Canadian ISP Monopoly ...or not?

[Anuojat]

Hello everyone, especially those hailing from either near or if luck has it from Canada

 

I was talking to my canadian friend and we got into heated disscussion about net neutrality.

 

He claimed that where he comes from (Mandatora?) ISP has a monopoly and goverment and laws (like net neutrality) protect him and consumers from this/these ISPs from screwing them over by both ignoring theyre terms of service and by wishing to abolish net neutrality.

 

He also claimed that laws in general protect people from companies like this when they have a monopoly and "my" free market stuff doesnt work in this case since there is no competation and even if theyre was 2 companies would simply screw you over by setting the price same (and evidently never screw each other somehow). And also he said/claimed that it takes 100000$ to build up a new network there and noone is seemingly willing to invest this to come over. When i asked him if there was enough demand in his area he ignored that and moved on to say that laws force this monopoly ISP to have "secondary companies."

 

So Anyone form Canada of knowledable on this issue can you shed some light?

Does goverment have soem really obvious part that it plays with this?

 

PS. Also again hoping this is in the right forum category!

[dsayers]

There's no such thing as no competition. What your friend is referring to is artificial culling of would be competition. Something that can only be accomplished by the very entity he claims is protecting him with legislation. It's a difficult topic because in a way, he is right. But this doesn't change the fact that the origin of the problem is State coercion.

[Anuojat]

There's no such thing as no competition. What your friend is referring to is artificial culling of would be competition. Something that can only be accomplished by the very entity he claims is protecting him with legislation. It's a difficult topic because in a way, he is right. But this doesn't change the fact that the origin of the problem is State coercion.

 In that case shouldnt it be simple matter of showing how the state has coersion in this matter.

 

I cant pin point anything specific, ive tried to research it but i havent so far com up with "how" the state is involved with ISPs.

Or how state hampers competetors coming to the market ect.

 

With more digging i could probobly find all the details but i am somewhat stuck on this (and frankly MOST of how state coerses certain industrys, its HARD to find the information.)

[dsayers]

Zoning and permits. Whose allowed to build what where. It's nothing new for those already succeeding to use State power to establish costly regulations that they can manage, but start-ups cannot. And licensing... The list is near endless and unfortunately, I'm no expert on the subject.

 

All you really need to know is that where competition is absent, coercion is present. For as long as there are more than two people on Earth, this will be true.

[Anuojat]

Zoning and permits. Whose allowed to build what where. It's nothing new for those already succeeding to use State power to establish costly regulations that they can manage, but start-ups cannot. And licensing... The list is near endless and unfortunately, I'm no expert on the subject.

 

All you really need to know is that where competition is absent, coercion is present. For as long as there are more than two people on Earth, this will be true.

 

Hmmm, so government build wires and gave them to ISP, smaller competetors cant build new ones because of zoning and permits and other government related stuff that raise the prices of such things.

 

So should i continue with this? My friend has as youve read already said the he think laws exist to protect people and that "well without net neutrality you cannot sue these companies and thus we need it. Also companies always screw you anyways but both raising prices in the end." Might i be dealing with lost cause or is this very light stuff in your experience if youve ever debated statists?

[dsayers]

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. If your friend is convinced that legislation (commands backed by threats of violence up to and including death) is in place to protect people with no empirical evidence, then you'll need to understand WHY he believes this before you could hope to change his mind. Chances are he had controlling parents that inflicted conclusions upon him instead of negotiating with him and teaching him to think rationally. As a result, he's fully primed for allowing others in an illusory position of authority to do the same.

 

I think the more important question is why you would be friends with somebody who promotes violence as if it were a valid approach to conflict resolution? It's not a valid conclusion. The reasons statists continue to believe it is because it's comfortable to do so. Few people will have nothing to do with a person based on their pro-violence position. If those of us who can see the gun in the room can't help somebody else to see it, depriving that person of the pleasure of our company is one way we can make a real difference. Something to think about.

[Anuojat]

Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't already. If your friend is convinced that legislation (commands backed by threats of violence up to and including death) is in place to protect people with no empirical evidence, then you'll need to understand WHY he believes this before you could hope to change his mind. Chances are he had controlling parents that inflicted conclusions upon him instead of negotiating with him and teaching him to think rationally. As a result, he's fully primed for allowing others in an illusory position of authority to do the same. I think the more important question is why you would be friends with somebody who promotes violence as if it were a valid approach to conflict resolution? It's not a valid conclusion. The reasons statists continue to believe it is because it's comfortable to do so. Few people will have nothing to do with a person based on their pro-violence position. If those of us who can see the gun in the room can't help somebody else to see it, depriving that person of the pleasure of our company is one way we can make a real difference. Something to think about.

 1. He has told me his childhood was good and without any violance physical or verbal. But ill check Stefs videos again if i missed something important. 2. Actually he doesnt recodnise any violance in the equotation. He has argued to me that Canadas government own the land and thus everyone is just living Governments land like in rent or leasing. I know government is group of people and not single person whom chance all the time though  And that when government uses "force" its the same as someone who own an island ruling over those who "chose" to live there and have kids. :PAch i should jsut post most if his main quotes and nto hide away  Here goes: Expect many typos and if you think i was hasty or rube or if i made clear errors or didnt conduct something right.I fully expect that i made some error in haste or that maybe i was too rash and started on totally wrong grounds. "Net neutrality" doesn’t exist. Its concept that’s either valid or invalid. Logical or not. [1.6.2014 21:53:40] He: ...uhh.. Actually it is[1.6.2014 21:53:53] He: there's a IEEE/ISO standard the dictates what 'net neutrality' means[1.6.2014 21:54:01] He: it's the 'common carrier' clause[1.6.2014 21:54:21] He: It's the laws that prevent services like mail and telephone service from being biased[1.6.2014 21:54:48] He: If I phone you, a person in the USA, and a person in China, (besides long distance charges) I can call all of you equally[1.6.2014 21:54:53] He: my bill doesn't change based on who I call[1.6.2014 21:55:05] He: Also my bill doesn't change based on what we use the phone line for[1.6.2014 21:55:23] He: they can't change the service quality, cost, or speed based on what I use it for.[1.6.2014 21:55:29] He: That's the 'common carrier' clause[1.6.2014 21:56:05] Me: But it’s a concept. _Not physical object. Abstract concepts that relies on law/laws which by themselves are concepts [1.6.2014 21:56:05] He: What they're trying to do is remove net neutrality so that if you go to say Netflix, your service provider will slow down your connection on you, but make it fast if you use your provider's preferred internet video service.[1.6.2014 21:56:17] He: It doesn't matter[1.6.2014 21:56:29] He: the impact here is internet service providers screwing over customers[1.6.2014 21:56:48] He: There's a law that stops them from screwing us over called 'net neutrality'[1.6.2014 21:56:54] He: it's been in place since before Internet existed[1.6.2014 21:57:02] He: and now the assholes are trying to take it down[1.6.2014 21:58:23] Me: Ahem. "Laws”dont stop anyone XD Laws don’t have any power, belief in their validly and morality does. Those can be argued. Also... if it involves the government or current forms of corporations that’s it’s totally already off that scale.[1.6.2014 21:58:39] He: for petes sake stop it[1.6.2014 21:58:46] He: The LAW stops them form fucking people over[1.6.2014 21:58:51] Me:?[1.6.2014 21:58:53] He: if they screw with your connection, you can sue the company[1.6.2014 21:59:00] He: with the LAW removed, they can screw with you all they like[1.6.2014 21:59:09] Me: How?[1.6.2014 21:59:32] He: They can no longer be sued or have legal action put against them if it's no longer illegal to screw with the connection[1.6.2014 21:59:52] Me: Are they violating your ISP contract somehow?[1.6.2014 22:00:06] He: there is no contract[1.6.2014 22:00:25] He: Just terms of service, governed by the law that set the vast majority of the terms of service.[1.6.2014 22:00:47] He: if they take down the net neutrality law, they can screw me over *without* breaking the law[1.6.2014 22:01:13] He: If Net Neutrality law stays in place, the internet service provider can't pull any stunts without facing legal action[1.6.2014 22:01:31] He: you asked why people keep recoiling about your debates, this is why[1.6.2014 22:01:42] He: you utterly disregard all the necessary facts before making an argument[1.6.2014 22:02:45] Me: I didn’t disregard anything... as far as i can tell i just pointed out what is concept and what is not... and that anything involves the government or current state of laws and corporations is totally invalid and false.[1.6.2014 22:03:05] He: you seriously got to learn how law works[1.6.2014 22:03:36] He: having a law for or against most things is very important[1.6.2014 22:03:51] He: laws stop companies and individuals from doing unjust things without consequences[1.6.2014 22:03:58] He: unjust*[1.6.2014 22:04:12] He: Your 'open market' crap won't work here[1.6.2014 22:04:23] He: We have ONE, count it, ONE internet service provider here[1.6.2014 22:04:29] He: if we don't like it, we are shit out of luck[1.6.2014 22:04:37] He: there's no competition for us to go to[1.6.2014 22:05:03] He: We need laws to protect us from the one and only internet service provider from screwing people over.[1.6.2014 22:06:12] He: Open Market doesn't work in monopolies[1.6.2014 22:09:15] Me: Well first of all Canada doesn’t have a free market. Secondly, laws don’t stop anyone. Word in a book don’t stop anyone, its people or disincentives in reality that do. Thirdly, why is there no competition? In Finland there are 4-7 ISPs or so... always lowering prices and enhancing services.[1.6.2014 22:09:53] He: Do you have $100,000 to build your own telecommunication infrastructure?[1.6.2014 22:10:10] He: Laws DO stuff[1.6.2014 22:10:16] He: The aren't just words in a book[1.6.2014 22:10:19] He: there are people that enforce them[1.6.2014 22:10:32] He: there are legal systems, police, lawyers, prosecutors[1.6.2014 22:10:40] Me: Yup.[1.6.2014 22:10:59] He: That 'word in a book' has stopped internet service providers from screwing people over for the past 25 years[1.6.2014 22:11:06] He: so don't you dare say it does nothing[1.6.2014 22:11:14] Me: How do you know that?[1.6.2014 22:11:39] He: because repeatedly time and again when providers over stepped their boundaries, they got sued, and had to give a lot of money back to their customers[1.6.2014 22:11:59] He: They're called class-action lawsuits[1.6.2014 22:12:01] Me: What was this "overstepping of boundaries"?[1.6.2014 22:12:01] He: lawsuits*[1.6.2014 22:12:23] He: them filtering traffic, manipulating internet speeds, breaking terms of service[1.6.2014 22:12:46] He: A provider a handful of years ago was deliberately slowing down their connection to people that downloaded a lot of games on the internet[1.6.2014 22:13:02] He: they got caught and had to compensate their customers that were affected[1.6.2014 22:13:34] He: If I pay x amount of money with the promise I get x speed and x amount of data per month, I get it[1.6.2014 22:13:45] He: if they don't provide those requirements, they get sued[1.6.2014 22:13:49] He: that's a law[1.6.2014 22:13:53] He: a law that does something[1.6.2014 22:16:38] Me: Ok, so a law the government enforces says you must keep your promises. Why not simply have contracts that say "you pay X and we provide Y, with details". If you already have those and company or person/people betray you then you ought not to pay and move on to better ISP. And in the field of competition every ISP would be on they’re feet NEVER to cross you since then they can’t just chance they’re behavior and get you back, they lose trust almost permanently [1.6.2014 22:17:28] He: and who makes this 'contract'?[1.6.2014 22:17:42] Me: Lack of competition is usually signs of government interference and also lobbying and favorable legislations to special interests.[1.6.2014 22:17:47] Me: You and the ISP [1.6.2014 22:18:05] He: ISP: We give you any speed we want and you pay regardless. Ha ha ha[1.6.2014 22:18:08] He: Contract-^[1.6.2014 22:18:14] He: okay, so now I'm fucked[1.6.2014 22:18:17] Me: ???[1.6.2014 22:18:35] Me: Ok, seriously?[1.6.2014 22:18:36] He: If the ISP and I make the contract, the ISP can choose *anything* it wants in the contract[1.6.2014 22:18:43] He: If I don't like it, I don't get a choice[1.6.2014 22:18:47] He: They're the *only* ISP I have[1.6.2014 22:18:56] He: there's a thing called geological availability[1.6.2014 22:19:01] He: why don't you get that?[1.6.2014 22:19:14] Me: Huh?[1.6.2014 22:19:25] He: There is ONE SHOP[1.6.2014 22:19:28] He: ONE FUCKING SHOP[1.6.2014 22:19:33] He: THERE IS NOT COMPITITION!@!@@HIO@$JHN@}[1.6.2014 22:19:39] He: GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD[1.6.2014 22:19:58] Me: Are people clambering for new ISPs in your area? And Desperately and eagerly wish to get rid of the current asshat?[1.6.2014 22:19:59] He: Contacts don't work if there isn't a neutral party setting the rules![1.6.2014 22:20:15] He: You can't get compensation[1.6.2014 22:20:28] He: Do you know what's required for a *new* internet service provider to appear?[1.6.2014 22:20:32] He: They don't just put out a stand and are ready[1.6.2014 22:20:41] He: they need to spend over $100,000 to set up infrastructure![1.6.2014 22:20:47] Me: Ok[1.6.2014 22:20:58] He: In most places in the world there is only ONE service provider[1.6.2014 22:21:00] He: ONE[1.6.2014 22:21:04] He: there's no competition to go to![1.6.2014 22:21:05] Me: But you didn’t answer my question: Is there HUGE or lots of demand for new ISP?[1.6.2014 22:21:18] He: There's also a thing called 'collaperated monopoly'[1.6.2014 22:21:29] He: You have company 'A' and 'B' both agree to raise their costs to the same price[1.6.2014 22:21:30] Me: Stop. Your rolling over me.[1.6.2014 22:21:41] He: Both company 'A' and 'B' fuck you over[1.6.2014 22:21:47] He: they work together to give you no other choice![1.6.2014 22:21:48] Me: You’re babbling new things so fast. Let me deal with these in order [1.6.2014 22:21:51] He: that's what laws are for![1.6.2014 22:21:57] He: No[1.6.2014 22:22:02] He: Stop[1.6.2014 22:22:02] Me: !?[1.6.2014 22:22:11] He: You fucking don't get the basic concepts of law and business[1.6.2014 22:22:21] He: You NEED laws to prevent shit like this[1.6.2014 22:22:32] He: Do you even know what a law is?[1.6.2014 22:22:49] He: A law is a requirement made by the people to enforce justice and the population[1.6.2014 22:23:03] He: Laws are rules made by people to keep order for the people[1.6.2014 22:23:25] He: We need laws to stop monopolies, to stop companies from abusing customers[1.6.2014 22:23:46] He: Apple wouldn't have existed if it weren't for law[1.6.2014 22:23:56] He: Microsoft 8 times, EIGHT TIMES, got lawsuits for monopolies[1.6.2014 22:24:11] He: Microsoft was deliberately making sure no rival company can get the resources needed to grow[1.6.2014 22:24:22] He: Microsoft would pay off every provider of materials to stop competition[1.6.2014 22:24:49] Me: D, are you so blind you don’t see your rambling over me? Cant deal with flood like this unless you give me time to address each issue.[1.6.2014 22:25:03] He: You address each issue the same damn way[1.6.2014 22:25:15] He: you keep just saying the same open-ended, mindless answer of that 'it's just words on paper'[1.6.2014 22:25:20] He: you don't digest the information at all[1.6.2014 22:25:26] He: you just blurt out the same phrases[1.6.2014 22:25:29] He: this is why you piss people off[1.6.2014 22:26:19 | Muokattu 22:26:39] Me: Was that all i said? Do you wait after my comment is posted if i write more? I would have unless if you want me to write one LONG comment.[1.6.2014 22:27:01] He: A contract doesn't stop monopolies[1.6.2014 22:27:15] He: a contract doesn't stop businesses from working together to squeeze out competition and screw customers[1.6.2014 22:27:19 | Muokattu 22:27:26] Me: I didn’t say that it would [1.6.2014 22:27:25] He: He sighs[1.6.2014 22:27:50] He: You read up on the basics of laws and business before you try throwing this 'law does nothing' bullshit[1.6.2014 22:29:03] Me: [1. kesäkuuta 2014 22:09] Me: <<<  Secondly, laws don’t stop anyone. Word in a book don’t stop anyone, its people or disincentives in reality that do.[1.6.2014 22:29:19] He: That entire statement is false[1.6.2014 22:29:43] He: Laws have a massive impact on people and business[1.6.2014 22:30:05] Me: So people and disincentives in reality don’t stop people?[1.6.2014 22:30:24] Me: I did clearly say PEOPLE there now didn’t i?[1.6.2014 22:30:29] He: Laws are written, people enforce them[1.6.2014 22:30:48] He: People can't enforce something they don't agree on[1.6.2014 22:30:58] He: A law is a group agreement on something to enforce[1.6.2014 22:32:57] Me: "People can’t enforce something they don’t agree on." So ISPs can’t enforce anything on you if you and other costumers disagree,[1.6.2014 22:33:48] He: ... internet is a required service[1.6.2014 22:33:50] He: I need internet[1.6.2014 22:33:58] He: If my ISP offers me something I don't like[1.6.2014 22:34:00] He: I don't get a choice[1.6.2014 22:34:08] He: I either go with what they offer, or not at all[1.6.2014 22:34:12] He: and 'not at all' isn't an option[1.6.2014 22:34:17] He: I need internet for my job[1.6.2014 22:34:22] He: and for general living[1.6.2014 22:34:25] Me: Ok[1.6.2014 22:34:28] He: That is called a MONOPOLY[1.6.2014 22:34:43] He: Laws PREVENT monopolies[1.6.2014 22:34:49] Me: Ok. And several times i asked questions regarding this monopoly.[1.6.2014 22:34:56] Me: WAIT HUH!?[1.6.2014 22:35:21] Me: So laws prevent monopolies...[1.6.2014 22:35:30] He: so you haven't listened to a damn thing I've said[1.6.2014 22:35:36] Me: ...yet you have one ISP only in your area.[1.6.2014 22:35:49] He: One hard line one, yes[1.6.2014 22:36:04] He: laws FORCE them to allow secondary companies[1.6.2014 22:36:19] He: Laws also force them to have fair terms of service[1.6.2014 22:37:06] Me: 1. "Allow"? Shouldn’t other ISPs come on in if they want to? How is this one ISP able to push others away? 2. Fair according to whom?[1.6.2014 22:39:39] He: 1. There is ONE set of physical wires. One set of poles that run networking connectivity. The main company that ones them is forced to share their lines with other internet companies at a fixed rate of cost to the other companies.1.5. One ISP doesn't need to 'push' other's away. If the company that owns all the wires and infrastructure in an area doesn't let any other company use their infrastructure, no other company can afford to build their own infrastructure to provide their own services.2. 'Fair' to the people. Laws that have been worked on over the course of many years that people have voted on and worked on for a long time.[1.6.2014 22:43:40] Me: 1. and 1.5 So building wires is expensive or if restricted by whom? And why if id own those wires should "share" them with anyone? Just because most people say so?2. Youre assuming law is fair/good/justified if most people vote on it. How do you know if law works and that its side effects don’t/wont override the assumed good ones?[1.6.2014 22:45:24] He: Are you serious about 1. ?[1.6.2014 22:45:36] He: Go then and build network infrastructure for an entire country[1.6.2014 22:45:39] He: go on, do it[1.6.2014 22:45:49] He: I'd like to see how you acquire a loan for $100,000[1.6.2014 22:46:06] He: that'd be enough for half of my province[1.6.2014 22:46:21] Me: I am serious about asking questions, yes. Nice dodge.[1.6.2014 22:46:24] He: $100,000,000 to cover a chunk of Canada[1.6.2014 22:46:38] He: dodge? Where the fuck will you get the money to build that shit?[1.6.2014 22:46:52] He: it's not restricted by anyone[1.6.2014 22:46:58] He: but building stuff COSTS MONEY[1.6.2014 22:47:20] He: seriously, how can you not expect that it'd cost millions of dollars to build networking infrascture that spans a country!?![1.6.2014 22:48:05] Me: I... didn’t expect anything. I just asked a question, you’re things i didn’t imply or say at all.[1.6.2014 22:48:19] He: No, you're deliberately asking open ended vague questions[1.6.2014 22:48:26] Me: Vague?[1.6.2014 22:48:29] He: YEE[1.6.2014 22:48:32] He: YES*[1.6.2014 22:48:43] He: You already know the answer to that question[1.6.2014 22:48:49] He: you just ask it to keep this stupid topic going forever[1.6.2014 22:48:58] He: You don't fucking win an argument by talking the person to death[1.6.2014 22:49:07] He: I'm fed up of this[1.6.2014 22:49:19] He: I've answered your god damn questions over and over and you keep asking the same fucking question spun a different way[1.6.2014 22:49:25] He: READ MY FUCKING ANSWERS[1.6.2014 22:50:02] He: I'm fed up of explaining over and over again how competition, contracts, monopolies, and network infracture limits people's choice on service providers and need laws to protect them.[1.6.2014 22:50:17] He: You're pissing me off to no end answering your idiotic questions.[1.6.2014 22:51:27] Me: And you answered first of my questions from that last batch. Not the others. With that first one i wanted to make sure it was merely issue of cost and not also of restrictions.[1.6.2014 22:51:43] Me: Also i DID read all of your answers D.

[dsayers]

I'm guessing points 1 and 2 are related. I'm guessing he's normalized any abuse he was exposed to, which is why he can't see it in his upbringing or the State.

 

If he believes the State owns everything, go over to his house and take his lawnmower. It's all owned by the State anyways, so personal property isn't valid. Is Canada a monarchy? If not, then how does he explain how such a massive possession's ownership is transferred from one regime to the next? I mean, who voted him as the owner of his coffee mug?

 

Sadly, these are not difficult fallacies to pierce.

[Anuojat]

I'm guessing points 1 and 2 are related. I'm guessing he's normalized any abuse he was exposed to, which is why he can't see it in his upbringing or the State.

 

If he believes the State owns everything, go over to his house and take his lawnmower. It's all owned by the State anyways, so personal property isn't valid. Is Canada a monarchy? If not, then how does he explain how such a massive possession's ownership is transferred from one regime to the next? I mean, who voted him as the owner of his coffee mug?

 

Sadly, these are not difficult fallacies to pierce.

 

Uhu i will try to find that out if tha tindeed is the case. Schools might be huge part of it because ALL his answers sound like textbook ones and ones that get reinforced by life experiences that fit the bias from said textbooks.

 

Well he goes by the "people whom owned land in canada agreed to transfer powers of such properties to the state" AKA to him it seems legit.

And before you ask no, not mention of the english monarchy. I probobly will show him this forum topic (first ofcourse looking over Stefs videos which i am currently doing)