Originally Posted by
hkkmr
It is business protecting it's own interest via government that is creating this issue.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
I'm not going to fantasize and imagine a world where power and power structures don't exist.
I've never purported anything of the sort either.
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
It is when individuals use their own agency and protect their interests thru their own power that things can be kept from the control of those who would use existing power structures maliciously.
And what better way for them to do this than by voting with their dollars? All I'm saying is, if government services had to survive on a profit-or-loss basis, efficiency of service would improve dramatically for those agencies that can be expected to survive as self-sustaining commercial entities.
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
Infrastructure are mechanisms that operate not on a private level and having it be under the power of private entities is little more than under the power of dictators. Just because the state you currently reside in is threatening net neutrality doesn't mean anything. Anyways the business interest exact defense against net neutrality is private ownership.
The cable companies do have one compelling argument in favor of abolishing net neutrality: they do own the pipes. They should be allowed to create fast- and slow-lanes if they so desire. That ought to be well within the powers of ownership that they wield. That is why my advocacy for net neutrality is quite contradictory in light of my otherwise unwavering support for private property rights; though I have no illusions about my hypocrisy on this matter, and I'm surprised you haven't pointed it out yourself.
However, since they have also been granted regional monopolies in numerous markets across the USA, the fact that they own the only pipes the local authorities have sought fit to approve, creates a bigger issue that mandates policies like net neutrality in the first place. In an ideal world, the concept of net neutrality would be null and void. The incentive for companies like Comcast to not restrict the bandwidth of the most popular content providers, be it Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, or what have you, would be the fact that another company -- say, Local Cable Services, Inc. -- will promise not to charge the end user more for the same access speeds to those websites, and slowly siphon away customers from Comcast for that reason.
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
Anyways it's pointless to talk about this if you imagine how a world will be without power structures intervening in your life. All switching government for business is switching one for another, one chain for another.
Perhaps, but we'll probably never know for sure, will we?
Originally Posted by
hkkmr
Anyways there is no competition for infrastructure, if you own a house, you can't change one road company for another, no more than you can change one cable company for another. The lines are owned by one group and not another. And in totally private world, you simply get what you get, which is how it is currently because private companies own the cabling and own the infrastructure of the internet. That's why they have a regional monopoly, because people can't easily move and well if you want to use the "road", you have to use the one that's constructed outside your house, unless you want to pay the price of cabling yourself to the nearest competitor of your choice. That's simply not an option for most people.
Really? Then I advise you to look up a copy of this book and ask yourself how,
[s]ix electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. [...] During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City [...] competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry [...] Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.
Honestly, your lack of imagination is your own problem. Not mine. I don't pretend to understand how public infrastructure works, that's why I think it's best left in the hands of the entrepreneurs and engineers who do understand the business, and can reconcile their business model within the framework of private property rights and the interests of competing infrastructure companies.