So much for a more "competitive market" after the repeal of Net Neutrality

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Simply because no one is forcing you to buy the product.

As to why telcomm wants less competition is simple, profits. As in every business goal regardless of size.

I don't agree that they should be able to outline the means of how any other would be company gets into or operates in the space and we've yet to see evidence of that in this thread.

a reply to: JinMI

No one is forcing me to buy anything much less internet so that's a weak argument. If that was the basis for the morality of price gouging then you shouldn't have a problem with price gouging in any form. No one is forcing you to buy water so may as well charge $100 a bottle. Weak.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your opinion notwithstanding on my argument, it's not been addressed.

If someone wants to charge 100 for a bottle of water, I can buy it down the road for 75 cents. Better yet, I can go to a stream or a well.

Things are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your opinion notwithstanding on my argument, it's not been addressed.

If someone wants to charge 100 for a bottle of water, I can buy it down the road for 75 cents. Better yet, I can go to a stream or a well.

Things are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay.

The point is the corp selling the $100 bottle bought (or is trying to buy) all the well rights to the water. This shuts the market down and the omission of competition leads to a monopolistic market.

a reply to: JinMI

Not if that company who owns the water makes it impossible for that store down the road to stay in business. That's what's we're getting here, big companies trying to become monopolies by lobbying the government to change the rules so smaller companies go under. Those smaller companies don't have the money to compete with the bigger ones in the lobbying department so they go belly up.

And if that bigger company owns the land that stream or well is located on? Lawsuit!

The article I linked to explain what they're trying to do, it's not that long, maybe you should read it.

a reply to: seasonal

"Trying."

Same as Nestle, no?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Your opinion notwithstanding on my argument, it's not been addressed.

If someone wants to charge 100 for a bottle of water, I can buy it down the road for 75 cents. Better yet, I can go to a stream or a well.

Things are only worth as much as someone is willing to pay.

Hello JinMi,

You do realize you answered your own question, right?

Take away your ability to go down the road and buy it for .75, as well as your ability to use a stream or well, then guess what?
You pay 100.00, or you do not get the water.

It's quite simple really.

How many corner stores you have in your neighborhood, how many independent gas stations?

Giving you no other choice is what this is about.

I believe you know this..😁



MTUBY

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Not only small guys but ALL competition including Big guys.


Even Google is struggling to compete with these Aholes

AT&T and Comcast have solidified a court victory over the metro government in Nashville, Tennessee, nullifying a rule that was meant to help Google Fiber compete against the incumbent broadband providers.

The republicans have shot themselves in the foot with this repeal. Of all the stupid and worthless regulations they could have taken on, they took on the only regulation that allowed for competition in a global market place and that favored the consumer.

I think trump was played by the neocons on this and he will likely lose in 2020 over this.

a reply to: JinMI

The ISP's "tried" to repeal NN and were successful. If you have enough money in the bank "trying" usually turns into "succeeding". It's pay to play at its worst.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I read it before I even replied to your post. If you want to be petulant, then go on and get bent.

As I said in that post, I'll wait for more evidence, not a third party interpretation even though it aligns with what business practices would suggest.

So, after all these circles of argument, my question is still the same. How is government the solution if it has already been demonstrated to be the problem?

a reply to: JinMI

Yes nestle-they got water rights for millions of gallons of water in Mecosta County Miichigan for a couple of hundred bucks.

Something is a miss.

a reply to: seasonal

They were trying for more as I recall. Folks still have their wells.

In this booming economy and market, explain this?

Nestle Stock

a reply to: JinMI

So in order for it not to be "third party" you'd have to have a statement from T-Mobile themselves or the FCC who is in T-Mobile's pocket. That's not a good source seeing as they will spin it to sound like it's good for the consumer.

a reply to: JinMI

is it the child labor for cocoa beans?

Or the slave labor for cocoa beans?

IS it the absolute criminal activity (my opinion) leading to millions of gallons of water being bought for a few C notes?

Of is the wing nut CEO commenting on the rights of humans to water?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes.

a reply to: seasonal

Any? All?

I'm simply highlighting market response.


My whole stance in this thread isn't on the merits or lack thereof on net neutrality but how government is the solution. Especially given its implication to being the cause.

a reply to: JinMI

How is government the solution if it has already been demonstrated to be the problem?

Gov't is NOT an isolated entity. Govt does nothing that the lobbyist don't want it to. Gov't is one in the same as the corporations in the private sector, except the corporations control the gov't. Not the other way around. Gov't is simply a tool used by the lobbyist.

you actually think our so called elected politicians sit around drafting regulations ? Or do the lobbyist draft the laws with their dream team of lawyers?

All our politicians do is robo sign the laws drafted by the lobbyist. Pelosi wasnt lying when she said you have to pass the law to understand what its in it. They have no clue , they just sign where the money is.

I'm a libertarian due to the rampant corruption in DC and believe we need a small gov't now more than ever. However, not all regulations are bad. We need regulations that allow for a free market place and that encourage competion versus monopolies and controlled market places.

Net neutrality was a simple regulation that ensured a free market for the fastest emerging market place in the world. The internet is not a commodity its a market place.

Going against net neutrality is the exact opposite of being a republican that believes in the free market place. Killing NN gives control to the most hated companies AND the GOVT full control of the internet. you just gave them the key that they have been salivating to get.

This is equivalent to when foxnews ,drudge and the GOP convinced republicans it was a good idea to go full commie and let gov't dictate the winners and losers in the free market place when they started the bailouts.

a reply to: JinMI

Look over the year, they are not hurting too bad.

a reply to: interupt42

I'm a libertarian due to the rampant corruption in DC and believe we need a small gov't now more than ever. However, not all regulations are bad. We need regulations that allow for a free market place and that encourage competion versus monopolies and controlled market places.

Agreed.

Perhaps folks should be concerned with the monopolies that exists between service providers and content providers instead of what the toll could be.

Seems one would directly address the other and without more government.

How is government the solution if it has already been demonstrated to be the problem?

Government is not even remotely the problem here. Government is the only thing that can protect society from these inhuman organizations, unless everyone gives up their internet, which isn't too likely.