Stevedog13:

Stevedog13: When a mutual agreement is struck between a provider and consumer without outside influence it is called free trade. When all transactions are conducted this same way it is called a free market.The "Free" in free market means there is no intervention by parties (ie the government) outside of the transaction at hand. The moment influence is exerted, either by regulation, subsidy or tax, it ceases to be a free trade transaction.

Your assertion that "There is no real free market without regulation, because without regulation the stronger people (larger companies) dominate the weaker." is a completely contradictory statement. In a free trade transaction there is no stronger party, both sides need to be in mutual agreement. It doesn't matter how greedy or corrupt a business is, they cannot simply take my money. I need to be persuaded to voluntarily give up my money for goods or services they offer. If two companies are offering the exact same good/service then I am free to choose whichever is offering me the best value. To get ahead, the greedy company could decide to come to my house and forcibly take my money, or go to the competitor and destroyed their inventory. The solution there is to have a laws which strongly protects property rights. In this scenario the only way for one company to dominate the other is by being vastly superior to all competitors.

Introducing government regulations into the equation is when you start to see barriers to entry and market dominance by companies based on size and strength rather than quality. The government does have the power to come and take my money, they have the force of law. If a law is passed saying that I need to engage a provider for a specific good or service then it is no longer a free market transaction. I am no longer making a trade based on mutual agreement with a provider, I am spending money on unwanted goods to avoid jail. If a regulation is passed dictating how a good must be processed or how a service must be administered then this gives an advantage to some companies over another. A company that cannot compete in a free market may instead implore the government for new rules and regulations that are beneficial to themselves. Take for example incandescent light bulbs. Buying light bulbs was once a choice between cheap and disposable or longer lasting but more expensive, then in 2012 the federal government instituted a ban on these light bulbs starting with any bulbs greater than 100 watts, and continuing until a complete phase-out in the year 2020. If you want to buy light bulbs now your only choice is the more expensive CFL, LED and "energy efficient" incandescent bulbs. Obviously there are lots of people who would prefer the cheap bulbs if given the choice, after all you don't pass a federal ban on something nobody wants. So who asked for this ban in the first place? It was the light bulb manufacturers. The expensive bulbs are harder to make, which cuts down on competition, and have a bigger profit margin.

Government intervention into business cannot create a free market, they can only create directed markets which are the exact opposite.

Stevedog13: It doesn't matter how greedy or corrupt a business is, they cannot simply take my money. I need to be persuaded to voluntarily give up my money for goods or services they offer. If two companies are offering the exact same good/service then I am free to choose whichever is offering me the best value. To get ahead, the greedy company could decide to come to my house and forcibly take my money, or go to the competitor and destroyed their inventory. The solution there is to have a laws which strongly protects property rights. In this scenario the only way for one company to dominate the other is by being vastly superior to all competitors.

Stevedog13: Take for example incandescent light bulbs. Buying light bulbs was once a choice between cheap and disposable or longer lasting but more expensive

infinite9: Just to let you all know, the FCC is run by ISP and telecommunications cronies. The chairman of the FCC commission is Thomas Wheeler, a former telecommunications lobbyist and executive. The FCC's ability to regulate ISPs means that the ISPs will be using the institution of government to protect themselves and this time it will be done in the name of "net neutrality."

To put it simply, this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It has to do with a de facto government-run cartel of corporate cronies and busybodies acquiring more power to dictate your internet choices and internet accesses. To add insult to injury, the bill was never passed by our elected representatives and the public has been denied any viewing of the 300+ page legislation. It means the FCC had to pass it in order for us to find out what is in it. Sound familiar?

The following illustration summarizes my point.

Almost forgot: there was proposal by Republicans for a simple bill (one that would not be so simple after getting edited by lawyers) that would have helped address some of these concerns for ISPs getting carried away. Just saying there was an alternative to giving the FCC, a corrupt de facto cartel, with more dictatorial powers.

lordhoff: This is exactly the changes Putin demanded so governments could control content; they got their foot in the door and the open I-net will be a thing of the past before my demise. Agreed (as government in USA is crony capitalism and absolutely non-trustable).