BF2S Forums Net Neutrality

Steve-0 wrote:

Jay wrote:

This is why AT&T is the largest mobile carrier.

who was the OG, the original telephone and telegraph provider? i'll give you a hint - it was not t-mobile, sprint or verizon.

the conglomerate (oh, how you must spooge over the word - every yacht club member must prove they are worthy by providing a sperm sample by spooging in a cup, don't deny - the very mention of the word "conglomerate"), America's work around, ne reach around for monopoly) that is AT&T [aMERICAN TELEPHONE AND tELEGRAPH] is the pride of unionism in America - THE biggest union of workers the world has ever known, is the American Telecom Union.

i hope your head 'splodes over this fact.

You know burnzz, hoping for a person's death doesn't exactly make you a nice person.

Steve-0 wrote:

wo man wrote:

You know burnzz, hoping for a person's death doesn't exactly make you a nice person.

i never claimed to be nice, or a yacht club member. AT&T once had a monopoly over the de facto communications industry in this country, and since Ma Bell lost a lot of weight, she became more attractive. you may think that fucking a fat bitch is like riding a moped ( it's fun, but you don't want your freinds seeing you doing it) but if AT&T still had a monopoly, you wouldn't be making any cheap phone calls from Upper Buttcrack, Wisconsin.

I was referring to you saying this

burnzz wrote:

i hope your head 'splodes over this fact.

The NSA helped. So what? Your government still sold you out. Just because we helped them doesn't absolve your government of responsibility.

My point was never about whether it was right or wrong when I posted my link. My point was that the complaining and indignation from from the European governments and people regarding our spying was either without merit or hypocritical. If you want to debate the excesses of the British intelligence I think you should find someone that cares.

It just keeps getting worse

FCC to propose new pay-for-preferential treatment rules

"An FCC chairman who previously worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry? He's bought and paid for by the cable companies and ISPs."

But but regulators always have the public ' s interest in mind. No business ever uses the government to write regulations to injure its rivals... MOAR REGULATIONS!!!!!

pirana6 wrote:

Because with less regulation companies have been known to play nice with each other?
What with no (few) rules, they'll all follow each of them closely but compete honestly?

Not saying more regulation is right, but less isn't either.

Regulation is a vehicle used by larger or better connected corporations to write laws in such a way that gives them an advantage over their competitors. An example from the engineering world is that I as the engineer specify the operating parameters of equipment. I can say I want machine X to do 1 and 2. Well, if only one company in the world can make a machine that performs function 2, even with an open lowest bid system I have effectively steered the work to that company. The same sort of thing happens with regulations. Company A has language inserted that requires all other companies to provide some service or other item that was up until then their own process. Why? Because it forces their competitors to retool and compete at a disadvantage because they lack the experience with the item. Regulations are more often than not configured like this, not the benign bullshit liberals believe.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Regulation is a vehicle used by larger or better connected corporations to write laws in such a way that gives them an advantage over their competitors. An example from the engineering world is that I as the engineer specify the operating parameters of equipment. I can say I want machine X to do 1 and 2. Well, if only one company in the world can make a machine that performs function 2, even with an open lowest bid system I have effectively steered the work to that company. The same sort of thing happens with regulations. Company A has language inserted that requires all other companies to provide some service or other item that was up until then their own process. Why? Because it forces their competitors to retool and compete at a disadvantage because they lack the experience with the item. Regulations are more often than not configured like this, not the benign bullshit liberals believe.

Some, not all.
Many regulations really are there for the common good.

Those that are not written to directly benefit an entity are more often than not just a tool for one to impose their version of morality on others.

Dilbert_X wrote:

We shouldn't have lead in petrol

yeah but it's only to the benefit of companies who can produce lead free petrol economically duh.

The issue isn't that the concept of regulation is bad, it can and does work fine.

The problem is that your laughable 'democratic system' delivers corrupt imbeciles into the legislature.
Here is why: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The problem is that your laughable 'democratic system' delivers corrupt imbeciles into the legislature.

"their" laughable system? any system that tries (or pretends) to combine democracy and capitalism results in that crap. there's no way around that.

Any mix of politicians and business is just asking for corruption. It's one of the myriad reasons command economies are inefficient failures that do more harm than good.