EU does something useful - Dan faints

[peteyt]

A domain isn't a service, it's a product with the potential for you to set your own price. It's only worth £900 because that's what people are willing to pay for such a domain, if people weren't willing to pay that much for a 'good' domain then it'd be much cheaper.

But my point is you could say this for phones - Some people use their phones abroad already because they have to - which means that people are willing to pay the price. You can say they have no choice but my point is you can say that about a lot of things - if a domain was needed by a big company before someone else bought it they might pay a stupid price not because they want to but because they need to.

I like that phone calls and internet usage will be cheaper however I think it would be better if instead of the government getting involved the actual networks would actually lower the prices as it might lead to others doing so. My problem is the internet is great and stuff, but if it died I'd just have to get over it - it's not like it's as important as food, water etc. stuff we need to actually survive. Obviously some businesses need it, but you can say that about a few things.

[Recursion]

But my point is you could say this for phones - Some people use their phones abroad already because they have to - which means that people are willing to pay the price. You can say they have no choice but my point is you can say that about a lot of things - if a domain was needed by a big company before someone else bought it they might pay a stupid price not because they want to but because they need to.

I like that phone calls and internet usage will be cheaper however I think it would be better if instead of the government getting involved the actual networks would actually lower the prices as it might lead to others doing so. My problem is the internet is great and stuff, but if it died I'd just have to get over it - it's not like it's as important as food, water etc. stuff we need to actually survive. Obviously some businesses need it, but you can say that about a few things.

Slightly off topic, but companies can force a domain handover if they own the trademark or copyright behind it.

Judging by your post, I don't think you realise the extent of the internet (or ability to route data around the world even) nowadays, if the internet died tomorrow the world would pretty much come to a standstill. We rely on it for our economics, foreign intelligence, global trading, communications between people/countries/companies and the list goes on. As I said before though, how can anyone put a price on data being transferred, after network maintenance costs etc? With a domain the prices are actually regulated at the first sale, from there on it's up to whoever owns the domain to price it accordingly for consumers.

[Luke]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

[xxMATTGxx]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

The word "EU" was mentioned in a tech thread and then all hell broke lose.

[Luke]

OIC.
.

[peteyt]

Slightly off topic, but companies can force a domain handover if they own the trademark or copyright behind it.

Judging by your post, I don't think you realise the extent of the internet (or ability to route data around the world even) nowadays, if the internet died tomorrow the world would pretty much come to a standstill. We rely on it for our economics, foreign intelligence, global trading, communications between people/countries/companies and the list goes on. As I said before though, how can anyone put a price on data being transferred, after network maintenance costs etc? With a domain the prices are actually regulated at the first sale, from there on it's up to whoever owns the domain to price it accordingly for consumers.

I thought if you owned the domain first then it was legally yours no matter what unless they owned the copyrighted first

[Chippiewill]

What the **** happened to this forum.. o_O

I realised 5 seconds after I posted the thread that I should have dumped it in CA. Mybad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A great example of where regulation increases competition would be in the home broadband market where BT was forced to lower wholesale prices and offer LLU unbundling. Therefore your catch all statement of "An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition." is obviously false and further exemplifies my point of your reactionary response to regulation without looking at the facts on a case by case basis.

I have looked at a fact by fact basis as does the document, you choose to ignore this and instead continue with this dogmatic argument that regulation is good because it benefits me, but obviously would be bad if it lost you money.

Also you keep saying "don't buy it then" which is a completely nonsensical when I am talking about barriers to entry.

Well, you don't have to buy it or use it.

The fact you don't seem to understand how bias affects a document and be able to take this into account is very worrying and does not bode well for your ability to think critically which is blatantly obvious by your continued use of sweeping statements.

Where have I claimed that the CATO document is unbiased? I have never claimed anything is unbiased.

Furthermore you again show your lack of understanding when you think that mobile phone service providers don't think that 4G (or "whatever" as you put it) is worth investing in.

If it is worth investing in, they will. If it's not, they won't.

Being a technical wizz kid on a forum or a university-to-Brussels politician doesn't make you a successful advisor to business.

Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

Well of course you do, it's very hard to disprove historical examples and i'm glad you decided against it.