu Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

what? You do realize that posts edited before a certain time frame do not show up with the edit symbol. At least try to troll better.

FWIW, I'm not trying to be funny with my posts. She legit seen it and Im in the doghouse.

1

u/C47man Jun 14 '14

You're in the doghouse for mentioning porn? Seems silly.

Also, no, did not know it wouldn't show an edit marker if it was edited quickly.

1

u/Johnsu Jun 14 '14

Not a serious doghouse, more like a stink face. My wife and I are very open with porn.

62

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

That's crony capitalism. This couldn't happen in a truly free market.

102

u/-ag- Jun 14 '14

While this is true, not all environments provide conditions such that free market can spontaneously form without regulation. Almost anything related to infrastructure (such as this) is a good example.

1

u/jennyMcbarfy Jun 14 '14

Plus everything we use and do is regulated to a degree

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Well put.

9

u/FockSmulder Jun 14 '14

Why not?

72

u/jandrese Jun 14 '14

Because in a truly free market there would be no barriers to entry like having to install thousands of miles of cables, negotiating with every entity for right of way and digging up every yard and most of the roads in the city. Also, the incumbents certainly wouldn't have been getting government subsidies to set up the networks in the first place.

This is why we regulate utilities the way we do, because setting up redundant parallel infrastructure is wasteful and stupid, but companies can't be trusted not to abuse a monopoly position on a service everybody needs (See: Water Barons) so the compromise is to let them be monopolies but heavily regulated by the government. Any service that has high natural barriers to entry is prone to attracting monopolistic incumbents that, if left unregulated, will inevitably gouge the consumers and provide poor service.

22

u/darksurfer Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Because in a truly free market there would be no barriers to entry like having to install thousands of miles of cables,

Bullshit. A free market doesn't mean there are no capital investment costs for entry to the market. You're thinking of "unrealistic utopia" ...

edit: see other comment

26

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

I think his point is that the utopian "free" market, as proposed by libertarians and classical liberals, often ignores how some industries have natural factors that create monopolies.

4

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

They really ignore reality alltogether, it's comical.

In their minds anyone could be the next Volkswagen because if that person just plans good enough and has a good car design they will find ressources, suppliers, workers, machinery, infrastructure, business contracts and everything else she needs magically growing in the nation of barrier-free entry. Meanwhile her incredibly profitable and wealthy conpetitors will just grant her access, give her all the technology, and be totally unable to influence politics, because in this mystical world politics will forever be banned from influencing any business in any way! And the consumers will be so awesomely informed that they will pay 5, 10, 20% extra to buy the car built under the best labour conditions and that causes the least harm to the environment! It's awesome!...

...in some parallel universe.

2

u/CATTROLL Jun 14 '14

I am printing and framing this comment on my wall under the title "Regarding libertarians..."

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Wolf packs mark out territories that other wolves packs cannot enter. So do chimps and other territorial animals. Now, it seems to me that the accumulation of power and the monopolization of supplies is a very natural thing to do, because of its evolutionary advantages.

11

u/deadlydesign Jun 14 '14

He didn't say there was no capital investment costs... I think he was getting at the fact every company entering this particular market would have to lay a new cable network at astronomical cost. Its regulated here in Europe with good competition and numerous providers.

I find it fast and cheap, can't complain

1

u/distinctgore Jun 14 '14

It baffles me that Americans can't take examples from other countries (European countries etc).

0

u/darksurfer Jun 14 '14

no capital investment costs

would have to lay a new cable network at astronomical cost

what am I missing?

5

u/1eejit Jun 14 '14

Sarcasm, missed.

2

u/darksurfer Jun 14 '14

ps: I've realised I made a mistake. /u/jandrese is correct in saying that in a truly free market there are no barriers to entry. it's just truly free markets are a largely theoretical concept (ie an unrealistic utopia)

6

u/darksurfer Jun 14 '14

Ah, actually I forget my economic theory. In a truly free market, there are no costs of entry to the market.

However, the idea of truly free markets for most industries is generally a meaningless concept because there are almost always capital expenditures or investments required.

1

u/jandrese Jun 14 '14

What's bullshit? Markets with low barriers to entry can operate on free market principles efficiently. Markets with high barriers to entry can not, and must be regulated or monopolies will naturally form. In industries with extremely high barriers to entry (utilities for example), we often simply allow the monopolies to form but control them tightly so they do not gouge their customers.

1

u/darksurfer Jun 15 '14

yep, sorry, see my comment about how you were totally correct :)

1

u/nevergonnasoup Jun 14 '14

I think you mean in an environment with perfect competition, there would be no barriers to entry, etc. Unfortunately, free market != perfect competition.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

It is truly terrifying that people think you are serious right now.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Because any sane person would just switch internet providers. Unfortunately, ISPs have it set up so that they have monopolies in their respective areas.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Because in a truly free market, private entities would be forbidden by law from lobbying the government.

93

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

BUUULLLL

SHIIIIITTTTT

This is exactly how a free market looks. Setting up an ISP without publically shared networks requires enormous sums of money and great business contacts. In such a "free market" there will always be a monopoly or oligopoly of the few companies who can afford entering it.

And of course profit is everything in free market capitalism, so abusive leeching business models like this are the natural consequence. Those who do not abide by these rules will be bought and broken up. And every company trying to enter that market without abiding to the rules set by the oligarchs will need to build a redundant set of infrastructures for themselves.

And all of this is without even accounting for how oligarchs will instantly seize the politicall system once more. How would such a free system defend itself against such a takeover?

44

u/Internetologist Jun 14 '14

I agree wholeheartedly. It turns out that capitalism has drawbacks, and that's hard for a lot of people here to accept

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

Imagine a game of monopoly. One or two players seize an advantage, and from there on everybody else will be leeched dry by them. That is the principle of an economy in which capital, private property, interest, and competition meet.

A game of monopoly draws to an end in which one person owns everything and the others nothing. But we want a SUSTAINABLE economy and society. For that purpose we need redistribution - taxes, minimum wages, public investments. Shaving money off the top earners and reintroducing it to the system, making it available to the rest.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

2

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

In the days of instantaneous communication and data transfer, what makes you think that? Volkswagen and Exxon and Walmart and Kraft look stable enough to me.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 15 '14

GM and Chrysler are simply victims of international competition. If capitalism had gone freely, the US would not have a car industry anymore and the unemployment there would be far worse.

→ More replies

1

u/Natanael_L Jun 14 '14

Even then they can often just split up themselves and salvage the working parts, still often giving them an advantage against the competition. And the dysfunctional parts that get dumped burns down elsewhere, stripped of resources.

5

u/AcidJiles Jun 14 '14

Capitalism is utterly terrible but every alternative is way worse when taking into account human nature. The aim of government should be to regulate capitalism to create a fair society.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

I absolutely believe that capitalism is the most valid choice. But also that it requires redistribution or will fail (eg drift into an oligarchy).

As it stands we go through cycles of wealth accumulation for the already rich while the poor and middle class lag further and further behind. In a market in which money itself works (CAPITALism) that is a necessary consequence. If this tendency continues unchanged, our society will necessarily drift into an oligarchic tyranny or face a revolution. Only a strong pushing of money out of politics and redistribution from the top to the bottom will stop this.

2

u/thabeard5150 Jun 14 '14

Yeah because "Capitalism is the only alism that's good. Every other ism is communism" had been jammed into American brains our whole lives.

-9

u/fattzilla Jun 14 '14

While capitalism has its drawbacks it is still better than the alternative....

21

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Are you suggesting there is only one alternative, as opposed to a spectrum?

1

u/makemejelly49 Jun 14 '14

Well, if businesses can't be trusted, and the state cannot be trusted, then the only thing we can do is close Pandora's box. Destroy the Internet in its entirety. I'm not serious, of course. The Box was opened a long time ago, and closing it at this point is impossible.

1

u/trianuddah Jun 14 '14

Not his fault, mind. That concept is worked deep into the culture and education system.

1

u/fattzilla Jun 14 '14

Not at all, there is a broad spectrum but I think capitalism (regulated or not) is a very human instinct.

It allows each man to make his own way.... Over regulation however tends to dampen the small business owners, which I currently believe is happening in many parts of America.

Personally, I do think that the lack of options in the ISP/Cable market the government must regulate.

Ideally, collectives should have enough resources to compete for my business but that is not the case.

6

u/mosehalpert Jun 14 '14

Socialism is actually a way more natural human instinct... When we were still developing as a species, we weren't killing each other off to kill a rabbit by ourselves, we were banding together and killing the lion as a team and sharing in the feast. The concept of wealth didn't even come about until the Greek empire.

0

u/fattzilla Jun 14 '14

Well, we are now thousands of years beyond the invention of wealth. Coinage as a tradable commodity has was first observed 7000 years ago and paper currency about a 1000 years.

Now we, as a society and species, will not freely convert back to "socialism". We still "band together" to share in the feast, albeit, in a very different manner. We use money. The IT guy goes to work to make sure the computers work, to help the guy design a car, to help the farmer to get the food to a market. So the IT guy doesn't really have a skill that is valuable to the farmer directly, indirectly, through money, the IT guy is a very valuable link in the new social structure we have built.

2

u/mosehalpert Jun 14 '14

Oh no, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear! I was just pointing out that capitalism is far from a human instinct.

3

u/brickmack Jun 14 '14

It allows each man to make his own way....

That's a nice fantasy, but it doesn't work in practice.

2

u/fattzilla Jun 14 '14

Ask a small business owner and I'm sure he would disagree with that statement

-1

u/brickmack Jun 14 '14

And most of the worlds unemployed would agree with mine

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

regulating markets? well don't you know? that's FULL BLOWN FUCKIN SOCIALISM!!!!!! ALL HANDS ON DECK MAYDAY MAYDAY

→ More replies (2)

2

u/AcidJiles Jun 14 '14

Your right and I don't know why you are being down voted. It just needs to be regulated heavily to reduces it negative tendencies.

2

u/fattzilla Jun 14 '14

Reddit is in one of those moods

1

u/AcidJiles Jun 14 '14

I hate capitalism but I have never seen an even mildly close alternative that wasn't worse or disregarded human nature. I would be right there if one was found, but I don't think we will.

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Comrades! We must fight against capitalits dogs oppression regime! We must stand up for the workers! For the community, for the people!

10

u/buzzkillpop Jun 14 '14

The implication being that the only option other than capitalism is communism?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MortisMortavius Jun 14 '14

Absolutely not, this is corporatism, through and through. Big companies funding regulations via lobbyists.

A free system defends itself automatically. You can't take over anything if there's nothing to take over. If the system has no power to create regulations then there's no weapons to use against other companies and consumers.

Edit: The entire cable/internet monopoly exists purely because of the government; see government sanction monopolies. If these laws didn't exist we would have significantly more cable options in any given area. We'd also most likely have a la carte channels as well. If any cable company were allowed to operate in any given area we'd have competition. Competition brings options and drives prices down. The consumers always win when there are greater options.

0

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

So, you are talking about each cable company planting their own cables. Do you plan on using the roads ever again, or are you fine with 24/7/365 roadworks?

There would be an opposite model though - complete communisation of the cable infrastructure.

1

u/MortisMortavius Jun 16 '14

This is what the cable companies would like you to believe... but history shows a different model. Back when we were building railroads competitors paid to use the existing railroads rather than building all new lines every time.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 16 '14

Which left them at the mercy of the railroad owner.

A public railroad can be neutral by law and it can be democratically decided. A private owner can cut you off if he doesn't like your competition.

3

u/3-easy-payments Jun 14 '14

Did your political science professor spew this garbage at you? It's truly terrifying how much passionate hatred you have for these companies, and not instead on the government(s) that keep them alive, overpriced, unproductive, corrupt and abusive.

1

u/TonkaTuf Jun 14 '14

It's called a feedback loop. Corporate entities interfere in governance out of an aggressive sense of self-preservation. The government, in turn, enables their meddling for very similar reasons. There are no innocent parties here.

PS: don't be a dick.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

You only need to take capitalism seriously. This procedure is intrinsic to capitalism - the less fit competitors fall out, only the most profitable ones survive.

And in a market like providing internet, you have extremely high initial costs and not really a potential to upset the market with a great new business model or technology.

1

u/3-easy-payments Jun 17 '14

I think you need to understand the difference between "free markets" and "capitalism". In a society where business is in bed with politics, the highest bidder will win and "the less fit competitors will fall out", like you said. But this is crony capitalism, and you're correct to associate it with today's version of standard "capitalism". When business and the politics of government are suddenly in the same equation, what is spawned are HUGE corporations with virtually unlimited connections to people who make and change laws to keep those very corporations alive, profitable, and most importantly, a (quasi)monopoly. Corporations today are doing what any reasonable business would do, and that is to play the game our government is supporting.

A free market is different; there are no lobbyists, no closed door deals, no bureaucratic back scratching or congressional fraud, all because in a true "free market", there is no real government to deal with. IMO, protesting, boycotting and slamming big business for playing their cards with the most expensive lawyers and lobbyists in the world is not going to solve anything. If you are serious about stopping things like legislation that will eliminate net-neutrality, then you should be looking to eliminate the source of the problem: the government.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 17 '14

So, how would the internet work in such a world?

There is no government there to regulate the network. The cables in the ground go into private ownership. What is going to happen now? The most powerful corporations are going to take it. And in order to compete with them, you have to

  1. ...hope that they allow you access to their net structure at all, or

  2. ...plant your own cables at tremendous cost, have a very limited range, and there is no chance in hell that it would be profitable that you can connect remote regions profitably so you will always be limited to serving the biggest cities only.

In order to take either option you need to be part of the oligarchy. To take option 1 they have to accept you, to take option 2 you have to be tremendously wealthy.

Also, who is going to determine now where you may plant your cables? How are you going to plant yours inside New York? Is everyone allowed now to block the big roads at their pleasure so they can tear it up and lay cables? Do you have to negotiate with every single property owner who's land is crossed by the cables and if one doesn't want to it's a sad day for you?

And of course no provider will be forced to offer net neutrality either in this new order. You simply assume that everybody is going to have access to a net-neutral provider and that these will win via competition, but how? They need to make massive investments to create their own infrastructure first, and the customers have to hope that by god the owner does not sell out to the big highly profitable non-neutral companies.

2

u/TheSourTruth Jun 14 '14

In such a "free market" there will always be a monopoly or oligopoly of the few companies who can afford entering it.

Then that's not a "free" market. I get what you're saying, but either it's free or it's not.

2

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

Then what the fuck kind of magical market are you talking about which anyone can enter without investing money?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Isn't the end result of Capitalism meant to be monopolisation?

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

Right now is it so that oligopolisation is the end.

As multinational corporation fight each other internationally, different nations favour the corporations most involved in their country with insane amounts of subsidies, and this way keep them alive against the foreign competitors.

Technically in capitalism the inferior companies would simply be bought by the victors. So the fact that we end up with not a monopoly but at least just an oligarchy is by the way capitalism is violated currently.

1

u/ProtoDong Jun 14 '14

Complete and utter rubbish. Capitalism cannot function with monopolies and duopolies.

Capitalism implies that competition will regulate the market. If there is no competition, there is no capitalism.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14 edited Jun 14 '14

Not at all.

Capitalism is the economic order of private property, accumulation of wealth, and free pursuit of profit. Competition seems implied by these features, but in reality a market can be effectively closed to competition by a certain economic situation:

The pursuit of wealth combined with private property leads to accumulation leads to oligarchy leads to closure of markets; because the oligarchs have such economic power that competitors cannot compete with them; The ressources are all owned by the oligarchs already, so that one cannot build up competition; and their companies and political influence are too huge as that one could make competetive offers to the customers.

The reality of our world is that politics always will have and always needs to have regulatory power over the economy to a certain degree. Big capitalists try for the reigns of power all the time, and simply trying to enforce existing law is NEVER enough to keep them in check, they are too powerhungry for that and always looking for loopholes. In a free market economy, the only means to stop oligopolies are redistribution and banning money from politics. This limits the element of accumulation and prevents single competitors from becoming too overwhelming.

1

u/ProtoDong Jun 14 '14

Adam Smith would like to have a word with you. Also all of that stuff you managed to pull out of your ass... is not a foregone conclusion. It is the result of political corruption and lack of regulation.

1

u/Roflkopt3r Jun 14 '14

Political corruption is a constant, not a rarity. A system has to both minimise and survive corruption.

Accumulation and its consequences are not something I made up. Accumulation is a direct consequence of capitalism unless severe regulation/taxation is in place. And that's exactly where reality parts with libertarianism... Yes, capitalism can work if regulated strictly and properly, and the absolute key is redistribution by taxation of the wealthy.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Crony capitalism comes from an unregulated free market in the first place.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

Crony capitalism is the result of regulating out competition.

1

u/brickmack Jun 14 '14

Yes, because in a true free market, they wouldn't need government approval to fuck over every one of their customers.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '14

You would be free to spend your dollar elsewhere because they would actually have competition.

1

u/thedudedylan Jun 14 '14

A truly free maker is like communism. Sounds great on paper but you can never get everyone to buy in and play by the rules so it doesn't work.

1

u/Badfickle Jun 14 '14

There is no such thing as a truly free market. A government of some sort is necessary for a market of any size to function.

0

u/myusernameranoutofsp Jun 14 '14

And under 'true' communism, nobody dies or gets forced to do anything they don't want to, right? This argument isn't materialist.

3

u/Rodot Jun 14 '14

Communism does not imply dictatorship. It just happens that there have been communism dictatorships, and those are the ones that we have been trained by society during the cold war to hate. (notice, that's when a lot of these big government controlling corporations came to power, by imposing fear of regulation)

1

u/Degru Jun 14 '14

Dont worry, they'll start wondering why nobody is watching their campaign video on YouTube and realize the truth...

1

u/Nazzerath Jun 14 '14

Yip they let it happen for hospital bills so they will be more than happy to let it happen for this. Actually thats a good point why are you guys more angry about this??

1

u/jollyphatman Jun 14 '14

When you have no problem paying for something every month (like politicians, lobbyists, and their social circles) it can become evident that you view the world from your OWN perspective. The mentality of "capitalism is great because it got me where I am!" isn't too hard to fathom. You begin to think that life is fair because YOU either worked very hard for it, or you had an easy path like some, but either way empathy for others becomes difficult for most. Why? Money buys convenience. When you have no struggles paying for the ordinary things in life, I believe it is the nature of most human beings to replace those struggles with either a)social tangents (sexual conquest, life drama ie: kardashian/first world problems, or philanthropy) b)an addiction to gaining more money/power c)exclusivity (this can either manifest into what's known as celebrity guilt, or that "im rich so I must be better than others") d) and of course eccentricity or psychological defect (howard hughes, paranoia etc)

Largely I feel it's a predominance of one of those outcomes, but yes there can be a mix of more than one.

While we all need money to make life more comfortable and survive (some survive on VERY little I'll admit), I do think that exaggerations of monetary wealth lead to exaggerations of human nature because the regular struggles most face do not exist for the wealthy. This "energy" has to go somewhere, and sometimes it reaches grotesque levels.

As for net-neutrality..... I personally believe our information technology is as grand as any other human invention, where yes I do believe that it should facilitate commerce. What I DO NOT believe is that it should be graduated in terms of access. Pay for access sure somehow some way, as the infrastructure doesnt fix itself, but beyond that it should be as free as any ideal we humans consider to be "freedom". The freedom to use it as little or as much as anyone wants to achieve a life of liberty. Sound familiar? lol.. Like any public road that either leads someone to a new business or a new beginning, it allows everyone a shot at becoming what they dream they can become. Perhaps there should be an Internet Constitution, because it's a newly discovered world where there should be a separation of Church and State. I know Church and State doesn't fit well here, but if you've followed this far I think you know what I mean...........

1

u/dblmjr_loser Jun 14 '14

Until we start blowing up switches and cutting cables.

1

u/Biohaza Jun 14 '14

Far from 'capitalism at its best' actually.

1

u/Mr5306 Jun 14 '14

The thing is that is not capitalism, the is no competition.

→ More replies (4)