Businesses should be able to act in collusion with each other if they want. You have the option of starting your own ISP if you think you can provide a superior service. That said, if they were actually operating as a cartel in the United States, someone could get the FTC to crack down on them. They simply aren't colluding in some conspiracy to harm your ability to access content. All they want is to keep their networks running fast.
No actually I (or anyone else) don't have the option. By acting in collusion and forcing contracts that give them a cost advantage down customers throats they are putting others who want to provide fair services and dish out equal treatment to all their customers at a disadvantage. By acting in collusion they are using their monopoly to set a price which is lower than the costs of ISP's who want to operate fairly and indirectly forcing them into the same cartel. By giving me low access speeds on certain ports or blocking traffic to particular sites they ARE actually harming my ability to access the internet. Thats exactly what is happening, its just FCC instead of FTC.
How do they "force" contracts down someone's throat? A contract done under coercion is no contract at all. Nobody forces a person to agree to an ISP contract. The only way you would not get the business is if customers decided that your service was still a worse choice. If ISPs can offer a service which customers consider more attractive to themselves than your own service, what's your opposition to it? Obviously price collusion isn't that bad if you still can't give a better service when you don't join in with them. What you're really doing here is saying that you don't want to put in the effort of running your own business, so you'll just let men with guns force those who did show some effort, into giving you the service that you can't be bothered to provide for yourself. That is the essence of the government's passing of laws to interfere with contracts. You have no right to their networks in the first place--it's a privilege, obtained through a contract with them, which allows you to access their equipment under certain conditions in exchange for a fee. How are they in any way harming you if they have sold you the privilege of accessing that which they are entitled to completely exclude you from? If there were actually any price-fixing conspiracies, anybody could pursue them through the FTC. There simply isn't that kind of activity. It's a fantasy. ISPs have opposed net neutrality on operational grounds and not because they want to collude, which is something the FTC could deal with without the FCC stepping in. They simply can't give equal access to all applications regardless of their bandwidth usage without either seeing a slowing of their networks, or a rise in prices for their subscribers.
Helvetii thinks he/she has a variety of rights which are not rights. Free Internet, Free Health care, Free Education. Its a growing list without end. Next he'll want a free sex change operation, if he hasn't already got one. Not really surprising from a guy who actively advertises and brags about his ability to steal for a living. The amount of sack it takes to call theft a right is pretty sick.
Thanks man. Your warez and porn are slowing down my SSH sessions. This is why smart people invented QoS and why smart network operators use it. At least in the U.S., no one forces you to do business with an ISP -- yet. I'd love to see the warez scenesters make their own ISP's and pay for their own bandwidth for once. I can start an ISP if I want. Mia did it. I'm sorry to read that you're such a gimp that you can't. Would you like a tissue? Some protocols are more latency sensitive than other protocols. All traffic should not be treated equally. QoS and traffic shaping are mature technologies designed to maximize network performance. Your abuse of the network harms my use of the network and I'll be happy to see SSH traffic prioritized over warez traffic. Communists absolutely hate it when the owners of private property are allowed to maintain ownership and control of their own property.
To start whit this must be specified in your contact . If your contract guarantees that all your downloads will be performed at the speed specified in the contract and they restrict you then they are breaching the contract and you must sue . When it comes to cooperation this is a must between ISPs otherwise there would be no Internet and also no way to stop DDoS . I'm not that familiar whit IANA's rules but I'm pretty sure that that's what they're doing , otherwise they would be fined several billions . Ahh dude , you're trowing insults around quite easily . It's kind of silly to complain about someone satirizing you when you're swearing him . If you can't talk because you lack the linguistic skills then resume yourself to simple arguments . Or you miss Menj so much that you feel the need to emulate his glorious behavior ? Of course you have an a option . You have the option to refuse all their services . If you don't like Masserati , Ferrari or Lamborghini you don't have to buy a Italian supercar . As for them being unfair competition it it's down right differently abled to say that . It's like saying that all CPUs should have the same speed and price so you can enter the market . Again Internet service is product you purchase via a contract . Not constitutional right . On the same basis the power company discriminates me because i can't plug in a laser cutter in my workshops sockets . You want better speed and traffic buy a guaranteed connection . Competition is what drives progress . Lack of competition is lack of diversity and that is not the foundation of a modern society .
You are taking it too literally, when I said "force" I didn't mean they keep a gun on my head. I meant that they collude and only offer contracts with self-serving and discriminatory clauses which keep their costs low. NO one, can start a new ISP to provide a fair and equal service at competitive prices because well the competition is unfair. This is where we differ, I think its unfair, you think its not. I understand your argument but don't think you understand mine, yet. Let me share with you an analogy, since I am well learned on the history of Film industry, which has quite matured now and is arguably the most competitive industry, my analogy will be from there. Several decades back "The Big Six" - 6 film studios controlled what films you saw or even what films were made. How did they it? Well they owned all the theaters. They would decide what kind of film would be made, who would be the actors, all members of the pre to post production crew and send the prints to their own screens. If an actor or any other professional was not happy with them, he had no option but to leave. If one wanted to make his own film (which studio didn't like) and have it released it was impossible. Now people such as yourself would say well if you think you can make a better film then make it and go ahead a build/buy a whole network of theaters as well. This is stupid. They were an abusive artificial monopoly. IN 1948 US government brought an anti-trust case against them (United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131) and the supreme court ruled 7-1 in favor of studios giving up control of theaters to promote fair competition. They say it ended the golden age of Hollywood but today its a flourishing industry where normal people like you and me can make a nice film and have it screened right in the middle of LA right next to bankrupt MGM's HQ. Now back to the issue at hand, prevention of collusion of discriminating ISP's to harm competition of the ones that operate fairly will have the same revolutionary effect, even if it means ISP's have to change business practices and start to treat customers equally and give up some rights.
Last time I checked, the new internet law does not mention the word collusion, something we already have laws against. I appreciate your touching story about the movie industry, but since it has absolutely nothing to do with the new law, it was a waste of your time to post it. As far as the government dictating to businesses how they need to operate, and forcing anyone to give up rights, that is something most sane people are against.
The film studios were not an "artificial monopoly." Those arise out of government coercion, and not the choice of private enterprise. As far as I can tell, your argument is that studios that produced films like Casablanca and Citizen Kane needed the government to come in and order the film industry to allow superior films to be made. I don't buy it. Heaven forbid that a studio have artistic freedom. That's not "fair."
This discussion would not even be possible among moral men. "Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what’s moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral — they also violate private property. Here’s an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: “What’s wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!†If you take that position, isn’t it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person’s earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we’d deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people’s money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it’s still theft, but with an important difference: It’s legal, and participants aren’t jailed." — Dr. Walter E. Williams, The Morality of Economics. "The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not." — Friedrich Hayek "Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." — John Adams "No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong." — Walter Williams "Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race." — William Howard Taft "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark." — Walter Lippman "True capitalism is based upon one simple principle: that all exchanges of property are made with the voluntary consent of all parties. Private ownership of property and competition — the other two components of capitalism in most traditional definitions — are actually results of this foundational principle. As all governments are institutions of coercion, there is no way for them to acquire property through voluntary exchange. Further, with all exchanges being voluntary, sellers must by definition compete with one another in order to sell their products. So, the foundation of “capitalism†is really the non-aggression principle applied to property. Capitalism requires that no one’s property can be taken from them without their consent." — Tom Mullen "The true test of one’s commitment to liberty and private property rights doesn’t come when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we agree. The true test comes when we permit people to be free to do those voluntary things with which we disagree." — Walter Williams "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people." — St George Tucker "Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don’t have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government." — Walter Williams "Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." — Frederic Bastiat, The Law "If we consider that each person owns his own body and can acquire ownership of other things by creating them, or by having ownership transferred to him by another owner, it becomes at least formally possible to define “being left alone†and its opposite, “being coercedâ€. Someone who forcibly prevents me from using my property as I want, when I am not using it to violate his right to use his property, is coercing me. A man who prevents me from taking heroin coerces me; a man who prevents me from shooting him does not." — David Friedman "To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals …. is none the less robbery because it is …. called taxation." — US Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka (1874) "A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn’t produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That’s because, since there’s no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American." — Walter Williams "No man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session." — Mark Twain
Helvetii has no need for the words of those old fools. His wisdom and philosophy would probably be best summed up if he responded like this:
So we have a new member entering the contest for sprayed cups of coffee . Gratz man , i didn't loled so hard even when i played Santa .
According to the leftists, the only people who should have artistic freedom are taxpayer-funded and government-approved "artists".
I only need one artist as an example: http://www.canadacouncil.ca/prizes/...uncil/archives/prizes/ggvma/2004/kantor-e.asp
Right. They were like you, they bitched, continued to bitch, died bitching. People like me? We are always (in recent past) on the winning side. I'm sure there'd have been people like you back in 1940's saying, "ITS A RIGHT OF STUDIOS TO OWN THEATERS, YOU ARE STEALING THERE RIGHTS!!! ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY!! BLAH BLAH BLAH." Actually progressives such as me had their way in all branches of the government, executive, judiciary and legislative and snatched the so called "RIGHT" away from those studios. The people who complained are now dead. They never had their way and gladly now we have a more competitive, more fair and a more robust industry. This is what has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. FCC will have its way and ISP's will have to abide, by hook or by crook. For a better world. Now bitch more.
So many words to say what I had already predicted your response would be, and the short form suits you so much better. all ur ad$enz R mine! F3ar my l33t th3ft sKilz! I think I misspelled fear in web-punk. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it actually spelled "ph33r"?
As opposed to their contemporary opponents you side with who, as we all know, are still living. Remind me of how people's being dead on either side is an argument against them.