The Mud Connector

Author Topic: We lost the internet.  (Read 24129 times)

Ateraan

  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • New Worlds Ateraan
    • View Profile
    • New Worlds Ateraan
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2017, 2:09 AM »
This depends on you. Could I live without electric and gas? Sure. We have done so for hundreds of years. But this comes with great negatives and a harder life for most if not the end of life if they depend on these to survive like for example, a life support machine.
You may be able to live without gas or electricity, but that's not the point. The point is, those items are life supporting commodities under regulation for the sole reason of their need. The internet, as stated above, is not a need it is a want.

While the internet provides a form of communication, it also provides a form of entertainment.
Again, this is not a necessity for living. It is entertainment. I could have easily used Movie theaters or Amusement parks as an example instead of Mcdonald's. The point is, you can't complain because Disneyland doesn't want to build a park in your state. Nor can you sue them or plead to the Government to force them so that we have "Net Mickey" going on. Your living might be the internet and mine might be mouse ears, neither one of us has a case to build on a level playing field. Unless of course we are talking about Moscow or Shanghai. But then you have to accept all that comes along with being a Red State.
New Worlds Ateraan
www.ateraan.com

Tijer

  • Community Manager
  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2017, 4:01 AM »
i dont know about the usa.. but i do know the UK is quite a way behind in the internet speed stakes...
--Tijer
War of Legend    • Mud • Waroflegend.net port 4200   • Web • http://www.waroflegend.net
Aadarian Realms • Mud • Aadaria.net port 1111/1114  • Web • http://www.aadaria.com

Gamblejay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2017, 9:34 AM »
tl;dr is the defeated's way to try to gracefully exit a lost debate.  I accept your concession.

As far as "no one wants a political thread", Arond clearly did by starting it, and so did the 8 people that responded to it (including you).

Have a merry Christmas.

It's not gracefully exiting, there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall. You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise.

NN is garbage for growth, always was. This whole notion that everyone is going to block everything, sure it technically can be done and it has been in certain situations. But when you use that as an example you show your ignorance because Antitrust has NOTHING to do with keeping or removing NN. With or without NN the Antitrust law comes into play when a business practices foul play and does not promote fair competition.

It shouldn't even be called Net Neutrality what it should be called is Content Price Control but if you called it what it really is none of you would wave your American flag and shout for freedom and rise against oppression. They literally changed the narrative to have freedom in it and hype up the taking it away as if this is some civil rights issue while playing you all like little toy soldiers who don't have a clue. And of course go ahead and toss the evil corrupt corporations in there for good measure, because the Gov always has your best interests at heart.

NN at its core is a way to control the price of the internet regardless of how much you do or do not use it. Now you can argue that it is a utility, it's too important in this day and age. Well, there was a time and arguably to this day where the postal service is just as important. However let me paint a little picture for you. We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better. The customer shouldn't have to pay more! Yes! I mean it's perfectly fine to make the postal service pay the difference and hike up the charges for people who just want to send a birthday card because we have turned them into an "Evil" corporation remember?

Fun fact, there was a time where you couldn't Facebook, Instagram or Text. Everyone sent these things called letters, the importance of sending information between people was so important that is was near the top next to food and water. However, the US Postal Service held a monopoly on it, there wasn't anything else to compete with. First Class Mail was held in such high regard that the Gov banned anyone from even competing with them over first class mail. Naturally because they were the only ones and could care less about the consumer the service was horrible. But luckily we live in America where a free market thrives so UPS, FedEx and DHS along with a few others popped up and started offering the same service, they just didn't call it First Class Mail and got away with it. Now they all compete to see who can deliver faster, without destroying it, tracking packages... all things that the US Postal Service didn't give two shits about because they were all there was. But remember folks, we need an open and equal market so let's toss out the Delivery Neutrality law.

Let's talk about this whole utility thing too because that was the main driving point when this first came about. The internet is not fresh air, it is not clean water, it is not a means to keep your family warm and safe at night. It is an extremely valuable piece of "Private" infrastructure that costs a lot of money to maintain, improve and operate. It is "leased" to you to use. The internet is not a right, it is a privilege that you do not "Need" to live a normal life. No matter how much you think you need your Facebook or Cat Youtube videos you'd survive just like many others did before the internet blew up. As humans it is extremely easy to give in to jealousy and greed. You see the CEO of Comcast living the high life and instead of thinking "Just think, 40 years ago they started with 12,000 customers and now they are the biggest in the US. I'm going to go try and do the same!" you think "Screw that evil corporate sellout who makes millions! I don't care what he does, that man is the devil!" And with that thought in mind you attempt to rationalize anything that goes against them as long as you benefit. But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more. So they toss out this emotional, patriotic fight the good fight and most of you don't even know what it really is you're arguing against if some news blog or media outlet isn't telling you.

If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. You most likely are a normal person who uses it to find information, send emails, create something in excel. Quit buying into the hype that you suddenly will not be able to work.

Whats more amusing about all of this is Google Fiber flopped, it's still around but it flopped. Why did it flop? Well a mixture of Net Neutrality and competition. However, it did one very very important thing. When it began offering its high-speed package for around 70$ I want to say. The competitors got scared, Google was huge and had a real chance of stepping into the scene on a massive scale. So what did companies like Comcast and AT&T do? They all of a sudden came out with their own high-speed packages that were just "slightly" better than google fiber. This is called a free market and competition. This is what happens when you stop regulating and micro managing everything.

As for this, the US sucks in internet speeds compared to other countries? Well, it is a matter of do you focus on large cities when spending or try and reach out to people on the outskirts? If you want companies to invest in infrastructure and make sh** faster, then don't implement laws that cause them to lose money because you want to watch Youtube, Netflix, Porn on HD and game for 18 hours a day at the same price as your grandmother who just checks her email.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2017, 9:45 AM by Gamblejay »

Ateraan

  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • New Worlds Ateraan
    • View Profile
    • New Worlds Ateraan
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2017, 1:52 PM »
Gamblejay,

That was well written very close to the same things I have said and/or would say.

Unfortunately, most people who have not been through training like 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Zig Zigler's Meet you at the Top, Tony Robbins, Greatest Salesman, One Minute Manager, or understand Success vs. Failure will not accept or agree or even comprehend what you are saying.

The love of mediocrity is a cancer in America and it started in 1970, but even those that lived then would be surprised at the level of "gimme gimme gimme I need I need I need" in America today. We live in a society of blame others for personal failure.

Just know that some of us do understand and agree with your premise and all we have to say is, "See you at the Top!" -ZZ  ;D
New Worlds Ateraan
www.ateraan.com

Orpheus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2017, 4:02 PM »
First things first, I don't think the internet has been "lost". Honestly, I'm not sure why many people are freaking out.

I do sort of disagree with people who claim that the internet isn't a necessity at this point, though. I'm not saying it should be given away, of course; I pay for my internet, and everyone else should too. That said, I literally need the internet to work, and I personally know about a dozen people who also basically need it to do their jobs.

When I was a young kid, the internet barely existed, and if anyone had told me that it would become a necessity, I would have laughed. But let's be honest, here: it is necessary in this society in order to function properly.

I don't like that it is a necessity, mind; I literally didn't get invited to a wedding of a person I've known for over a decade and was - at one point - good friends with. Why not? Well, maybe he was messing with me, but the guy told me that if I couldn't be bothered being his Facebook friend, I wasn't worth inviting to his wedding. I just don't use Facebook, period. I have used it for business purposes, sure, but I don't have a personal account (or a Twitter account, or Instagram, or anything of the sort).

In this day and age, sad as it is to say, if you don't use social media - for which you require the internet - you're putting yourself at a real disadvantage socially and in terms of your employment prospects. No joke: I didn't get hired for a job a few months back because I don't have a social media presence.

Anyway, the internet isn't lost - BUT to claim the internet isn't a necessity at this point? It shouldn't be, but it totally is.


Jodah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2017, 11:59 PM »
In what industry was your social media presence necessary?

Orpheus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2017, 12:11 AM »
To answer Jodah - marketing and public relations.It was assumed that because I don't use Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whatever, I don't know HOW to use it, which I obviously do. It ain't rocket science.

There really are jobs out there that insist you have a social media presence because the employers in question are essentially hiring you because you have a certain number of friends. And that sort of makes the internet more than a want, but less than a utility, in my mind. I don't even know how to classify it these days. To say it exists solely for entertainment purposes these days, though, is wrong. It is so much more. If you don't have access to the internet in 2017/2018, you're in trouble.

Gamblejay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2017, 10:18 AM »
To answer Jodah - marketing and public relations.It was assumed that because I don't use Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/whatever, I don't know HOW to use it, which I obviously do. It ain't rocket science.

There really are jobs out there that insist you have a social media presence because the employers in question are essentially hiring you because you have a certain number of friends. And that sort of makes the internet more than a want, but less than a utility, in my mind. I don't even know how to classify it these days. To say it exists solely for entertainment purposes these days, though, is wrong. It is so much more. If you don't have access to the internet in 2017/2018, you're in trouble.

I will agree that it is used for many things, but I believe your situation is an isolated one and not the normal situation. Nearly everyone I know has quit using Facebook, shut down the accounts or not even bothered to log in for years now. None of them have any issues finding work in downtown.

The thing is everyone has access to the internet and will continue to have access nothing is being taken away.

We will just have to agree to disagree on whether someone needs or just wants it in this day and age. When me and my crew are on a Pipeline in a remote area that doesn't have internet we all survive just fine with TV, Conversation and a Fax Machine. Or any of the other various jobs that require someone to go off the grid.

Hades_Kane

  • Community Manager
  • TMC Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1250
  • Owner / Administrator of End of Time
    • View Profile
    • End of Time
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2018, 11:45 PM »
"there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall"

It's not stopping me, so...

"You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise."

Despite you being taught by your Republican Masters at Faux News, not everyone that disagrees with your corporate fed, master led slave opinions is a bleeding heart CNN viewer.

See how that works?

Do we want to discuss this with baseless insults and generalizations, or discuss the issues?

"NN is garbage for growth, always was."

How?  Explain it to me.

"We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better."

This is a gross mischaracterization of the arguments against NN.

Let me paint YOU a picture.

I am sending a birthday card to my favorite Republican politician, with a $10 donation enclosed, while you are sending the exact same thing to your favorite Democrat politican.  The Postal Service has been lobbied by the Democrats heavily over the last year and it is an election cycle.  They have decided to give priority to all mail directed toward the Democrats at the cost of slowing down delivery of mail addressed to the Republicans.  With 1 week out from the nail bitingly close election, every vote and every dollar counts, and the flood of small time donations coming to the Democrat is coming quickly, while the Postal Service has decided because of the destination, the Republican addressed mail can wait a week.  And oh look, some last minute mailers are being sent out, again, because of the corporate lobbying, priority is being made toward those who have paid to have things addressed to them arrive quicker, giving the Democrat in the race an unfair advantage.

Your example of the heavier load is ALREADY being addressed with current NN laws in place.  For example, my ISP has speed+data tiers.  If I want the base, low cost tier, my speed is a fraction of the top tier, and I have like 100gb data cap.  I exceed that limit, my speed slows further and I'm charged for overages.  Thats exactly analogous to your "I'm sending a heavier package".  I haven't seen ANYONE argue against this business model, because this is effectively a "pay for what you use (more or less)" model, and is the standard for mobile data, as well.  NN isn't overturning these business models, NN is about making sure that ISPs aren't blocking or slowing access to content providers that haven't been prioritized based on corporate self interests.

"But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more"

Again, there are already systems in place that govern this.  The impetus isn't and shouldn't be on the content provider to pay more to the ISPs, it is and should be on the consumer to pay for what they are using, which is already happening.

"If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. "

This isn't about intense bandwidth.  This is about even being able to access in some cases.  And don't try to feed me "they won't do that" because they have, they got sued, and those kind of practices is exactly why NN was needed, and with the continued corporatization of our judges and entire political system, its growing increasingly more likely that we can't count on the courts to do the right thing here.
-Diablos
End of Time, a 100% free Final Fantasy & Chrono Trigger based MUD with a large original world, unique combat & magic systems, and more!
eotmud.com : 4000 • http://www.eotmud.comhttp://www.facebook.com/eotmud
http://www.mudconnect.com/mud-bin/adv_search.cgi?Mode=MUD&mud=End+of+Time

Gamblejay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #39 on: January 03, 2018, 3:36 AM »
"there is just no point in arguing with a brick wall"

It's not stopping me, so...

"You're so spoon fed mainstream media and hyped up on kool-aid that I could tell you the sky is normally blue and you would argue just to argue because CNN suggested otherwise."

Despite you being taught by your Republican Masters at Faux News, not everyone that disagrees with your corporate fed, master led slave opinions is a bleeding heart CNN viewer.

See how that works?

Do we want to discuss this with baseless insults and generalizations, or discuss the issues?

"NN is garbage for growth, always was."

How?  Explain it to me.

"We the people demand an open and free postal service for all. It should not matter if I am sending a birthday card or a box stuffed to the brim with my exercise equipment that totals 600 lbs. It should be equal and fair for all, just because I am sending 599 more lbs then someone else we should still both have to pay the same amount. Maybe I should tack on the word freedom and express how the postal service is trying to make me obese by charging me more to make it sound better."

This is a gross mischaracterization of the arguments against NN.

Let me paint YOU a picture.

I am sending a birthday card to my favorite Republican politician, with a $10 donation enclosed, while you are sending the exact same thing to your favorite Democrat politican.  The Postal Service has been lobbied by the Democrats heavily over the last year and it is an election cycle.  They have decided to give priority to all mail directed toward the Democrats at the cost of slowing down delivery of mail addressed to the Republicans.  With 1 week out from the nail bitingly close election, every vote and every dollar counts, and the flood of small time donations coming to the Democrat is coming quickly, while the Postal Service has decided because of the destination, the Republican addressed mail can wait a week.  And oh look, some last minute mailers are being sent out, again, because of the corporate lobbying, priority is being made toward those who have paid to have things addressed to them arrive quicker, giving the Democrat in the race an unfair advantage.

Your example of the heavier load is ALREADY being addressed with current NN laws in place.  For example, my ISP has speed+data tiers.  If I want the base, low cost tier, my speed is a fraction of the top tier, and I have like 100gb data cap.  I exceed that limit, my speed slows further and I'm charged for overages.  Thats exactly analogous to your "I'm sending a heavier package".  I haven't seen ANYONE argue against this business model, because this is effectively a "pay for what you use (more or less)" model, and is the standard for mobile data, as well.  NN isn't overturning these business models, NN is about making sure that ISPs aren't blocking or slowing access to content providers that haven't been prioritized based on corporate self interests.

"But most of you don't benefit is the problem, because the companies who use the most bandwidth dont want to pay more"

Again, there are already systems in place that govern this.  The impetus isn't and shouldn't be on the content provider to pay more to the ISPs, it is and should be on the consumer to pay for what they are using, which is already happening.

"If you use the internet for work chances are I don't think you're a youtube star, steamer, camgirl or one of the many intense bandwidth professions. "

This isn't about intense bandwidth.  This is about even being able to access in some cases.  And don't try to feed me "they won't do that" because they have, they got sued, and those kind of practices is exactly why NN was needed, and with the continued corporatization of our judges and entire political system, its growing increasingly more likely that we can't count on the courts to do the right thing here.

I just tossed CNN out there because you're basically spewing the same sh** they did day after day. I don't bother with Fox either, if I hear something like NN is getting repealed I actually look up the laws and see exactly what they did. You don't wan't to discuss the issue, you want to cherry pick and circle right back around to the theory crafting scare factor. And no my example is not being covered by NN already and yes your version is already illegal in the first place. The Tiers you talk about for the top companies like AT&T and Comcast have a 300GB package and a 1 TB Standard Package. With options to go higher or pay for unlimited. So no my example explains it perfectly. My grandmother who doesn't even use 5 GB compared to someone else who uses 300GB. My grandmother still has to pay a higher price in a tier she doesn't need of 300GB just because these companies have removed the extremes on the lower end of the pole to make up for lost revenue. Again, most of your post gets tossed right out the window at Antitrust but I have a good feeling that you don't have a clue what that law even is. Here:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ShermanClaytonFTC_Acts.pdf


Sherman Act Section 2 : Monopolization
Clayton Act Section 13: Pricing Discrimination
FTC Act Section 45: Declaration of unlawfulness and power to prohibit unfair practices
FTC Act Section 46: A, C, D, E
(a) Investigation of persons, partnerships, or corporations
(c) Investigation of compliance with antitrust decrees
(d) Investigations of violations of antitrust statutes
(e) Readjustment of business of corporations violating antitrust statutes

And that was just Antitrust, we're not even talking about State Consumer Protection Laws. So again, what exactly did NN do that wasn't already being done? The difference between the FCC and the FTC was this, the FTC went after you when you committed a crime. The FCC with Title II doesn't let you even think of committing a crime whether you would or not while at the same time due to the additional regulations charges you more in legal fees and labor to abide by their standards. And the info they want? Names of Customers, Prices they Pay, The Speeds they get. Pay the legal fees and pay technicians to obtain pointless info that the FCC doesn't actually look at just files it away. Gov hand holding at its finest, we will tell you what you couldn't do in the first place and ask for a babysitting fee even if you don't need a sitter.

Don't misunderstand my stance, I don't agree with things such as throttling Netflix in the dark because an ISP is attempting to get more premiums. That's just bad business practice. However, I will never agree with more Gov hand holding where it isn't needed. If Tom is told not to commit a crime, never has committed a crime, doesn't plan on committing a crime then there is no reason to tell him further not to commit a crime... but then turn around and have him pay the Gov for telling him again. And this is all because Bob committed a crime in the past by the way, not him. That's whats happening right now and it's ridiculous.

This whole thing is most definitely about bandwidth for a company, to think otherwise is just... I have no idea how you could even come to that conclusion if you have an ounce of Networking knowledge. And I don't think I ever said they didn't or won't do it, yes the companies which broke the law got sued and they lost, multiple times over. Verizon won once, they at the time did nothing wrong and were completely in the right against the FCC. Thus bred the introduction of categorizing  ISPs under Title II because the FCC got shafted legally.

Teryel

  • TMC Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile

Drizzt1216

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
    • tbaMUD
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2018, 2:11 PM »
Far too many people here are taking the stance that because something is expensive it must be eliminated.

Those are not the only options. It does not need to cost lots of money to maintain regulations.

It's akin to the justice system.

It costs $31,286 per inmate on average to have them imprisoned. This is ridiculous. It shouldn't cost this much, my mother and I have personally lived on as little as $10,000 between the two of us when I was a child. (And no, that was not the 1950's, I am 29, I was born in 1988.)

The solution to the cost of prisoners is not to release the prisoners. It is to revamp the entire system and make it more efficient and cost-effective.

The same goes for the death penalty. I've known numerous people who are fiscally against it, but morally aren't bothered by the idea. That's nonsense, it shouldn't cost 1.26 million dollars to put someone to death. That's ****ing ridiculous. I can take my dog to the vet and have him put down for $100. Murderers don't deserve better treatment than my dog does.

Teryel

  • TMC Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2018, 4:25 PM »
Far too many people here are taking the stance that because something is expensive it must be eliminated.

Those are not the only options. It does not need to cost lots of money to maintain regulations.

It's akin to the justice system.

It costs $31,286 per inmate on average to have them imprisoned. This is ridiculous. It shouldn't cost this much, my mother and I have personally lived on as little as $10,000 between the two of us when I was a child. (And no, that was not the 1950's, I am 29, I was born in 1988.)

The solution to the cost of prisoners is not to release the prisoners. It is to revamp the entire system and make it more efficient and cost-effective.

The same goes for the death penalty. I've known numerous people who are fiscally against it, but morally aren't bothered by the idea. That's nonsense, it shouldn't cost 1.26 million dollars to put someone to death. That's ****ing ridiculous. I can take my dog to the vet and have him put down for $100. Murderers don't deserve better treatment than my dog does.

While I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out:

You and your mom don't require 24/7 supervision in a large facility which in turn has bills and various regulations that must be adhered to, for the sake of 'humane treatment'.

And also, politicians don't have a stake in the systems that keep you and your mom alive. THAT is the issue.

Drizzt1216

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
    • tbaMUD
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2018, 7:15 PM »
They're in cells, it doesn't take that many guards to keep them in line.

Each prisoner adds virtually nothing to the electricity bill. Their two biggest expenses are food and utilities.

A prisoner can easy be fed for $1 per meal.

Not to mention that 31k amount isn't what it costs for dangerous murderers. That's what it costs for thieves and people that embezzle money, drive drunk etc. The cost per year for those in high security or on death row is closer to $100,000 a year.

Want to save the economy? Stop wasteful spending, especially in the prisons and on "defense".

Teryel

  • TMC Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • View Profile
Re: We lost the internet.
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2018, 8:07 PM »
They're in cells, it doesn't take that many guards to keep them in line.

Each prisoner adds virtually nothing to the electricity bill. Their two biggest expenses are food and utilities.

A prisoner can easy be fed for $1 per meal.

Not to mention that 31k amount isn't what it costs for dangerous murderers. That's what it costs for thieves and people that embezzle money, drive drunk etc. The cost per year for those in high security or on death row is closer to $100,000 a year.

Want to save the economy? Stop wasteful spending, especially in the prisons and on "defense".

No, I totally agree with your overall sentiment. And a big part of that is recidivism. In America, it's ridiculous:

Quote from: https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

What we have in America is not a rehabilitative, it's 100% punitive.

Now, let's look at Norway:
Quote from: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12
Norway's incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US. On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%.

As I understand it, Norway doesn't have mandatory minimum sentences. Or any 'sentences'. You don't go in with a release date. They keep you incarcerated until you're rehabilitated, and judging by the statistics, it works.

Now, I get what you're saying, that criminals shouldn't get royal treatment. But when you treat people like criminals, they'll behave like criminals. If you treat them like people, and try to rehabilitate them... well... different things happen.

Anyway, that's a digression.

I'm curious what your economic point is in regards to internet though. I mean, if it was a public utility, would it be different?

I think private corporations are concerned with profits, and will do whatever they can to increase those profits, and HAVE done things in the past that were purely shady. Yes, many of the ones that were reported got shut down, because they were so shady, but...

How long did apple throttle old phones, before they got caught?

Just an example from the most current events.