It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Hadrian
Originally posted by justinsweatt
I hate to tell you guys this but these businesses can do whatever they want. It's called a business model.
just not true. there are all kinds of various reasons why a company may be susceptible to regulation. if could be just that they provide what is deemed an essential quality of society and as such, there will be some oversight in an effort to ensure integrity (network television). in other cases, the government may own, operate and or fund systems or equipment that facilitate another company's business model (the fed funds internet infrastructure expansion and leases it to providers). this is without mentioning the sanctions that may be levied on monopolies. we may live in a fascist state, but there's still at the least the appearance of propriety.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is terrible! A huge blow for our free use of the Internet. I wish people would read about it and understand what it is before praising this decision. :shk:
No, all government regulation ISN'T bad. The meat you buy at the store is government-regulated. The milk you feed your children, the buildings you go into don't fall on you because of ... government regulation.
The Death of Net Neutrality
1 Killing Net neutrality means big players always win
2 Say goodbye to Skype and VOIP
3 Attack on free speech
4 Killing Net neutrality could screw up getting real work done
Originally posted by boondock-saint
is it just me or has the SCOTUS being
ruling AGAINST the establishment
a lot lately.
Originally posted by justinsweatt
Originally posted by Hadrian
Originally posted by justinsweatt
I hate to tell you guys this but these businesses can do whatever they want. It's called a business model.
just not true. there are all kinds of various reasons why a company may be susceptible to regulation. if could be just that they provide what is deemed an essential quality of society and as such, there will be some oversight in an effort to ensure integrity (network television). in other cases, the government may own, operate and or fund systems or equipment that facilitate another company's business model (the fed funds internet infrastructure expansion and leases it to providers). this is without mentioning the sanctions that may be levied on monopolies. we may live in a fascist state, but there's still at the least the appearance of propriety.
You can "regulate" it but the best regulation is to find an alternative true free market model. Network Television is hardly an essential quality to society, as you mentioned. Most of the network news is already censored by the CIA and the administration. That is a glaring example of how, in my opinion, your argument for government intrusion by setting "regulation" is a false and evil one. Also, there is nothing wrong with a naturally occurring monopoly and by natural I mean that the business provides a service that competition has not been able to effect without the assistance of tax breaks or special privileges provided to them by the state and local government.