California Net Neutrality bill passes senate 58-17 - Polidicks

however a smaller ISP could also be providing a luxury service, such as better internet, better customer service, greater availability, etc but net neutrality will impose strict rules upon them which require them to conform. this means they will likely die as adaptation of a small firm within a largely monopolised or expensive market is very difficult to conceive. therefore you miss out on those opportunities, average costs rise. the industrial revolution was most likely required for the advancement of our society, i can assure you that you would most likely not even have internet if it were not for industrial revolution. in order for us to grow first we must make sacrifice, this is what communism opposes. if we want internet providers to not suck then we must invest time, effort, money. it might take 20 years, or never happen, but the net outcome will be amazing. communism thinks we can guarantee such outcomes, this is what is ridiculous, you cannot just provide free healthcare and then expect people to live longer, they will still be stupid and eat mc donalds everyday. a monoply would be illegal within my conception of a free market, i agree with u to this extent. we must impose some boundaries because, if we cannot innovate then the market is therefore not free. so yes monopolies are to be avoided, ultimately i would like all roads to be privately owned by residents or firms such that they can be improved substantially. in new zealand we have shit public roads, shit traffic, shit public toliets. taking the bus is literally slower than walking to school and it isnt even subsidised for me as a student although its government funded... these big companies which control governments do exist, yes. infact they are able to operate outside of the law simply by changing their base of operations to another country or moving their factories entirely, e.g. to mexico, china etc. then they can cut not only labour costs but excuse themselves of horrible working conditions endured by such workers as chinese apple factory workers while in silicon valley they have 20 different resturants within apple hq alone. but you must understand the reason that these big companies abuse the system is because it is most profitable, if they didnt have to deal with such regulations like minimum wage, then they could operate cost effectively and grow naturally rather than be fueled by foreign investment, government subsidy and multinationalism. whether or not they are arbitrarily setting prices is irrelevant, every company sells goods for $9.99 rather than $10 although it has no effect on the cost nor profit. their business model is their business model, its not for anyone to decide but the business. if it is successful then the conditions of the market have facilitated its success, there cannot be revolutionary change via external influence because it will cause the market to crumple. the foreign aid of countries such as america to poor countries such as afircan nations does not work, the money either gets spend on guns or isnt capitalised appropriately by the recipients, it leads to distortion of the market which then causes it to fail. google "south africa microcredit" net neutrality does not bring added competition though. it deteriorates the market, it fuels those monopolies which u intend to cripple in the first place!

That sad thing is that I'm not even sure it's shitposting.

MansNotCold, I think you've actually caused me to lose braincells by your shitty ability to string words together to try and sound intelligent.

random exerts: “Application-agnostic” means not differentiating on the basis of source, destination, Internet content, application, service, or device, or class of Internet content, application, service, or device. this stems from two viewpoints businesses do not have the right to not sell product, an extreme viewpoint, very dumb yet frequent, e.g. sueing cake companies for not making a gay cake, what if i ordered a dragon dildo wielding furry? etc the business has a duty to sell its product, this comes down to ethnics much like 1. , except it is not discriminatory, however it is equally unfair toward the consumers and providers, this idea is the equivilent to removing names of CV / job applicants such as Jamal and Dave, with the intent to reduce racism. (hint: it doesnt reduce racism whatsoever, it merely manipulates) does this help us? i would argue no, it harms my liberty (5) Engaging in zero-rating in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party. i dont understand why this is criticised, as i have explained, there does not have to be a real cost to something in order for it to have value, the value is not calculated. only costs are calculated and therefore the value may be arbitrary as it is in its nature. what if i wanted to offer free internet except instead of usage, i taxed you based on the number of different sites you visited. how does this measure differ? is it really so unfair? (8) Failing to publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of those services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. this is strange for me to see, either america is far different to new zealand or this is a pointless part of this bill. because i would have thought that when you buy something you are of certain expectations of its performance, does america let you sell buckets of popcorn which only contain a single popcorn?

Don't do pol kids

That's the first true thing you've said.

Yeah, those who have joined in on a cult and are either too proud, or too stupid to admit it.

tell me the difference between imposing strict regulations on privately owned businesses such that they must coincide with the state and act same, and having an entirely state owned internet. then tell me the difference between net neutrality and communism. go for it

By your logic, the state getting involved in any regulations is communism, so laws against murder are communism and laws against incest?

Net Neutrality is saying AT&T or Cox or Time Warner or whatever the fuck company can't slow down your connection to a service, like Netflix, Google, Youtube, whatever, to make their own services more appealing because they're actually usable with your gimped connection, or if you want to ungimp your connection, pay this extra money to actually be able to use it. All Net Neutrality does is says data is data, it doesn't matter where it comes from, or where it goes, it has to be treated the same as every other bit of data flowing through your fiber/copper.

why not just make internet universal? why are u attacking private businesses for being so greedy? if they are so powerful, then why is this service even sold? dont you think we have the right to use internet?

What the fuck are you even trying to say here. These companies are powerful because what they are selling is one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure of the 21st century.

Its weird seeing a pol-bot here.

They're powerful because the internet is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the 21st century. By making internet universal you would also be "attacking private business" because now they're don't get to charge their outrageous prices for shitty service. You're either a really bad troll, or you need help.

my freedom is also quite important, however when u start solving the problem of 'power' by introducing additional regulation what you will see is merely a transition of power from the business owners to the state. im not a fan of the state controlling what i purchase because a politician is not qualified to operate internet systems. i would rather see the likes of power being given to me, so that i can either a: create a non shit internet service or b: purchase a non shit internet service. just because you force businesses to act a certain way doesnt mean they will improve their behavior, its still gonna be the same shitty firms. if this is the most critical piece of infrastructure, then why are you allowing it to be in the hands of people who are solely profit motivated? net neutrality is a poor idea which will solve one problem but has long term consequences.

We're not "allowing it to be in the hands of people who are solely profit motivated" because there are active fights to break the monopolistic industry and allow municipal ISPs which, aren't even legal in some places due to ISP meddling.

attacking private business? no? internet is required for me to function in society, it should be granted to me regardless of my economical status. much like how water and food is provided to homeless. so should internet. do private businesses sell water? yes, should they? yes because there exists something called land ownership which deems you resource endowment, and im willing to pay for this good. a free market is one which does not impend on my liberties or rights. this is your misconception. by your logic, slavery should exist because it allows the trading of human which are in fact capital goods. like ive said in numerous examples, net neutrality presents shit loads of problems for everyone. google what communism is.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with communism. And yes, considering most jobs require an internet connection to even apply, it should be treated as a utility. Guess what, power and water are utilities and therefore regulated by the state and you pay LESS as a result of that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXzEcwYs8Eo

for internet usage this is a fairly apt metaphor. many ISPs advertise using their max potential speed as opposed to what speed they will realistically be getting when other people's usage is considered. like, it might say gigabit on the tin but you only ever get 3mb down since everyone else is using the same pipes as you.

No.

Holy shit that escalated quickly.

Aaaand he's banned. Guess he was on the wrong side of history.

Well, I reported him when he said he was in the top 0.001% of intelligent humans. He's either a troll or insane at that point, so either way, I'm glad he's gone. Still, to go back to the topic of the thread - I sincerely hope the governor signs this bill, as Cali has had issues with governors fucking them over in the past. Does the 2/3 rule apply in state assemblies? By that, I mean, because the vote is more than 2/3 agree, surely that means the governor has no power to veto? I'm fairly clued up on American politics, but evidently not enough.

In California it's two thirds of all members of both chambers of the state legislature to override. Most state governors can do a line item veto, which is vetoing parts of a bill, which the President isn't allowed to do after a bill to let the President do it in 1996 and was voided by the supreme court two years later. California's governor can do a line item veto, which can be overruled same as a regular veto.