Net neutrallity: needs help

[Zcrab]

13 hours ago, Apo said:

 

It is not easy/cheap to move to these areas. It can be a long and expensive legal battle to roll coverage out to an area. (see Comcast/AT&T lawsuits Re: Google Fiber)

There may be potential for competition in larger cities, but people living in rural areas are often SOL. Not many ISP's will want to build out to a smaller city, because the profit just isn't there. The expansion costs would be too high for the small amount of potential profit.

Since nobody will build out there, the 1 ISP in the area can just screw people over, and not having to worry about people switching to another provider.

The only way for those people to get an alternative would be to use a satellite provider, (trash speed/latency, connectivity issues) or a home internet solution from a cell phone carrier, such as a hotspot device. ([not available in every area] unreliable speeds/latency, potential connectivity issues, may have to worry about data caps, or potentially get kicked off the network for no good reason)

 

8 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

With large costs & time, it's not as easy for another ISP to move in. By the time you're ready, will your compeditor still be screwing over customers; will enough customers switch and will you be able to charge them enough to cover the large costs you made to get there?

 

Not to mention, the problem is two-fold. At the one hand ISPs can screw over customers, they can also provide unfair competition for companies:

- Webshops needs to pay ISP to get in the fastlane

- ISP owned Webshop follows the same rules (as it's net neutral)  ... except obviously it's paying to itself - meaning, it actually gets the fast lane for free.

 

 

Which is why both companies & consumers are in favor of the rules: it's a nice example of the  libertarian view working: With little to no barriers the best sites get the customer, and the customers get the best sites.
Very people remember this, but the reason google got so big, is because, it was one of the first search engines that had the "Did you mean X" function when you made a typo. Other  search engines were searching the wrongly spelled word. Microsoft's Bing has spend years trying to get a piece of the pie, but as it provides little to no additional benefits, it has a very hard time snooping away customers.

 

What about the big cities though? If you live in an area with a large population there surely must be multiple ISP's to choose from, right? In these places nothing should change for the reasons I stated earlier. If you claim that the ISP's won't move out to areas with a smaller population, then why would they change their services just for those areas? Sure they'd make a little bit of profit from it, but is it anything noticeble?

 

Besides, the consumer may also choose their ISP from what they know about the company. Purposely making their serivce more expensive in a place where they hold a monopoly will get noticed, and might hurt their buisness.

[michael-]

On 12/27/2017 at 8:06 AM, Zcrab said:

 

 

I was not aware that Americans have so few options. Although, if one ISP starts to abuse the power they've got now that NN is gone, it would be easy for another ISP to move in, provide a neutral service and steal customers. Charging people more for certain services could easily backfire.

 

unfortunately, they're all on the same page. not to mention, they're monopolized as in one isp TOTALLY CONTROLS an area (e.g. my area only has access to comcast, verizon isn't available). i don't know why this is; seems to be one of those "loophole monopolies." besides, they would all rather increase prices and make more together in evil harmony than try taking arbitrary suburbs and such from each other.

 

 

What about the big cities though? If you live in an area with a large population there surely must be multiple ISP's to choose from, right? In these places nothing should change for the reasons I stated earlier. If you claim that the ISP's won't move out to areas with a smaller population, then why would they change their services just for those areas? Sure they'd make a little bit of profit from it, but is it anything noticeble?

 

Besides, the consumer may also choose their ISP from what they know about the company. Purposely making their serivce more expensive in a place where they hold a monopoly will get noticed, and might hurt their buisness.

 

i live in a big city, only one isp.

[Zcrab]

2 hours ago, michael- said:

 

unfortunately, they're all on the same page. not to mention, they're monopolized as in one isp TOTALLY CONTROLS an area (e.g. my area only has access to comcast, verizon isn't available). i don't know why this is; seems to be one of those "loophole monopolies." besides, they would all rather increase prices and make more together in evil harmony than try taking arbitrary suburbs and such from each other.

 

 

i live in a big city, only one isp.

 

If this is true, then America truly is fucked.

[MrDeepDarkmind]

wait till they sneak it in to Euro 

[michael-]

4 hours ago, Zcrab said:

 

If this is true, then America truly is fucked.

 

if our president wasn't already enough of a teller

 

yeah we're pretty boned

[Apo]

4 hours ago, Zcrab said:

 

If this is true, then America truly is fucked.

Watch 7:13 to ~8:30 (Same vid Hyperqube posted)

 

[diamond_boots]

On 12/28/2017 at 12:37 PM, Zcrab said:

 

 

What about the big cities though? If you live in an area with a large population there surely must be multiple ISP's to choose from, right? In these places nothing should change for the reasons I stated earlier. If you claim that the ISP's won't move out to areas with a smaller population, then why would they change their services just for those areas? Sure they'd make a little bit of profit from it, but is it anything noticeble?

 

Besides, the consumer may also choose their ISP from what they know about the company. Purposely making their serivce more expensive in a place where they hold a monopoly will get noticed, and might hurt their buisness.

 

Just to give you a comparison, my grandparents live in rural Ohio. Prior to net neutrality being repealed their 50 kb/s internet + phone plan cost them $30 per month. After the repeal, it immediately went up to $90 per month, no change in the actual service they receive at all. Wish I knew who their service provider is so I could give them a piece of my mind, but they won't tell me because they think it's none of my business (which, admittedly, it isn't really).

 

Just a single example, so take it as such, but worrying if it's part of a larger trend.

[Keroro1454]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:13 AM, Hyperqube said:

With large costs & time, it's not as easy for another ISP to move in. By the time you're ready, will your compeditor still be screwing over customers; will enough customers switch and will you be able to charge them enough to cover the large costs you made to get there?

 

Not to mention, the problem is two-fold. At the one hand ISPs can screw over customers, they can also provide unfair competition for companies:

- Webshops needs to pay ISP to get in the fastlane

- ISP owned Webshop follows the same rules (as it's net neutral)  ... except obviously it's paying to itself - meaning, it actually gets the fast lane for free.

 

 

Which is why both companies & consumers are in favor of the rules: it's a nice example of the  libertarian view working: With little to no barriers the best sites get the customer, and the customers get the best sites.
Very people remember this, but the reason google got so big, is because, it was one of the first search engines that had the "Did you mean X" function when you made a typo. Other  search engines were searching the wrongly spelled word. Microsoft's Bing has spend years trying to get a piece of the pie, but as it provides little to no additional benefits, it has a very hard time snooping away customers.

 

Um...seriously? You are aware libertarians are by definition against most government involvement in the economy and proponents of the free market, correct? How can you then say that the 2015 Bill which:
- Arbitrarily applied a government distinction to a market (Just so said government could avoid having to pass a bill and instead exploit a loophole in a court ruling)

- Clamps down significant regulation on the internet provider market such that the market equilibrium is thrown out of wack and internet providers are able to strengthen their already-unnatural monopolies and duopolies in order to inappropriately maintain economic profits in the long run?

is an example of libertarian thinking??? Libertarians support government involvement in areas where the market has failed- the government exacerbating a failure of the market is like a nightmare come true for a libertarian. 

 

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your Google example. The Google search engine holding a near-absolute monopoly on the search engine market is a pretty complex example but it can more or less be boiled down to a monopoly by network externality. Search engines aren't a perfect competition or monopolistic competition market, and you seem to be under the impression internet provision is one of those market types as well. But neither search engines nor internet providers act in those market types, they act in a monopoly and oligopoly (ideally) respectively.

 

On 12/29/2017 at 12:22 AM, Apo said:

Watch 7:13 to ~8:30 (Same vid Hyperqube posted)

 

What John Oliver isn't discussing is the fact that internet providers having this control is a long-standing issue. This issue normally stems from a single source, but the 2015 bill essentially added another layer of government enforcement to allow these monopolies and duopolies to exist. The "normal" source is from issues of municipalities fighting (and winning) for control rather than the FCC, control they are abusing to allow these unnatural monopolies and duopolies to exist.

 

Amusingly, his quip that "you could not describe a monopoly more accurately" is fundamentally incorrect. What he actually just described was a sub-form of a oligopoly, a cartel, which is an oligopoly in which firms are able to collude. In this case, we run into a big issue- collusion is very much so illegal in the US. So the fact these companies are being so open about this supposed collusion means either one of two things. Either a ) They're complete idiots or b ) They're not technically colluding, they're simply not competing with each other.

 

And thus we reveal the actual issue at hand- these companies should be competing as a regulated oligopoly, yet they're able to exist as monopolies and duopolies. Basic microeconomics tells us that shouldn't be- if an oligopoly is regulated to prevent collusion, then competitors should enter if there is an economic profit to be obtained, with as many competitors joining as possible until market equilibrium is reached and economic profit is 0. So what could be preventing the market from behaving as it should? Could it be, perhaps, that the government is involving itself such that the markets are unnaturally kept from reaching this equilibrium via new competitors? Perhaps state governments, whose fights over municipalities are a long-running issue, and maybe this issue has only been exacerbated by the federal government throwing it's hat into the ring with the harmful 2015 bill?

 

Hyperqube, you're not actually explaining either of your arguments. You're bouncing from "the 2015 bill is economically beneficial" to "the 2015 bill saves net neutrality" without explaining a ) How in the world it does either or b ) Refuting evidence and explanations based on basic market principles that I've provided that seem to indicate your arguments are not only not true together, but not true individually either.

 

(And don't get me wrong, I find Mr. Oliver quite funny most of the time.)

[Horsestepping]

On 12/15/2017 at 12:51 AM, Hyperqube said:

I suggest googling "John Oliver Net neutrality" as I think he explains it well 

 

 

[Hyperqube]

6 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

is an example of libertarian thinking???

 

Because there are two aspects of the discussion: internet as a thing provided by the ISPs - and internet as cyberspace for corporations like google, facebook, etc ...

the libertarianism school of thought is not limited to "goverment" - but to that of a govermning body.
As such, an internet where the ISP is forbidden to mess with cyberspace is almost textbook libertarianism: a site needs to get strong on it's own, without help or oppositition of a govermning body (namely the ISPs). Superior sites will flourish, Inferior ones will melt away.

 

Google got big because it was a far supperior site then it's compeditors. in a net neutral place, Google will only be able to keep it's monopoly if it's able to remain superior to it's compeditors.
Oppositely, now, an ISP can use zero practice to give it's own inferior site a leg up (= anti-libertarian)

 

 

6 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

Hyperqube, you're not actually explaining either of your arguments.

I'm not? Odd, because it's not really diffictult, and I do explain it here:

• posted by you:
  
  Hell, I don't care if the world's most respected economist "said something".

  ...

  Now I'm not saying I'm "competent" in the legal field or the economics field. But I have bothered to research the issue, present my research and findings, and then cite all my claims.

• Reply:
  
  Yeah, you see ... that's stupid. In the real world, credibility is proportional to the chance you're right. (pretty much why there's such a concept of credibility)
  
  When you're saying " Now I'm not saying I'm "competent" in the legal field or the economics field. " Perhaps you should try and understand why people who ARE compentent in the legal & economcal field, come to a different conclusion then you do,
  
  You're asking us to trust you, while you admit not being at home in legal & economcal fields, and you have no decent explenation why credibile, competent, people reach the opposite conclusion.
  
  Do you grasp how utterly mental that is?

 

My argument is that credible, competent  people will have a far better grasp on it then you, and thus have a significantly larger chance of being correct. Do you disagree with that?

My argument is that when someone with a far better grasp on it then you comes to a different conclusion, It's common sense to either default to "considering they are more competent, I'm probbably missing something", or spot what you're doing different, and say "no no, I'm right - they didn't take into account X & Y". Do you disagree with that?

 

My argument is simple: You yourself questioned your own competence. And you've presented nothing to trust your word over that of credible economists.

 

 

... why do you yourself even believe what you claim is right? because you spend a couple of hours looking up stuff?

[Keroro1454]

10 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

My argument is that credible, competent  people will have a far better grasp on it then you, and thus have a significantly larger chance of being correct. Do you disagree with that?

My argument is that when someone with a far better grasp on it then you comes to a different conclusion, It's common sense to either default to "considering they are more competent, I'm probbably missing something", or spot what you're doing different, and say "no no, I'm right - they didn't take into account X & Y". Do you disagree with that?

 

My argument is simple: You yourself questioned your own competence. And you've presented nothing to trust your word over that of credible economists.

 

 

... why do you yourself even believe what you claim is right? because you spend a couple of hours looking up stuff?

 

Give me the argument of these "credible economists" then. That is literally all I'm asking you to do, since your argument is by your own admission these "competent professionals". Give me their argument, so I can address said argument. If you just say "You're disagreeing with the OPINION of these people and therefore you are wrong", YOU ARE NOT PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT EVEN THROUGH THE MEANS OF PARROTING SOMEONE ELSE. Either give me an argument to break down or stop insulting my competency because I don't agree with you.

 

And John Oliver is not a seasoned economist, he is an English major. He is an entertainer, and not someone who I would ever dream of regarding as a professional in the legal or economic fields, regardless of how digestible or amusingly he presents his political material.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Don't post in all caps.

[Hyperqube]

13 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

 

Give me the argument of these "credible economists" then.
...

And John Oliver is not a seasoned economist, he is an English major. He is an entertainer, and not someone who I would ever dream of regarding as a professional in the >legal or economic fields, regardless of how digestible or amusingly he presents his political material.

Oh - all bold. <sarcasm>THAT'S better</sarcasm>.

Yeah - see, you immediately shoot yourself in the foot here. Why should I do that? In the same post you ask it, you prove yourself you got no intrest whatsoever to adress their points - but to attack them.

How about YOU find a credible economist who disagrees with you. That way we can skip the entire

• Economist A says X
• Economist A is hack!!!
• OK, Economist B says the same thing
• Economist B kicked akitten once !
• OK, Economist C
  ...

Appendum: Oh, and FYI, John's an entertainer yes. Funny how you happely disregard the fact that he does have an etire team behind him researching his stories. Instead of attacking John, how about you start to explain why we should believe you when a team of researchers came to a different conclusion you did?
John's only puts his teams finding into bite-sized (debatably*) funny, easily processable chunks.

* haters gonna hate

[neemo]

On 06/01/2018 at 2:18 PM, Keroro1454 said:

- snip -

I think my issue with your argument is that it seems that you're following economic theory too strongly when those economic theories are based on unrealistic assumptions or only occurs in unrealistic events.

 

With regards to market structures, as mentioned earlier, vast majority of the US population have access to 2 or less broadband providers in which quite a large proportion only have access to 1. As mentioned in the John Oliver video, those ISP's operate in specific states avoiding competition. If there's only access to 1 ISP in a state or city, is that not a monopoly on a state/city level? Monopolies by nature are inefficient and aim to charge the highest possible price that maximises profit. Even with 2 ISP's, it's still a duopoly. From what I recall, oligopolies generate 0 economic profit under the assumption that they compete fiercely as if it was a perfect competition which is highly unrealistic (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/)

 

"They're not technically colluding, they're simply not competing with each other." - Exactly, they're not competing with each other meaning that they will still generate supernormal profit in the long run. Even if they don't collude, it's unreasonable to assume that they would compete heavily with each other regardless of any Government intervention put into place given that they are simply anti-competitive. They don't want to compete against each other as they know it isn't beneficial for either party. This has led to US consumers paying one of the highest prices in the world for internet (https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/8321437/maps-show-why-internet-is-more-expensive-us-europe-competition)

 

"if an oligopoly is regulated to prevent collusion, then competitors should enter if there is an economic profit to be obtained, with as many competitors joining as possible until market equilibrium is reached and economic profit is 0" - You're ignoring a huge problem with the market and oligopolies which is the issue of extremely high barriers to entry. You're essentially assuming that anyone would be able to set up their own fiber internet, poles, wires, etc. and compete against billion dollar corporations. The theory that sellers enter the market mainly applies to monopolistic competition and perfect competition which is obviously the case here. AT&T and Comcast even sued cities who wanted to impose policies to encourage competition and allow Google Fiber to enter. While it appears that Louisville (one of the sued cities) actually recently won the lawsuit, this simply adds additional barriers to the existing barriers to entry of the infrastructure required (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-admits-defeat-in-lawsuit-it-filed-to-stall-google-fiber/). The market is simply anti-competitive by nature, the equilibrium of 0 economic profit is unrealistic. The lack of competition is a form of market failure in itself. Although I agree that some Government regulations would interfere, I find it hard to believe that in the absence of these Government regulations, the corporations will compete strongly.

 

Government intervention in the market is absolutely necessary because it prevents these massive corporations with huge market power from screwing consumers even more. Personally, I feel that net neutrality is important in preventing these ISP's from screwing consumers even more, at least until competition is strengthened or replaced with better policies that might, for example, discourage anti-consumer behaviour while encouraging competition. These firms have a history of throttling or blocking certain sites/apps for their own benefit (Netflix throttled, Google Wallet blocked as it competed with their own wallet app), essentially gaining larger market power. Repealing net neutrality only encourages anti-consumer and competitive behaviour (throttle competing sites/companies, charging for fast lanes, censorship). The Government needs to find a way to create strong and healthy competition in the market by allowing newer competitors to enter by somehow reducing barriers. I have no idea how they might do that, but the market in it's current state is clearly inefficient and far from healthy, and will continue to be this way until there's firms actually competing. As others have mentioned, net neutrality wouldn't matter if competition was healthy, since customers can switch to superior companies, but unfortunately most don't have the option to switch (or can only switch to another bad ISP). It's so bad that ISP's ranked the lowest in customer satisfaction amongst all other industries (http://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2017/press-release-telecommunications-2017)

 

Edit: I should probably make it clearer, I think net neutrality is currently a necessary bandaid to the much larger problem of a lack of competition. I do believe the Government messed up and plays a part in the awful lack of competition but not entirely. They really do need to encourage competition so that each consumer has access to multiple ISP's.

[Hyperqube]

30 minutes ago, Asce said:

It's so bad that ISP's ranked the lowest in customer satisfaction amongst all other industries (http://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2017/press-release-telecommunications-2017)

it's so for a long time. even in 2014, it was ranked under GM's even after a malfunction airbags came to light they knew about for over a decade - causing it to be held responsable for 124 deaths, and having to recall nearly 30 million cars.

That's what John Oliver was refering to when he noted "... And sure GM tried to kill me, but Time Warner & Commcast are the worst"

 

 

... but hey, as the material is presented in a lighthearted comprehenable way by a british comedian, his comments on how it's baiscally a monopoly can just be laughed away with

• Amusingly, his quip that "you could not describe a monopoly more accurately" is fundamentally incorrect

Opposite to actually adressing the underlying problems he adresses.

[Keroro1454]

On 1/7/2018 at 5:35 AM, Asce said:

I think my issue with your argument is that it seems that you're following economic theory too strongly when those economic theories are based on unrealistic assumptions or only occurs in unrealistic events.

 

My focus was on the economics on the topic right now because people were discussing the economics of the issue. Market types aren't exactly unrealistic economic "theories", they're a pretty standard understanding in economics that doesn't require leaps of faith or hypotheticals, excluding of course perfect competition markets, but they are explicitly acknowledged to be mostly impossible (Though you can certainly get close with markets like agriculture, assuming government intervention is not a factor). And economics are without a doubt the most important thing to follow in this issue, because economics when ensured that they are presented in an unbiased, complete way are going to clear confusion surrounding an issue with the sheer bluntness of numbers. You can then delve into the greater complexities of an issue, but economics are crucial for explaining the basics at the very least. This is of course coming from an economics major so maybe I'm just desperately justifying my choice in major xp

 

On 1/7/2018 at 5:35 AM, Asce said:

With regards to market structures, as mentioned earlier, vast majority of the US population have access to 2 or less broadband providers in which quite a large proportion only have access to 1. As mentioned in the John Oliver video, those ISP's operate in specific states avoiding competition. If there's only access to 1 ISP in a state or city, is that not a monopoly on a state/city level? Monopolies by nature are inefficient and aim to charge the highest possible price that maximises profit. Even with 2 ISP's, it's still a duopoly. From what I recall, oligopolies generate 0 economic profit under the assumption that they compete fiercely as if it was a perfect competition which is highly unrealistic (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/)

 

Most of what you discuss is an issue with state and municipality sovereignty preventing the FCC from fixing these market imbalances said state and municipality regulations create. As I noted with the example of Tennessee et. al. v. FCC et. al. the 2015 bill did not grant the FCC the ability to override this sovereignty, so discussing this aspect is moot. Essentially, the 2015 bill exacerbated this issue by making it even harder for new firms to enter into markets, thus compounding issues state/municipality sovereignty was creating in the first place.

 

Your definition of monopolies is correct, though I should re-iterate that technically some monopolies are "okay", like patent monopolies or natural monopolies. However, your definition of oligopolies is off- an Oligopoly is simply a market that has barriers to enter and thus a few firms. The product said firms create can be identical or differentiated. Oligopolies generate 0 economic profit under the assumption that collusion is prevented, not that they "compete fiercely".
 

Additionally, your understanding of a perfect competition market is flawed. A perfect competition market does not refer to a market in which firms are "competing fiercely", but that the competition is literally perfect- there are no barriers to entry (firms can enter or leave at will), there are an theoretical infinite number of potential firms, and products are identical. Oligopolies thus can never strive to be a perfect competition market (or a monopolistic competition market) because oligopolies have barriers to entry, and are the only of the 4 market types that both have barriers and naturally gravitate towards 0 economic profit.

On 1/7/2018 at 5:35 AM, Asce said:

"if an oligopoly is regulated to prevent collusion, then competitors should enter if there is an economic profit to be obtained, with as many competitors joining as possible until market equilibrium is reached and economic profit is 0" - You're ignoring a huge problem with the market and oligopolies which is the issue of extremely high barriers to entry. You're essentially assuming that anyone would be able to set up their own fiber internet, poles, wires, etc. and compete against billion dollar corporations. The theory that sellers enter the market mainly applies to monopolistic competition and perfect competition which is obviously the case here. AT&T and Comcast even sued cities who wanted to impose policies to encourage competition and allow Google Fiber to enter. While it appears that Louisville (one of the sued cities) actually recently won the lawsuit, this simply adds additional barriers to the existing barriers to entry of the infrastructure required (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-admits-defeat-in-lawsuit-it-filed-to-stall-google-fiber/). The market is simply anti-competitive by nature, the equilibrium of 0 economic profit is unrealistic. The lack of competition is a form of market failure in itself. Although I agree that some Government regulations would interfere, I find it hard to believe that in the absence of these Government regulations, the corporations will compete strongly.

 

I'm not ignoring barriers to entry. In fact, I've repeatedly stressed that there are barriers to entry in oligopolies, and that this is what makes them a unique market. However, I have also gone to great lengths to emphasize the fact that broadband service is not a natural monopoly, which is what you are hinting at by expressing doubt that firms can enter. I have not said that anyone could enter these markets- oligopolies typically have a high barrier to entry- but neither would I say no one could feasibly enter. 

 

There is no "theory that sellers enter the market". That is how economics work, it is the fundamental principle of supply and demand. If demand outpaces supply, then in the long-run the firms in the market adjust their economy of scale to meet the new demand, or new firms enter because economic profit is greater than zero. This is not a matter that is up for debate, it is not a theoretical idea, it is supply and demand at its core.

 

Oligopolies are indeed anti-competitive by nature. I have agreed on this point repeatedly, but you cannot argue that because the market is anti-competitive in nature = 0 economic profit is unrealistic. As I have repeatedly stressed, governments must intervene to prevent collusion, which is how oligopolies maintain an economic profit above zero (and are subsequently classified as "cartels").

 

Here, we agree. Overreach by the government will interfere in the markets, there is no disagreement from me on this point. My argument is that the 2015 bill is that exact kind of overreach- it clearly has not successfully prevented collusion, on the contrary it has simply made collusion easier by making the barriers of entry abnormally high (And as we have already both noted, these barriers are already very high by nature).

 

On 1/7/2018 at 5:35 AM, Asce said:

"if an oligopoly is regulated to prevent collusion, then competitors should enter if there is an economic profit to be obtained, with as many competitors joining as possible until market equilibrium is reached and economic profit is 0" - You're ignoring a huge problem with the market and oligopolies which is the issue of extremely high barriers to entry. You're e

Government intervention in the market is absolutely necessary because it prevents these massive corporations with huge market power from screwing consumers even more. Personally, I feel that net neutrality is important in preventing these ISP's from screwing consumers even more, at least until competition is strengthened or replaced with better policies that might, for example, discourage anti-consumer behaviour while encouraging competition. These firms have a history of throttling or blocking certain sites/apps for their own benefit (Netflix throttled, Google Wallet blocked as it competed with their own wallet app), essentially gaining larger market power. Repealing net neutrality only encourages anti-consumer and competitive behaviour (throttle competing sites/companies, charging for fast lanes, censorship). The Government needs to find a way to create strong and healthy competition in the market by allowing newer competitors to enter by somehow reducing barriers. I have no idea how they might do that, but the market in it's current state is clearly inefficient and far from healthy, and will continue to be this way until there's firms actually competing. As others have mentioned, net neutrality wouldn't matter if competition was healthy, since customers can switch to superior companies, but unfortunately most don't have the option to switch (or can only switch to another bad ISP). It's so bad that ISP's ranked the lowest in customer satisfaction amongst all other industries (http://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2017/press-release-telecommunications-2017

 

As noted above, I completely agree that some government regulation is needed. I believe that the government should intervene in the failures of the market, and oligopolies by nature have a fundamental failing in that collusion is normally permissible and creates an unnatural market.

 

However, you're conflating two issues here. Net neutrality is the idea that the internet should be unrestricted, and this whole time we've been discussing a wildly different issue in the form of unnatural monopolies that companies have. Let's re-iterate, the 2015 bill is not net neutrality. It is a loophole that allows the FCC to enforce their 2010 OIO. There is no net neutrality law, and even if there was a net neutrality law would not address the issue of collusion, nor the issue of state regulations creating artificial monopolies/duopolies. The 2015 bill exacerbated the issue of firms being able to collude we've discussed, and largely did not protect "net neutrality" because of its convoluted and backdoor-ish nature.

 

These companies actually have a history of failing to throttle if you look closely. Every time they have attempted to, the market responded negatively so severely (And impressively given as we have noted many people are stuck in monopolies or duopolies) that the company backtracked. This is an example of the market elasticity being extremely high in regards to bundle pricing, and companies have taken note...by just jacking up the overall price, which doesn't warrant the same backlash and still makes them money.

 

Amusingly, I think we may actually agree here on most things, I suspect you're just saying it in slightly distorted terms. Let me know if this sounds about right:

- The 2015 bill is flawed and hurts the market without really accomplishing it's (noble) goal

- The market is currently unhealthy because the government is not doing the job it should be doing, which is preventing collusion, because the market is an oligopoly

- The market is currently unhealthy because state/municipality sovereignty is preventing the government from doing its aformentioned job

- Net Neutrality is good, but is not being executed correctly

- The markets should have the government fixing the issue of collusion without overreaching and stifling the markets

 

Those points seem to be more or less what you want, at least from what I've gathered from your post. That's actually exactly what I'm arguing! Hopefully my response clarified that and maybe helped clarify your own argument a bit. If not, at the very least I appreciate you presenting me with an actual argument, sources and all! On that note,

 

On 1/7/2018 at 3:16 AM, Hyperqube said:

How about YOU find a credible economist who disagrees with you.

 

I'm honestly speechless. Truly, I can't believe what you're responding to me with. Did you actually, and it frankly hurts me to have to ask this, tell me to go debate myself for you?

 

What. What. What. What. WHAT.

 

No, I'm not going to find sources for you, then create an argument based on those sources for you, then debate my own counter-argument with my original argument. I honestly can't even comprehend that you asked me to do this, so I'm going to consider any further discussion from you on the topic (and frankly any topic if this is honestly how you believe a discussion or argument works) lacking any substance.

 

Seriously though I can't get over this. It's actually really funny.

[neemo]

Honestly, now that I reread my comment when I'm wide awake, it does seem like a mess lol. I think I tried to 'fix' it with that mini edit at the end but yeah, I don't think worked out well so I'll probably try and make this one clearer. I should clarify that I wasn't necessarily arguing against your stance, but I did disagree with a few of your points and also agreed with some.

 

6 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

My focus was on the economics on the topic right now because people were discussing the economics of the issue. Market types aren't exactly unrealistic economic "theories", they're a pretty standard understanding in economics that doesn't require leaps of faith or hypotheticals, excluding of course perfect competition markets, but they are explicitly acknowledged to be mostly impossible (Though you can certainly get close with markets like agriculture, assuming government intervention is not a factor). And economics are without a doubt the most important thing to follow in this issue, because economics when ensured that they are presented in an unbiased, complete way are going to clear confusion surrounding an issue with the sheer bluntness of numbers. You can then delve into the greater complexities of an issue, but economics are crucial for explaining the basics at the very least. This is of course coming from an economics major so maybe I'm just desperately justifying my choice in major xp

Yeah, ever since I started studying economics, I was surprised at how relevant economics is to the world. I definitely agree economics is necessary in this issue, though I'd like to clarify that the unrealistic economic theories I was talking about wasn't referring to market types (since as you said, pretty much only the perfect competition is mostly unrealistic) but rather the other theories such as long run equilibrium of 0 economic profit.

 

Quote

Most of what you discuss is an issue with state and municipality sovereignty preventing the FCC from fixing these market imbalances said state and municipality regulations create. As I noted with the example of Tennessee et. al. v. FCC et. al. the 2015 bill did not grant the FCC the ability to override this sovereignty, so discussing this aspect is moot. Essentially, the 2015 bill exacerbated this issue by making it even harder for new firms to enter into markets, thus compounding issues state/municipality sovereignty was creating in the first place.

As a non-american non-lawyer, I admit defeat here because I have no desire to actually research this part ;_;

If this is actually true (props for the research btw), then yeah rip. I will comment that it's unlikely firms would have entered regardless of the 2015 bill though, which I'll comment on later.

 

Quote

Your definition of monopolies is correct, though I should re-iterate that technically some monopolies are "okay", like patent monopolies or natural monopolies. However, your definition of oligopolies is off- an Oligopoly is simply a market that has barriers to enter and thus a few firms. The product said firms create can be identical or differentiated. Oligopolies generate 0 economic profit under the assumption that collusion is prevented, not that they "compete fiercely".

 

Additionally, your understanding of a perfect competition market is flawed. A perfect competition market does not refer to a market in which firms are "competing fiercely", but that the competition is literally perfect- there are no barriers to entry (firms can enter or leave at will), there are an theoretical infinite number of potential firms, and products are identical. Oligopolies thus can never strive to be a perfect competition market (or a monopolistic competition market) because oligopolies have barriers to entry, and are the only of the 4 market types that both have barriers and naturally gravitate towards 0 economic profit.

I find this strange because I learnt differently, though I recall my lecturer stating that there are different types of oligopolies which is likely why we have differing views of oligopolies. I wasn't meaning that a perfect competition is one where firms compete fiercely, but it's still a characteristic of it. It's so perfect and fierce that firms compete only on price, and raising it higher than other firms leads to 0 sales as there is a perfectly elastic demand. I recall explicitly learning that 0 economic profit comes from barriers to entry which is why oligopolies tend to have long run economic profit. If you consider how perfect and monopolistic competitions reach long-run equilibrium (increase in supply as firms can enter easily, decrease in price, decrease in revenue until it equals costs), oligopolies don't have this mechanism because it's not easy to enter.

 

Quote

I'm not ignoring barriers to entry. In fact, I've repeatedly stressed that there are barriers to entry in oligopolies, and that this is what makes them a unique market. However, I have also gone to great lengths to emphasize the fact that broadband service is not a natural monopoly, which is what you are hinting at by expressing doubt that firms can enter. I have not said that anyone could enter these markets- oligopolies typically have a high barrier to entry- but neither would I say no one could feasibly enter. 

 

There is no "theory that sellers enter the market". That is how economics work, it is the fundamental principle of supply and demand. If demand outpaces supply, then in the long-run the firms in the market adjust their economy of scale to meet the new demand, or new firms enter because economic profit is greater than zero. This is not a matter that is up for debate, it is not a theoretical idea, it is supply and demand at its core.

 

Oligopolies are indeed anti-competitive by nature. I have agreed on this point repeatedly, but you cannot argue that because the market is anti-competitive in nature = 0 economic profit is unrealistic. As I have repeatedly stressed, governments must intervene to prevent collusion, which is how oligopolies maintain an economic profit above zero (and are subsequently classified as "cartels").

I'm still referring to oligopolies rather than natural monopolies. I don't think I explicitly mentioned that no one could enter, though if I did woops, but barriers are enormous. The average joe can't enter this market, pretty much only large, established corporations have a chance (likely costs billions to even have a chance or a decent presence considering Comcast/AT&T are worth over $200 billion each) which ultimately prevents supply from increasing much. This is why I think it's theory or up to debate. Because in reality, firms won't enter this market even with positive economic profit. They simply can't afford to. 

 

This is also why I believe 0 economic profit is unrealistic. If you think about it, even if oligopolies don't collude, as long as they're not competing, there's still nothing stopping them from charging high prices which is why I mentioned they have to compete fiercely or prices won't be driven down to the point of 0 economic profit. Even if you make the unrealistic assumption that if, for example, oligopolists had the same costs as a perfect competition, this means to make 0 economic profit in the long run, the oligopolists must price the goods at the same price that the perfect competition would which is absolutely unrealistic unless they actually competed fiercely (by continuously undercutting each other) which is not achieved by preventing collusion alone. They will charge high prices if they can and will continue to charge high prices in the long run. Could you explain exactly how oligopolies can have 0 economic profit merely by preventing collusion alone?

 

Quote

Here, we agree. Overreach by the government will interfere in the markets, there is no disagreement from me on this point. My argument is that the 2015 bill is that exact kind of overreach- it clearly has not successfully prevented collusion, on the contrary it has simply made collusion easier by making the barriers of entry abnormally high (And as we have already both noted, these barriers are already very high by nature).

Is collusion not already illegal in US (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices)? I don't think the 2015 bill's role was to prevent collusion.

 

Quote

However, you're conflating two issues here. Net neutrality is the idea that the internet should be unrestricted, and this whole time we've been discussing a wildly different issue in the form of unnatural monopolies that companies have. Let's re-iterate, the 2015 bill is not net neutrality. It is a loophole that allows the FCC to enforce their 2010 OIO. There is no net neutrality law, and even if there was a net neutrality law would not address the issue of collusion, nor the issue of state regulations creating artificial monopolies/duopolies. The 2015 bill exacerbated the issue of firms being able to collude we've discussed, and largely did not protect "net neutrality" because of its convoluted and backdoor-ish nature.

Again, I won't comment on this as I admit, I would be talking out my ass for this. Though I comment again, collusion is illegal.

 

Quote

Amusingly, I think we may actually agree here on most things, I suspect you're just saying it in slightly distorted terms. Let me know if this sounds about right:

- The 2015 bill is flawed and hurts the market without really accomplishing it's (noble) goal

- The market is currently unhealthy because the government is not doing the job it should be doing, which is preventing collusion, because the market is an oligopoly

- The market is currently unhealthy because state/municipality sovereignty is preventing the government from doing its aformentioned job

- Net Neutrality is good, but is not being executed correctly

- The markets should have the government fixing the issue of collusion without overreaching and stifling the markets

 

Those points seem to be more or less what you want, at least from what I've gathered from your post. That's actually exactly what I'm arguing! Hopefully my response clarified that and maybe helped clarify your own argument a bit. If not, at the very least I appreciate you presenting me with an actual argument, sources and all

I think we do agree on a few things, but it seems that although we might have the same perception that the Government should intervene the market, certain Government regulations are bad and that the market is unhealthy, we both see different reasons why.

 

Personally, while I now agree that the bill is flawed, I don't think it really hurts the market. Again, I'm not sure how preventing collusion alone solves the issue, especially since it's already illegal. While I believe the Government is doing an awful job, I believe that their job in this case is to strengthen competition across the country. The market is unhealthy due to the awful lack of competition. I can agree with the 4th point though.

 

Not sure how it'd work out in the US but what if they forced the ISP's to share their cables, wires etc. with other companies (by share, companies still have to pay the ISP's)? I live in Australia and they've done it with the ISP's (used to have like 2 or 3 dominant players as well) and recently with mobile data (I believe other countries also do this such as France). Ever since, I've noticed considerably more competition with many more companies entering the market (as barriers aren't high anymore) and data plans offering much more value than before (meaning I can actually justify buying data lol). I think that's the issue with the US, it seems that it prevented Google from entering certain cities because Comcast/AT&T would sue cities who wanted to let Google use their lines (which apparently they only own 20% of...). This made the process of connecting homes to Google Fiber incredibly difficult, time-consuming and expensive. I don't think Australia has net neutrality as well, but IIRC, consumer protection laws protect us from being throttled anyway.

 

Overall, based on your comments, I'm gonna withdraw my comments on net neutrality and the repeal of the bill for now. I honestly think it's crazy that the US has so many things out of control (not that it's thaaaat much better in Australia :c).

 

Btw, I think that maybe we got a bit off-track debating about economics  Also, I might not be able to respond from here-on but it was nice to have a small, normal, non-insulting screaming debate though, refreshing from reading reddit comments!

 

Edit: Imo, the thing with economics is that there's a chance that either of us or even both of us are correct/incorrect. It's difficult to simplify things down. Everything we both mentioned could be right in certain contexts but completely wrong in other contexts, which is why I stressed that economic theory shouldn't be followed that strongly. This is why I find economics annoying, but fairly interesting 

[Hyperqube]

12 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

 

I'm honestly speechless. Truly, I can't believe what you're responding to me with. Did you actually, and it frankly hurts me to have to ask this, tell me to go debate myself for you?

 

 

What. What. What. What. WHAT.

 

What are you babbling about?

In case you are confused: recall my point being You're asking us to trust you, while you admit not being at home in legal & economcal fields, and you have no decent explenation why credibile, competent, people reach the opposite conclusion.

 

I've got not clue, why you think I am relevant to that. Or why you think that an unwillingness on my part, to spend time to provide you with someone who'se credibility who you'll try to attack opposite to adressing his points - has any baring on that.

 

 

Since apparently, you truely can't believe what I'm responding, allow me to spell it out: What I'm doing is pointing out you're using a fallacy, namely an argument from silence (or something very akin to that). You can't then turn around and say "oh yeah, give me a counter example".

 

Think for a second: Even if didn't know any ecomonists, and my google-fu was sucky as f*** - and thus would be unable to give you a single name ... would that change change a single thing? No, of course not! because an argument from silence remains an argument from silence.

 

 

It's not my job to fix the fallacies from your logic - it's your job to provide correct logic.

 

 

13 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

No, I'm not going to find sources for you, then create an argument based on those sources for you, then debate my own counter-argument with my original argument.

 

You should go and find sources for you - not so you can create an argument, but so you can understand why they reach different conclusions you do.

 

That's how real research is done. Not "I know there are tons of people disagreeing with me, but as long as nobody points them out, I can put my head in the sand, and think I'm right! "

... sorry that last part should be "... and think it's perfectly normal people take my word over theirs"

 

[diamond_boots]

20 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

That's how real research is done. Not "I know there are tons of people disagreeing with me, but as long as nobody points them out, I can put my head in the sand, and think I'm right! "

... sorry that last part should be "... and think it's perfectly normal people take my word over theirs"

I don't think he can hear you through the sand in his ears (or eyes because this is actually a text post, but meh... semantics; I think the analogy still holds up).

[Keroro1454]

22 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

It's not my job to fix the fallacies from your logic - it's your job to provide correct logic.

You need to point out the fallacies. My logic was, as far as I am aware, quite sound. You keep claiming it's fallacious because it disagrees with a mainstream opinion. Other than that, you have not provided examples nor evidence my logic is riddled with these so-called fallacies.

 

22 hours ago, Hyperqube said:

You should go and find sources for you - not so you can create an argument, but so you can understand why they reach different conclusions you do.

 

That's how real research is done. Not "I know there are tons of people disagreeing with me, but as long as nobody points them out, I can put my head in the sand, and think I'm right! "

... sorry that last part should be "... and think it's perfectly normal people take my word over theirs"

Just to humor you, I did go out and found some sources. Let's go over them, shall we?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html

 

Oh, this is a fun one.

 

• "The original rules went into effect in 2015 and laid out a regulatory plan...those who don’t." 

As I've already discussed, the "original rules" are neither original nor rules. The 2015 bill provided a loophole around the 2014 Verizon Comm. v. FCC case, allowing the FCC's 2010 OIO to remain legally valid. The 2015 bill doesn't create new rules, it allows a loophole. So we already have this first source from the credible paper of the New York Times going against the truth.

 

• "In some countries, internet bundling is already happening...from a Portuguese mobile carrier... 'starting to split the net.'"

Again, as I've mentioned this point is complete and utter nonsense. The Portuguese are legally bound to the EU, including the BEREC commission, which has passed explicit net neutrality laws.

 

• "Without rules prohibiting paid prioritization, a fast lane could be occupied by big internet and media companies, as well as affluent households, while everyone else would be left on the slow lane."

Interesting use of the classic "Rich eat the poor for breakfast" boogyman, but...what? There's no evidence provided to back this up, no examples, nothing. It's just a claim, floating in space- with a link to an article that floats the exact same claim without evidence. Lovely notion I suppose, but I haven't even seen this "terrifying proposition" pop up on other "Pro-NN" sites, never mind somewhere with evidence.

 

So this article: Lied about the 2015 bill, provided an irrelevant example meant only to fearmonger, and threw up a wild claim with zero evidence. Lovely.

 

But maybe you don't trust the New York Times. Maybe, like Trump, you consider them "Fake News" and "Failing" (Even though the former seems plenty applicable to the just-discussed article). Let's take a look at another article then.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanwolk/2017/11/30/the-repeal-of-net-neutrality-is-a-bad-thing-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think/#1eeeef7665be

 

This article is far too hefty to break down line-by-line, but I included it because I found it interesting. It argues the repeal is a bad idea not because it's bad, but simply that it misses the point and there's no need for it. The author clearly does not agree with the school of economic thought I have subscribed to in this instance that the de-regulation would help third parties enter, but they do not argue it will hurt the market or consumers- rather they argue the market is in a bad spot regardless. Interesting that the source providing a more thorough break-down aligns quite closely to my own arguments (I have detailed repeatedly that there are greater problems with state regulations the repeal doesn't address).

 

But okay, maybe you believe the Forbes article wasn't disagreeing with me enough. Fine, let's then examine a third source!

 

https://thinkprogress.org/the-fcc-just-decided-to-repeal-net-neutrality-heres-why-thats-really-really-bad-64e376ea04d3/

 

• "Obama-era net neutrality regulations, which prohibited Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from slowing down or blocking certain websites, or speeding up websites which agree to pay the corporations a fee."

Again, not what the regulations did. The refusal to provide the actual historical context almost seems to stem from the fact that acknowledging the fact the regulations were a hamfisted exploitation of a loophole would bring up questions of whether such a inelegant solution may have impacted things other than its target...

 

• "Over the last 15 years, the free and open nature of the web has allowed for tiny start-ups to blossom into essential tools we use every day. After being developed by three Estonian software engineers in 2003, Skype is now valued in the billions. Google was the brainchild of two Stanford PhD students during the 1990s, and in 2003, a Harvard sophomore set about inadvertently changing the world with a student directory website known as 'thefacebook.'"

Lovely examples to be sure, but I don't know if the article realizes all of the examples it gave were from the period between the 1989 Act and the 2015 regulations, supposedly when the internet was filled with evil internet providers stuffing everything into packages and "stifl[ing] the ability of small websites to help innovate and change the web", as it claims. So, bad examples for its point, to say the least.

 

• "With the rules about equal access to websites relaxed, ISPs would be able to create a two-tier structure and decide which websites get to go in its “fast lane” and which websites are relegated to a slower tier of service."

This is a really strong hypothetical. The thing about hypotheticals though, is that you need to provide a reason (with evidence) as to why I should bother considering this hypothetical. Otherwise, I could suggest a myriad of things companies could do, but there's no reason to consider these hypotheticals like Google charging users per search, for example, because it's so unhinged from any reasoning it provides no value as a "potential future to understand". So let's see what evidence this source provides to show us this is a super serious hypothetical to consider. (Note for discussion I provide here where I do not cite a separate source, I used the sources provided by the site itself)

 

• "Facetime being charged extra by ATT (2011)"

Let's first note the fact this was blocked and Facetime was allowed on all mobile plans following derision by the FCC and the public. In 2011. Before the 2015 bill that supposedly saved the Internet.

 

Beyond that, it's important to address AT&T's motivation for making this move. Unlike what the article suggests, AT&T was not a evil greedy monster seeking an extra buck. Facetime was previously a wifi-only application. The upcoming IPhone 6s were going to allow the usage of Facetime on mobile networks, which is a huge deal because Facetime is a pre-installed and popular app, meaning enormous immediate adoption (Compared to a app you must install yourself, which sees lower adoption rates). Facetime is also an enormous strain on data, and AT&T relatively reasonably demanded consumers pay more to dissuade some adoption and to allocate more data, thus easing the strain.

Source for my info here: https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/oiac/Mobile-Broadband-FaceTime.pdf

 

• "Verizon asked Google to remove apps avoiding its tethering charge (2012)"

Again, let's note the FCC tackled this issue and fined Verizon 1.25 million for the issue. In 2012. Again, before the 2015 bill saved the internet.

 

And again, looking at the companies cause for action, it was not spontaneous greed. It was acting to try to prevent people from using services they provided without paying the fee for said services.

 

• "Verizon blocking Google Wallet (2011)"

This is an interesting case because it was not struck down (though a compromise was later reached). The reason it was not struck down, however, was because it wasn't an issue of net neutrality. It wasn't an issue of Verizon blocking consumers from software they wanted, but rather blocking Google from hardware they wanted. Specifically, Google would oversee entire parts of hardware construction as they saw fit in order to make the phone compatible with Google Wallet, which Verizon blocking is completely legal and can be justified with less than pure and relatively pure motives.

Source for my info here: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-verizon-and-google-wallet-and-why-the-carrier-is-still-allowed-to-block-it/

 

• "Comcast slowing Netflex (2014)"

Again, before the 2015 bill. And this was settled by Netflix because they were using backdoors to take more bandwith than they had been allocated per their deal with Comcast. Comcast's throttling was actually pushing all of Netflix's traffic back onto it's allocated space, which was far too little. Comcast also sued Netflix for its actions. Not exactly a story of "poor Netflix" being oppressed by "evil Comcast".

 

So TL;DR, all of these examples are dated from before the 2015 regulations yet were handled by the FCC or courts swiftly, and none of them have companies acting with spontaneous greed in mind like the hypothetical has them.

 

• "If you want further proof of what a repeal of net neutrality would be like, look to Portugal as an example."

Oh look, the literal fake news that is the Portugal example is back with a vengeance. Do these people research the topic at all before they write these articles, because a cursory search will reveal Portugal's EU membership.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

So, there you have it. Three sources, from legitimate, separate sources. All against the Net Neutrality repeal. And absolutely littered with lies, half-truths, fear-mongering, and a distinct lack of evidence, or "professional opinion"- hell, not even an "educated opinion" as the repeated usage of the Portugal "example" shows. The one exception was the Forbes article, who did provide economic and detailed analysis- and concluded that the repeal was not harmful, just missing the issue of an unhealthy market. I've now looked at some sources arguing for Net Neutrality, and yet my research seemed to have stood quite tall against them- repeatedly knocking them over, to be more accurate.

 

So again I ask, where is this "professional, evidence-backed" source that argues against the repeal you keep alluding to?

 

2 hours ago, Super_Pizza said:

I don't think he can hear you through the sand in his ears (or eyes because this is actually a text post, but meh... semantics; I think the analogy still holds up).

 

Well, you baited me into responding, so if that was your goal... cool? I'd congratulate you, but clearly there's not much more than sand up in that head of yours, given how valuable your contribution to this discussion has been thusfar.

[diamond_boots]

13 hours ago, Keroro1454 said:

Well, you baited me into responding, so if that was your goal... cool? I'd congratulate you, but clearly there's not much more than sand up in that head of yours, given how valuable your contribution to this discussion has been thusfar.

As for attempting to bait you, no I wasn't. I was merely agreeing with hyperqube in what was intended to be a humorous way. If you're going to be so thin skinned about attempted humor on the internet, why are you even here? As for questioning the value of my contribution to the discussion, I wasn't attempting to do so. I was trying to be funny and, as you have clearly demonstrated, it fell a bit flat. It happens, not every joke is funny even if the person who wrote it thought it was.

 

On a different note, an explanation of why I agree with hyper. It follows this logic here: If you intend to argue a point that you yourself are not well versed enough to provide a logical explanation of, you MUST provide a credible source for the argument to be valid. To quote Hitchens's razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Keroro1454]

11 minutes ago, Super_Pizza said:

As for attempting to bait you, no I wasn't. I was merely agreeing with hyperqube in what was intended to be a humorous way. If you're going to be so thin skinned about attempted humor on the internet, why are you even here? As for questioning the value of my contribution to the discussion, I wasn't attempting to do so. I was trying to be funny and, as you have clearly demonstrated, it fell a bit flat. It happens, not every joke is funny even if the person who wrote it thought it was.

It came off as obnoxious, bait-y, and lacking any purpose in a debate setting. Sorry, but that's what it was from here.

 

11 minutes ago, Super_Pizza said:

On a different note, an explanation of why I agree with hyper. It follows this logic here: If you intend to argue a point that you yourself are not well versed enough to provide a logical explanation of, you MUST provide a credible source for the argument to be valid. To quote Hitchens's razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

So...did you read my original post? I cited 22 separate sources in my argument, including court cases, the legal documents themselves, technology-oriented magazines like ArsTechnica and Wired, economics-oriented news sites like Forbes and WSJ, legal definitions, etc. I provided an ample amount of research and sources to back up said research. I completely agree you need a credible source to be valid, but hyperqube is obnoxiously arguing that my arguments aren't valid because I'm disagreeing with the mainstream, regardless of my citations and research. An obnoxious point, I might add, that I rebutted by citing three separate mainstream articles arguing against the repeal and then tearing apart said articles.

 

Either way, you either didn't read my initial post, or are proposing to me that 22 varied and strong sources is not enough for my argument to be considered credible. If it's the former, I highly recommend actually reading my original response, because I go into quite a bit of detail. If it's the latter, I don't know what's going to change your mind- is there an arbitrary number of sources like 34 I need before my argument is valid?

[Apo]

On 1/10/2018 at 2:32 PM, Super_Pizza said:

If you're going to be so thin skinned about attempted humor on the internet, why are you even here?

>Politics, Religion and Science