Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,554
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And while I would argue that those utilities you mentioned are being improperly regulated, to the detriment of all but those very select few. I gave to a very specific example of a utility which is almost entirely analogous to broadband, and asked a specific question regarding a specific regulation that has been placed on it, which is the same regulation we on the progressive side of things wish to see applied to broadband.So since none of your condescending claptrap actually goes beyond the indignation of seeing me provide a rational definition of 'utility' that, from its characteristics, shows immediately why it needs regulation, can you explain why such a thing as meets this definition does not warrant forced neutrality? Would you be more comfortable if I made up a be word 'farflenougen' to reference such a thing as I described? And would that make it any less wanting for regulation? It is not the name of a thing that means it must be so regulated, it is its characteristics. Trying to twist it into a semantic argument is purely misdirection. And what regulation is right for such a thing is right everywhere, because the rightness of a regulation stems from the nature of the thing being regulated, and the place of it has no bearing on that.
Woild you argue that a landline telephone company deserves the right to degrade calls from other providers, unless the called customer pays extra too? Because the Internet is really no different, and this is essentially what broadband providers are trying to do. The nature of the ethics behind it are not affected by the volume of the traffic.
The utilities I am familiar with (gas pipelines, oil pipelines, electric power) do offer certain customers preferred service.
If you do not feel qualified to offer an opinion on the rightfulness of regulating broadband as a utility, then please exit the discussion. Otherwise tell me if you'd like to be forced to pay a massive cross-carrier fee to AT&T to talk to one of their customers despite the fact you contract through sprint.