Net Neutrality

[SpaceCowboy9]

Let me start by saying this topic should not be on cruise critic. Secondly, I was just sitting here minding my own business when triggered by....

 

Imagine this: "Cruise neutrality" apply the same net neutrality rules to the cruise industry, how about "Amazon neutrality" -- this has all been tried. Do some research on how well Venezuela doing.

 

The net neutrality rules were put in place, what, 2-3 years ago. I think most of us can remember 2-3 years ago and the internet wasn't broken and in need of these rules.

 

It's really very simple. With net neutrality, there is more government regulation and intervention. Without net neutrality, there is less government regulation and intervention. In other words, we are now more free this week than we were a few weeks ago. (Freedom is good.)

 

It's also beneficial to look at history - look up how well government regulation and intervention did with the evolution of the phone. Cell phones were on people's to-do list in the 1940's and the first cell phones didn't start to appear until the 1970's. Government regulation and intervention put the breaks in innovation.

 

Net neutrality? No, I choose freedom.

 

& I'm still free to go on my next cruise in March.

[LA_CA_GAL]

Another "don't have a clue" comment. Not sure why people who don't even live in a state consider themselves experts on how that particular state operates. Could it be jealousy, ignorance, or just plain spite?

 

This is what the Sacramento Bee reported just last month: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article184886288.html

 

"The state budget is in good shape to weather a moderate recession, and lawmakers should be able to sock away more money in reserves next year, according to projections the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office issued Wednesday.

The LAO’s outlook shows the state would finish its 2018-19 budget year with more than $19 billion in reserves [bolding added for emphasis] - assuming lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown don’t make any more spending commitments. About $11 billion is obligated for the state’s rainy-day fund. Lawmakers could spend about $7.5 billion of the surplus, although analysts recommend that they save it to prepare for a recession."

Hint: it is probably better to not say anything about things you know nothing about lest you make yourself look foolish.

 

Meanwhile, last year, long‑term pension and healthcare liabilities jumped by $51 billion. This translates to a total unfunded liability of about $279 billion.

Hint for you, you might want to take a look at the total picture rather than the voodoo economics you pick and choose.

Doing the math, that "surplus" you state minus the unfunded liablilty gives you a negative 260 Billion (bolded for emphasis).

BTW, who looks "foolish" now?

[Hlitner]

Perhaps folks need to consider net neutrality in a more simple way....."government control" vs competition. IMHO, nearly any industry controlled by government becomes more expensive and less consumer oriented. Consider when the US Government controlled the telephone industry and we would pay a fortune (and sometimes wait weeks) to simply have any overpriced phone installed.

 

As to internet providers, many are already suffering because their local government restricts the ability of internet providers to compete by refusing to allow new providers to lay cables and provide service.

 

Hank

[AmazedByCruising]

Perhaps folks need to consider net neutrality in a more simple way....."government control" vs competition. IMHO, nearly any industry controlled by government becomes more expensive and less consumer oriented.

 

I completely agree.

To name a cruise-related example, internet on HAL is quite expensive, but you can read the NYT for free. Of course NYT can pay for that while a startup cannot. So HAL is not "neutral". Is that a bad thing per se? I think not. The other option is not free access to all other sites but not being able to read the NYT for free.

[sloopsailor]

Meanwhile, last year, long‑term pension and healthcare liabilities jumped by $51 billion. This translates to a total unfunded liability of about $279 billion.

Hint for you, you might want to take a look at the total picture rather than the voodoo economics you pick and choose.

Doing the math, that "surplus" you state minus the unfunded liablilty gives you a negative 260 Billion (bolded for emphasis).

BTW, who looks "foolish" now?

 

Sorry, Toots, but you are so wrong with your math, assumptions, and accusations that it is laughable. I live in the state and care a lot more about how it is doing than you ever could, so I certainly cannot trust the information presented by someone with a dislike for a state she doesn't even live in. Stick with making goofy, questionable comments on cruising as you have done in the past. At least they border on being occasionally entertaining.

 

My last reply to you. I don't want to be blamed for being complicit in you looking even more clueless that you already do. :')

[LA_CA_GAL]

Sorry, Toots, but you are so wrong with your math, assumptions, and accusations that it is laughable.:')

 

You claim that your state had a $19 Billion surplus for the year. Meanwhile accruing a $59 debt of unfunded liabilities for health and pensions. My math is totally correct sweety.

 

Your state on the bottom line wound up in the hole $40 Billion for the year.

 

Go ahead. Show me your way of doing the math and prove me wrong.

 

Who laughs now?

 

Kind of like someone having $100 cash in their pocket while running up credit card debt of $10,000. I guess they have a $100 "surplus" if they do that math in California?

 

I wise sage once told me when you find yourself in a hole you wish not to be in, quit digging.

[LA_CA_GAL]

 

My last reply to you. I don't want to be blamed for being complicit in you looking even more clueless that you already do. :')

 

One thing is for sure, I will not be blamed for making you look clueless. You are doing a great job all by yourself.

 

I just did the basic math, and it all adds up. OTOH, you insult me with nasty responses without any substance. Take a break.

[DirtyDawg]

Perhaps folks need to consider net neutrality in a more simple way....."government control" vs competition. IMHO, nearly any industry controlled by government becomes more expensive and less consumer oriented. Consider when the US Government controlled the telephone industry and we would pay a fortune (and sometimes wait weeks) to simply have any overpriced phone installed.

 

As to internet providers, many are already suffering because their local government restricts the ability of internet providers to compete by refusing to allow new providers to lay cables and provide service.

 

Hank

 

That's why I asked posters here how competitive is your internet provider industry in the States. Thanks, everyone who answered. I prefer competition to government regulation but I'm glad we have net neutrality is Canada because our industry is an Oligopoly and is not competitive. Our big phone company owns it's own movie streaming service, which is crap compared to Netflix, and I bet would not hesitate in slowing Netflix down to its customers. My cable company provides very expensive pay per view movies and would love to throttle back Netflix so customers would buy their product. More competition would be better than government regulations but in cases where there is very little competition governments have a role to play. At least the average consumer can vote out to government if they stink. They can't vote out the CEO of Ma Bell or Rogers.

 

I am glad you have more competition in your industry.

[AmazedByCruising]

More competition would be better than government regulations but in cases where there is very little competition governments have a role to play.

...

At least the average consumer can vote out to government if they stink. They can't vote out the CEO of Ma Bell or Rogers.

 

So government regulations make sure there's less competetion, and that's why you want more regulations?

 

That's like allowing only HAL to operate cruiseships, but at least we can vote our government out when we don't like the results of the Better Menus in MDR Act.

[cruisemom42]

Perhaps folks need to consider net neutrality in a more simple way....."government control" vs competition. IMHO, nearly any industry controlled by government becomes more expensive and less consumer oriented. Consider when the US Government controlled the telephone industry and we would pay a fortune (and sometimes wait weeks) to simply have any overpriced phone installed.

 

Hank

 

I'll admit I'm still on a learning curve re: net neutrality and I'm not willing to espouse an opinion until I've researched all the pros and cons.

 

However, I would just say that IMO everyone focuses on this one aspect of governmental regulation.....and forgets that regulations are also there to help ensure that the food we eat is processed safely (if it was up to the companies, many safety processes would be short-circuited to create more profits), just as one example. Corporations cannot always be depended on to look out for the public's best interest when the public's best interest conflicts with the desire to create larger profits.

 

I, for one, don't want to live in a country where medical drugs on the market aren't properly tested, where companies can freely dump toxic waste in communities without fear of reprisal or where safe conditions for working folks aren't regulated. There has to be balance.

[DirtyDawg]

So government regulations make sure there's less competetion, and that's why you want more regulations?

 

That's like allowing only HAL to operate cruiseships, but at least we can vote our government out when we don't like the results of the Better Menus in MDR Act.

 

 

I would love to respond to your post but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[AmazedByCruising]

I would love to respond to your post but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

OK, regulations make sure you can't choose from 20 different internet providers, and you're left with just 1 or 2. Then they take advantage of that situation, which I think is good management in that situation, and now you want even more regulations to solve that.

 

That's suppressing symptoms of the real problem, which is that the barrier to enter the market for new internet providers is too high because of previous regulations. There is no need for a law on menus in MDR because people can simply decide to spend their money on a different line. There would be no need for net neutrality laws if people could start JoesInternet.Com "always low prices, 99.9% uptime and 100% neutral" tomorrow.

[PTMary]

California, the state of fiscal responsibility.

 

NUFF said.

 

Wow, lots of anger there.

 

Some things CA does do right. Have to being one of the largest economies in the world and taking less Fed money then we give. Does PA do everything correctly?

 

Not sure why some people have this desperate obsession with criticizing states they don't even live in. Is it envy? Is it anger? Is it hate? Or is it because of a mis-formed part of their personality. Who cares how a state you don't even live in manages it's finances? Why does it matter to someone in Pennsylvania how fiscally responsible another state is or isn't? I hold no animosity towards any state, especially a state that I have no involvement with. Seems like it would be a fools errand to have so much negativity about something that doesn't affect me.

 

Some people are so broken! :rolleyes:

[DirtyDawg]

OK, regulations make sure you can't choose from 20 different internet providers, and you're left with just 1 or 2. Then they take advantage of that situation, which I think is good management in that situation, and now you want even more regulations to solve that.

 

That's suppressing symptoms of the real problem, which is that the barrier to enter the market for new internet providers is too high because of previous regulations. There is no need for a law on menus in MDR because people can simply decide to spend their money on a different line. There would be no need for net neutrality laws if people could start JoesInternet.Com "always low prices, 99.9% uptime and 100% neutral" tomorrow.

 

Thanks for clarifying. As I said, competition is preferable but if you don't have competition, for whatever reason, there are just three choices; 1) reverse the government regulations that created the monopoly/oligopoly (if that is the case - not all monopolies are government created), 2) let the consumer deal with it, or 3) some form of government regulation. If 1) cannot be done, you are left with # 2) or #3).

[PTMary]

You claim that your state had a $19 Billion surplus for the year. Meanwhile accruing a $59 debt of unfunded liabilities for health and pensions. My math is totally correct sweety.

 

Your state on the bottom line wound up in the hole $40 Billion for the year.

 

Go ahead. Show me your way of doing the math and prove me wrong.

 

Who laughs now?

 

Kind of like someone having $100 cash in their pocket while running up credit card debt of $10,000. I guess they have a $100 "surplus" if they do that math in California?

 

I wise sage once told me when you find yourself in a hole you wish not to be in, quit digging.

 

You are funny! I am glad you have such a propensity for humor. Sometimes these threads need a comedian such as yourself to lighten things up when it gets too serious.

[LA_CA_GAL]

You are funny! I am glad you have such a propensity for humor. Sometimes these threads need a comedian such as yourself to lighten things up when it gets too serious.

 

Hey, I try to have fun here, but, sometimes the facts wind up inserting a bug up my rectum.

 

Hate those damn facts.

[SadieN]

Hey, I try to have fun here, but, sometimes the facts wind up inserting a bug up my rectum.

 

 

 

Hate those damn facts.

 

 

 

Facts do get in the way of getting in the way, lol.

[CruisingAlong4Now]

OK. Now let's talk about the recently passed tax bill in the US. Then we can talk about N Korea. And then we can talk about why Pluto was demoted and is no longer a planet.

 

Hey guys, this section is called Ask a Cruise Question.

[DirtyDawg]

OK. Now let's talk about the recently passed tax bill in the US. Then we can talk about N Korea. And then we can talk about why Pluto was demoted and is no longer a planet.

 

Hey guys, this section is called Ask a Cruise Question.

 

Hey, if the Mods think this is not a proper subject they will remove the thread.

 

Oh, thanks for mentioning the tax bill. Will the cruise industry be paying more corporate income tax as a result of that new tax bill?

[johnmc1234]

lets take a crack at this using the cruise lines based upon with or without net (cruise) neutrality :

 

 

with:

• all cruse lines will have to go to all of the same ports and offer same prices for each cruise.
  
• all exclusive ports are open to all regardless of who owns them.
  
• there can not be different room sizes everyone will have the same size and amenities. you might have to share a room with a stranger
  
• there will not be any diamond or club status giving anyone priority based upon loyalty
  
• all of the items for sale on the islands have to be the same price, ie buy from the first or last and no need to negotiate price.
  

 

 

without:

• competition each cruise line has to negotiate each port and each island.
  
• a cruise line can purchase an island and be exclusive
  
• multiple room sizes and priced accordingly.
  
• reward members as they build loyalty with their cruise line.
  
• you can buy from who you choose to go to what ever vendor that gives you the best deal
  

just saying.

[chengkp75]

Hey, if the Mods think this is not a proper subject they will remove the thread.

 

Oh, thanks for mentioning the tax bill. Will the cruise industry be paying more corporate income tax as a result of that new tax bill?

 

Since the only tax the lines pay to the US is for their corporate headquarters operations, and the new bill drops the highest corporate tax rate, there is no chance the lines will pay more taxes, and most likely even less than before.

[Hlitner]

Hey, if the Mods think this is not a proper subject they will remove the thread.

 

Oh, thanks for mentioning the tax bill. Will the cruise industry be paying more corporate income tax as a result of that new tax bill?

 

The new tax law will be a huge windfall for the cruise lines. This will certainly benefit the stockholders (me) and should encourage more investment in new fixed assets such as ships. Also consider that many taxpayers (especially those with middle class incomes) will have more disposable income....so of which will likely be spent on cruise vacations. And finally one should not forget the economy is on a growth upswing....which is usually a very good thing for the cruise/vacation/leisure industries.

 

Hank

[AmazedByCruising]

lets take a crack at this using the cruise lines based upon with or without net (cruise) neutrality

 

You forgot the medivac, "transport neutrality" would mean all passengers should be transported using a helicopter once it is proven someone got faster to the port than others.

[sleepless]

lets take a crack at this using the cruise lines based upon with or without net (cruise) neutrality :

 

 

with:

 

• all cruse lines will have to go to all of the same ports and offer same prices for each cruise.
  
• all exclusive ports are open to all regardless of who owns them.
  
• there can not be different room sizes everyone will have the same size and amenities. you might have to share a room with a stranger
  
• there will not be any diamond or club status giving anyone priority based upon loyalty
  
• all of the items for sale on the islands have to be the same price, ie buy from the first or last and no need to negotiate price.
  

 

 

without:

• competition each cruise line has to negotiate each port and each island.
  
• a cruise line can purchase an island and be exclusive
  
• multiple room sizes and priced accordingly.
  
• reward members as they build loyalty with their cruise line.
  
• you can buy from who you choose to go to what ever vendor that gives you the best deal
  

just saying.

 

I like the way you broke this down.

 

 

If "neutrality" we're part of the car industry, we would all be driving black 2 door sedans, that seat 5 people. With "freedom", we are able to pick our favorite color, style, and passenger size. I prefer a red, 4 door suv.

[DirtyDawg]

Since the only tax the lines pay to the US is for their corporate headquarters operations, and the new bill drops the highest corporate tax rate, there is no chance the lines will pay more taxes, and most likely even less than before.

 

Thanks chengkp75. That's good news for cruisers.