Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Free Data Programs From T-Mobile, AT&T and Comcast Scrutinized by FCC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i've always thought free data is against net neutrality. I don't get how it's different to internet fast lanes, in fact it seems like exactly the same thing to me. You are slowing all traffic in favour of paid/sponsored content.
Because then T-Mobile can say "hey, you don't pay, you don't play" and if Spotify doesn't pay, then you don't get to use Spotify. Same for YouTube, Vimeo, and all the little people who make videos and songs and host them on their sites. Would that make you happy?
Except that the concept of FCC investigating usually boils down to finding a way to put their claws into it and generate some tax revenue.
And on the flip side, anarchy will let them steamroller you at which point the same people will still blame government instead of the company screwing 'em over. People want the free market until they get it.
That you actually believe what you've posted is sad.
That fifteen others "liked" it, is proof positive that people _can_ be brainwashed.
Most complaints about the "free market" are the result of government interference. For example, Turing Pharmaceutical can only raise the price of a 62-year old drug by 50 times only because it takes 4 years for the FDA to approve a new company making a generic.
No, they can raise the price by 300% because there aren't any price regulations laws in place on pharmaceuticals in the US like there are overseas.
And god forbid we have a system in place that makes sure everyone does their due diligence before releasing a new drug into the market.
Does it really take 4 years to figure out if a drug is safe? I think the big pharmaceutical companies could quickly figure out how to produce a 62-year old drug. The FDA is one of the slowest regulators in the world. Lots of drugs developed in the U.S. make it to market in Europe before here. For that matter, there ARE other producers of that drug overseas, but they can't sell their drugs here because they'd have to start the FDA approval process from scratch.
As for price controls, there is a reason that most pharmaceutical companies are based in the United States or Switzerland. The rest of the world enjoys the free rider effect (i.e. we effectively subsidize the rest of the world's drug costs because the profits they generate here finance the research and development of new drugs).
Admittedly, that time probably could be cut in half without any detriment. Maybe even shorter than that, provided a company can show they've thoroughly tested their product.
No matter what, I'd want some sort of consumer protection and verification system in place, to protect us from predatory money grabbing practices and snake oil salesman that are very obviously out there.
True, but at the same time we pay considerably more than anyone else, while still being victimized by the likes of the Shkreli's of the world. Certainly there's a happier medium between our currently rather poor status quo, and overly restrictive market regulations.
You don't realize how incoherent this is.
"Politicians should absolutely stay away from it…and leave net neutrality rules in place."
No. Net neutrality solves a real problem. It is those who wish to fight it that should not touch it.
Please give me the problem statement of the issue that was solved. Stating that part in bold is a tip to the hand that you're playing, and demonizing one side or the other is a sure-fire way of stating your ideology. I believe that most problems can be solved by the market, and sooner or later, they are. Gas prices in the 70's are a good example. Honda sales skyrocketed because they had a car that had excellent mileage. It's that a lot of people like to force businesses to "be nice", when in fact, they want to get the most money for their investment.
Kind of like most people won't refuse a raise for the same job that they're doing.
The hoolaballoo between Netflix and Verizon was the first start of it, the Telcos taking the FCC to court claiming they didn't have to abide by net neutrality rules since they were no longer under Title II rules was the second, and the fact those same telcos were talking implementing paid priority was the 3rd.
This is the digest version.
See, people think net neutrality is some new thing. It's not. What we're seeing now is Title II classifications being reinforced since it was becoming obvious that the telcos wanted to game a system that's long since been proven to work for their own benefit.
Actually, you can't tell my ideology from one statement. I'm simply being forceful in saying that the anti-net neutrality are the ones who are "interfering".