BreakingKayfabe
Well-known member
If a business is run solely to make as much money for the owner at the expense of others then they tend to avoid hours and benefits.
That is basically the unofficial definition of a business.
If a business is run solely to make as much money for the owner at the expense of others then they tend to avoid hours and benefits.
That is basically the unofficial definition of a business.
Not in my book. It isn't how google or apple are run. But if you ever have one and the only way you can succeed is by short changing your workers for hours and benefits then congrats. You've run your ideal business.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
Just because someone has a job doesn't mean they're entitled to everything the government wants to gift them.
You'll have to get me up to speed as this has nothing to do with what we were just discussing.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
I appreciate the funny condensation but you know it has to do with what our side discussion was about. Whatever though, man. If you like Robin Hood then that's fine by me.
I'm being serious. That came out of left field. Or right field. I've been completely respectful. You need to clarify how that relates to the discussion we were just in.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
ThanksI don't feel like you're busting chops.
IndeedWe just have completely different opinions on the topic. I can live with that.
sighI don't envision the slippery slope you do.
With *me*, it's not about trusting big business, but about not giving government too much power. Far too many people have forgotten how much clout they possess as consumers. If government takes over, we lose that clout.But what I think it boils down to is you trust big business more than I do and I trust the government more than you do.
OkayNo one is saying the companies don't have a right to profit. That isn't the argument.
Yes, they do. Just because people do not like it doesn't mean that they are not within their rights to do so. Should a person charge more for his or her jailbroken iPhone because it allows for more customization than a device that is not jailbroken?The argument is do they have the right to even more profit by creating slow lanes for those sites who can't afford to pay extra.
They're wrong.The answer by about 75% of the population is no they don't.
Is it not a privilege to have access to that Internet service?The internet isn't a privilege and wasn't created by those who profit from it. But it is a service you can pay for and we do.
You're the one who brought up "short changing" workers so I responded to that. You really needed me to tell you this?
Thanks Indeed sigh With *me*, it's not about trusting big business, but about not giving government too much power. Far too many people have forgotten how much clout they possess as consumers. If government takes over, we lose that clout. Okay Yes, they do. Just because people do not like it doesn't mean that they are not within their rights to do so. Should a person charge more for his or her jailbroken iPhone because it allows for more customization than a device that is not jailbroken? They're wrong. Is it not a privilege to have access to that Internet service?
Deal, but did you not take a shot when you mentioned me envisioning a slippery slope?I'm happy to discuss this but don't give me the sighs and I'll do the same back. Deal?
I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.Of course it isn't their right to do whatever they want to make profit. That isn't a right of anyone or any group or any company. There are rules to business. Some are old and some are new.
If companies don't have a right to charge extra for additional benefits (in this case, faster internet speeds), then the average Joe shouldn't have a right to sell a jailbroken iPhone at a higher price than an iPhone that's not jailbroken. The seller considers a jailbroken iPhone an extra benefit.I'm not following the jail broken argument. That could very well be my fault but I'm not seeing the relevance.
The 75% simply do not want to endure more fees, and it's understandable. However, just because 75% doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that the companies don't have a right to charge extra for faster speeds. Whether they should or should not charge extra is a different argument, and it does not negate the fact that they have a right to do so.I think those 75% are very correct in their assessment.
You are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment.We are not dealing with companies who invest in a better experience as much as they invest in limiting competition so they don't have to.
Again, that is your personal opinion without a shed of proof.They spend all their money and time trying to buy congress.
Even criminals have rights.personal Follow the money to see which party was paid the most to fight net neutrality. I did. These are not the pillars of a strong economy or capitalist democracy. Its ma bell part 2.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
Deal, but did you not take a shot when you mentioned me envisioning a slippery slope?
I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.
If companies don't have a right to charge extra for additional benefits (in this case, faster internet speeds), then the average Joe shouldn't have a right to sell a jailbroken iPhone at a higher price than an iPhone that's not jailbroken. The seller considers a jailbroken iPhone an extra benefit.
The 75% simply do not want to endure more fees, and it's understandable. However, just because 75% doesn't want it, it doesn't mean that the companies don't have a right to charge extra for faster speeds. Whether they should or should not charge extra is a different argument, and it does not negate the fact that they have a right to do so. You are letting your personal feelings cloud your judgment. Again, that is your personal opinion without a shed of proof. Even criminals have rights.
I did not say that businesses had the right to do "whatever they want to make a profit". You mentioned companies not having the right to charge extra for faster speeds, and I disagreed and said that they did.
Net neutrality is the notion that every one's data gets treated neutrally and equally, if its an email from grand ma or downloading your bank statement.
ISP's will not be able to decide who's data gets sent quicker, which sites get blocked and who must pay more.
Look at banking..... hedge fund managers will pay millions to get priority speed in their transactions. Is it bad for small banks and investors?... most definately.
What about startups or small businesses who need a fast internet in order to compete with larger companies?
Small to medium businesses will absolutely get crushed competitively by data speed charges that only mega corporations can afford.
I don't want a toll road on the internet... and neither should any of us.
Ok. I'll leave this as an open question for those who are bothered by net neutrality. What about keeping the internet the same as it has been since inception is bad? What worries you about that? How is allowing corporations who profit from the change and allowing them to choose what sites can be viewed with normal speeds and what sites can't a good thing? Do those who are against this feel breaking up ma bell was bad or good? Thanks.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
Net neutrality is the notion that every one's data gets treated neutrally and equally, if its an email from grand ma or downloading your bank statement.
ISP's will not be able to decide who's data gets sent quicker, which sites get blocked and who must pay more.
Look at banking..... hedge fund managers will pay millions to get priority speed in their transactions. Is it bad for small banks and investors?... most definately.
What about startups or small businesses who need a fast internet in order to compete with larger companies?
Small to medium businesses will absolutely get crushed competitively by data speed charges that only mega corporations can afford.
I don't want a toll road on the internet... and neither should any of us.
I don't think your concerns match up with keeping the internet the way it has always been and not allowing the comcasts of the world alter how quickly we can view the information we want. I don't want them telling me how quickly I can access the sites where I get my information. They have a vested interest in where I get information and what information I get. But we can agree to disagree as well.
Does this ruling pertain to Internet companies charging more for extra use, or just for throttling speeds?