Judges shoot down another one of Obama's government takeover targets, say FCC has no authority...I wonder if Obama will badmouth the judges in his next State of the Union speech...let's watch the scramble in the House and Senate to pass a bill GIVING authority to the FCC...after all, you cant effectively control propaganda when you dont control the medium....it starts with an innocent enough sounding idea such as 'net neutrality', but in reality it is just baby step number one of state control: get your foot in the door first, then slowly wedge the door more open until you have what you want...the same philosophy the socialists are using with health care.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Court: FCC has no power to regulate Net neutrality
by Declan McCullagh

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday's decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules--even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so. That push is opposed by Verizon and other broadband providers.

"Our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation," Comcast said in a statement. "We have always been focused on serving our customers and delivering the quality open-Internet experience consumers want."

Net neutrality proponents responded to Tuesday's ruling by saying the FCC should slap landline-style regulations on Internet providers, which could involve price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates. The agency "should immediately start a proceeding bringing Internet access service back under some common carrier regulation," Public Knowledge's Gigi Sohn said. The Media Access Project said, without mentioning common carrier regulations directly, that the FCC must have the "ability to protect the rights of Internet users to access lawful content and services of their choice."

In a statement on Tuesday, the FCC indicated that it was thinking along the same lines. The DC Circuit did not "close the door to other methods for achieving this important end," the agency said. A spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

Early reaction on Capitol Hill cleaved along party lines. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator and senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said: "It would be wrong to double down on excessive and burdensome regulations, and I hope the FCC chairman will now reconsider his decision to pursue expanded commission authority over broadband services."

But Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who had drafted one of the unsuccessful Net neutrality bills, said: "I encourage the (FCC) to take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the Internet." Markey noted that he reintroduced similar legislation last summer -- it's been stuck in a House subcommittee even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said there was an urgent need to enact it.

The FCC had known all along that it was on shaky legal ground. Its vote to take action against Comcast was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority "is sure to doom this order on appeal."

The ruling also is likely to shift the debate to whether Congress will choose to explicitly grant the FCC the authority to regulate companies' network management practices. It will also likely revive lobbying coalitions that have been defunct for the last few years.

In 2006, Congress rejected five bills, backed by groups including Google, Amazon.com, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, that would have handed the FCC the power to police Net neutrality violations. Even though the Democrats have enjoyed a majority on Capitol Hill since 2007, the political leadership has shown little interest in resuscitating those proposals.

"We must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices," Tatel wrote in his 36-page opinion. "The Commission may exercise this 'ancillary' authority only if it demonstrates that its action--here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers' use of peer-to-peer networking applications--is 'reasonably ancillary to the...effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'"

In August 2005, the FCC adopted a set of principles saying "consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice." But the principles also permit providers' "reasonable network management" and, confusingly, the FCC admitted on the day of their adoption that the guidelines "are not enforceable."

The FCC's 2008 vote to punish Comcast stems from a request from Free Press and its political allies, including some Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law school faculty.

This is not the first time that the FCC has been rebuked for enacting regulations without any actual legal authority to do so. In 2005, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the agency did not have the authority to draft its so-called broadcast flag rule. And a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled in the Janet Jackson nipple exposure incident that the FCC's sanctions against CBS--which publishes CNET News--amounted to an "arbitrary and capricious change of policy."

Update at 9:15 a.m. PDT: History and more details added.

Update at 11:21 a.m. PDT: More reactions, including Comcast statement, added.

Update 11:25 a.m. PDT: Here's e-mail I received from Sam Feder, a former FCC general counsel who's now a partner at the Jenner and Block law firm in Washington: "There are no great paths forward. The court decision is not broad enough to have a good shot at overturning it in the Supreme Court, and for the same reason, it is unlikely to prod Congress into enacting legislation. Reclassifying broadband under Title II -- a path advocated by some public interest groups -- might provide a more sound legal basis for moving forward, but the politics of that move are awful. The ISPs would fight tooth and nail to avoid reclassification, and the public interest groups are unlikely to be happy unless reclassification is accompanied by significant regulation. In the end, that move makes nobody happy. I think the best path forward is to try to articulate different grounds for exercising ancillary jurisdiction, a path the court left open, and then taking your chances in court. I give that path a 50-50 shot at success."

Good although a lot of people in the podium will disagree

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1632196

Good although a lot of people in the podium will disagree

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1632196

true..sadly, there is no shortage today of big-government nanny state supporters who want the feds to takeover every aspect of our lives...maybe even wipe their butts for them

So Radeck, what's your take on net neutrality? Do try your best to not incorporate Obama hate into your answer, though we know you really can't help such an obsession.

true..sadly, there is no shortage today of big-government nanny state supporters who want the feds to takeover every aspect of our lives...maybe even wipe their butts for them
On the contrary, there are many here that are familiar with the technology and understand why this is not a nanny state issue, but rather one of avoiding a negative impact on one's ability to use a paid service in the manner they desire.

I'm no fan of the FCC, but the concept here is a good one.

it's none of the government's business what is transmitted and at what speed and to what servers...period. the NEt worked fine for 20+ years, there is no need for the feds to stick their nose in to micromanaging it.

it's none of the government's business what is transmitted and at what speed and to what servers...period. the NEt worked fine for 20+ years, there is no need for the feds to stick their nose in to micromanaging it.

Net neutrality is about avoiding the micromanaging of the traffic. ;)

On the contrary, there are many here that are familiar with the technology and understand why this is not a nanny state issue, but rather one of avoiding a negative impact on one's ability to use a paid service in the manner they desire.

I'm no fan of the FCC, but the concept here is a good one.

that's how most government regulation starts out: small and seemingly a benign and good concept...but once their foot is in the door, there is no end to what other 'mission creep' will take place more and more intrusively, as the government does in everything else.

Net neutrality is about avoiding the micromanaging of the traffic. ;)

nope..it's about the government adding more regulation and control over the private sector...once their foot is in the door, there is no stopping it.

that's how most government regulation starts out: small and seemingly a benign and good concept...but once their foot is in the door, there is no end to what other 'mission creep' will take place more and more intrusively, as the government does in everything else.



nope..it's about the government adding more regulation and control over the private sector...once their foot is in the door, there is no stopping it.

Presumably you think the government should stay out of the mine safety business too. After all isn't that all about regulation and control of the private sector?

that's how most government regulation starts out: small and seemingly a benign and good concept...but once their foot is in the door, there is no end to what other 'mission creep' will take place more and more intrusively, as the government does in everything else.



nope..it's about the government adding more regulation and control over the private sector...once their foot is in the door, there is no stopping it.

I'm getting the impression that you haven't read up on what net neutrality is. I'm not talking about what the fearmongering talking heads have spouted, because the vast majority of that is completely incorrect.

Did you read all of the previous thread on the topic? I'd rather not repeat the arguments that have already been made.

Presumably you think the government should stay out of the mine safety business too. After all isn't that all about regulation and control of the private sector?

irrelevant strawman...how many people have died due to internet traffic? is mining a Constitutionally protected activity as communication / flow of information / free speech is?

I'm getting the impression that you haven't read up on what net neutrality is. I'm not talking about what the fearmongering talking heads have spouted, because the vast majority of that is completely incorrect.

Did you read all of the previous thread on the topic? I'd rather not repeat the arguments that have already been made.

I read parts of it, not the whole thing...regardless, I am leery of any further encroachment and regulation by the feds...there are always unintended consequences and unstated, maybe even devious, intentions...maybe you trust government...I dont.

irrelevant strawman...how many people have died due to internet traffic? is mining a Constitutionally protected activity as communication / flow of information / free speech is?

So you are for certain types of government regulation and control of the private sector then?

I read parts of it, not the whole thing...regardless, I am leery of any further encroachment and regulation by the feds...there are always unintended consequences and unstated, maybe even devious, intentions...maybe you trust government...I dont.

so the private sector should be able to tell you what you can and cannot download? No thanks....

I read parts of it, not the whole thing...regardless, I am leery of any further encroachment and regulation by the feds...there are always unintended consequences and unstated, maybe even devious, intentions...maybe you trust government...I dont.

So you're vehemently against something you're not really familiar with? There's no point in arguing the issue then. :sadwalk:

so the private sector should be able to tell you what you can and cannot download? No thanks....

if you don't like the practices of one provider, you are free to switch to another one...you have no such choice with the government...you are stuck and under their thumb and there is nothing you can do about it...no competition, no alternative, no options, no choices, no recourse.

if you don't like the practices of one provider, you are free to switch to another one...you have no such choice with the government...you are stuck and under their thumb and there is nothing you can do about it...no competition, no alternative, no options, no choices, no recourse.

You could leave the country.

or the planet.

if you don't like the practices of one provider, you are free to switch to another one...you have no such choice with the government...you are stuck and under their thumb and there is nothing you can do about it...no competition, no alternative, no options, no choices, no recourse.

You're free to switch to another one, provided that the other one does not also restrict their internet traffic and provided that you actually have the option in your location to choose another broadband provider. I'm in a major city and the choices are very slim.

So you're vehemently against something you're not really familiar with? There's no point in arguing the issue then. :sadwalk:

yeah :rolleyes: because I have to understand exactly the biological processes of arsenic to know that it is bad for me, or know exactly how a truck engine works to know it is bad for me if a truck is heading my way.

again, your premise is that you trust government..mine is the opposite, regardless of hundreds or thousands of pages of legalese and garbage in a bill or regulatory procedure.

so the private sector should be able to tell you what you can and cannot download? No thanks....

Can I go buy food at a Nike store?

You're free to switch to another one, provided that the other one does not also restrict their internet traffic and provided that you actually have the option in your location to choose another broadband provider. I'm in a major city and the choices are very slim.

Net neutrality isn't a restriction. It's actually intended to prevent restrictions. The whole restriction spiel is simply a product of Radeck's very active imagination.

Net neutrality isn't a restriction. It's actually intended to prevent restrictions. The whole restriction spiel is simply a product of Radeck's very active imagination.

That's what I'm saying.

Net neutrality isn't a restriction. It's actually intended to prevent restrictions. The whole restriction spiel is simply a product of Radeck's very active imagination.
To be fair, Beck got the ball rolling on that misinformation campaign.

That's what I'm saying.

I know. I was just clarifying that we have no reason to believe or even suspect that the FCC would take or would develop any interest in taking Microsoft's place as the new DRM boogeyman.

yeah :rolleyes: because I have to understand exactly the biological processes of arsenic to know that it is bad for me, or know exactly how a truck engine works to know it is bad for me if a truck is heading my way.
How is the attempted action by the FCC in any way comparable to the above?

again, your premise is that you trust government..mine is the opposite, regardless of hundreds or thousands of pages of legalese and garbage in a bill or regulatory procedure.

Absolutely false. Your premise is based on mistrust the government, my premise is based on understanding the matter at hand and having drawn a conclusion based on that understanding. Since you don't seem to wish to understand the matter at hand there's really nothing to debate on the topic.

That is, unless you have some specific aspect of the net neutrality legislature that you believe to be suspect. That'd be something substantial to converse about.

To be fair, Beck got the ball rolling on that misinformation campaign.

I know, but most people have keenly observed that Beck's TV personality suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. ;)

Trancepire....Maybe you could dredge up the previous thread on this issue so that some people might educate themselves.

Trancepire....Maybe you could dredge up the previous thread on this issue so that some people might educate themselves.

Fourth Commandment mate: Thou shalt not necro-thread.

Judges shoot down another one of Obama's government takeover targets,

Ummmmm.....


The article says that the FCC filed the case in mid-2008. Who was in the White House in mid-2008?

Secret hint: he wasn't black!

Net neutrality isn't a restriction. It's actually intended to prevent restrictions.

So how does it prevent restrictions? By placing restrictions perhaps? :nod:

So how does it prevent restrictions? By placing restrictions perhaps? :nod:

The same way that the 1st amendment is a restriction.

The same way that the 1st amendment is a restriction.
Sure, I suppose.

Trancepire....Maybe you could dredge up the previous thread on this issue so that some people might educate themselves.

Appleyum did that earlier in this thread, but here's the link again: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1632196.

Net neutrality isn't a restriction. It's actually intended to prevent restrictions. The whole restriction spiel is simply a product of Radeck's very active imagination.

one aspect of NN is to disallow the providers from charging more money to high volume users or web sites...this hurts everyone...just as with anything else, heavy users SHOULD pay more, be they consumers who download 200GB a day or porn and music, or sites like youtube that take up large amounts of bandwidth...thoese who use a system more, SHOULD pay more...NN tries to stop that...

why should I suffer poor data throughput to my email because some others are downloading 300GB of porn and music? If they want that privilege they need to pay more since they cost the providers more...I am against metered (by the kilobyte) usage, but only up to a point...like many phone carriers you get free long distance, but up to a point, beyond which you pay. This is the same thing.

Forcing low volume users and web sites to pay the same as heavy users, is nothing but forcing the low volume user to subsidize and pay for the heavy user...how is that fair? It is the same 'spread the wealth' mentality of the welfare state crowd...those heavy internet users will force MY fees to go up as ISP's have to spread their costs...the same idea with welfare and UHC, which I am equally against...let those who use more (internet, welfare, health care, whatever) pay more...it's not my responsibility to subsidize them.

So how does it prevent restrictions? By placing restrictions perhaps? :nod:

Oh semantics.

(-2)(-2)=4. The product of two negatives is a positive. If I hit you once, I go to jail. If I hit you twice, I get a free pie. Dem's the rules.

so the private sector should be able to tell you what you can and cannot download? No thanks....
Corrrect. Don't like it, choose another service provider that allows you to.

Slickdeals block certain URL...it is telling you you can't post the URL. Why do you continue to use this site?

Ummmmm.....


The article says that the FCC filed the case in mid-2008. Who was in the White House in mid-2008?

Secret hint: he wasn't black!

another hint: Obama and his appointees are big-time NN supporters and pushers...search for his speeches on it.

You could leave the country.
That argument doesn't work because it's not the same comparison.

With business you can choose an alternative without having to move or you can withhold from doing business with them without having to move.

one aspect of NN is to disallow the providers from charging more money to high volume users or web sites...this hurts everyone...just as with anything else, heavy users SHOULD pay more, be they consumers who download 200GB a day or porn and music, or sites like youtube that take up large amounts of bandwidth...thoese who use a system more, SHOULD pay more...NN tries to stop that...

why should I suffer poor data throughput to my email because some others are downloading 300GB of porn and music? If they want that privilege they need to pay more since they cost the providers more...I am against metered (by the kilobyte) usage, but only up to a point...like many phone carriers you get free long distance, but up to a point, beyond which you pay. This is the same thing.

Forcing low volume users and web sites to pay the same as heavy users, is nothing but forcing the low volume user to subsidize and pay for the heavy user...how is that fair? It is the same 'spread the wealth' mentality of the welfare state crowd...those heavy internet users will force MY fees to go up as ISP's have to spread their costs...the same idea with welfare and UHC, which I am equally against...let those who use more (internet, welfare, health care, whatever) pay more...it's not my responsibility to subsidize them.

I'm not sure I see the dilemma here. True, if a crap ton of power users are downloading so much content that they bog down the line for an entire neighborhood, it creates an inconvenience. True, sometimes that inconvenience could be quite severe. But it should be temporary. These telecommunications companies are literally rolling in money. Perhaps they could spend that money on upgrading their infrastructures to accommodate modern technologies?

One of the biggest criticisms American internet service providers face in general is the inordinately high cost of high-speed internet. There are lot of reasons that the costs are higher, but part of the problem is that providers aren't reinvesting that money at the rate they should be to keep up with growing bandwidth demands. As HD media streaming, video game and software downloads, and file sharing become exponentially more common, providers aren't even trying to keep up. That's no one's fault but your provider. Lend a hand to Google when they start their fiber project. Maybe if it can go nationwide, it will offer a more palatable experience even with no caps.

Corrrect. Don't like it, choose another service provider that allows you to.

Slickdeals block certain URL...it is telling you you can't post the URL. Why do you continue to use this site?

moreover, some ISP's provide restricted access to or short-duration archives to various Usenet Newsgroups, and people have to shop around to find ISP's that give them what they want...that is their right as ISP's to limit or grant access, as that directly affects their costs, and thus what they have to charge their customers.

What a private vendor determines to provide and sell and at what price point should be their own decision, and theirs alone, not the government's....a concept lost on today's crop of nanny-state politicians and their supporters.

That argument doesn't work because it's not the same comparison.

With business you can choose an alternative without having to move or you can withhold from doing business with them without having to move.

Sure it works, just with a different tradeoff. For example, with government you can move without having to die. Legitimately having no choice means exactly that: you have no choice. And believe me, that has been the case for quite a lot of people throughout history.

Oh semantics.

(-2)(-2)=4. The product of two negatives is a positive. If I hit you once, I go to jail. If I hit you twice, I get a free pie. Dem's the rules.

Semantics my ass, they are placing restrictions on how ISPs can run their business. I don't know how you can even suggest that isn't a restriction.

The TCIP/IP stack isn't broken, and if it takes government legislation to prevent the private media conglomerates from breaking it then I'm all for it.

I know, but most people have keenly observed that Beck's TV personality suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. ;)

beck is just one voice. Ron Paul is also against it for the same reasons I am: government intrusion into and over regulation of the private sector.

Semantics my ass, they are placing restrictions on how ISPs can run their business. I don't know how you can even suggest that isn't a restriction.They're not just "running their business" when they're participating in a worldwide network whose establishment and adherence to standards are precisely the things that made it so easily dissemenated worldwide.

Appleyum did that earlier in this thread, but here's the link again: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1632196.

Oh thanks. I'm including myself in the group that needs to be educated.

Semantics my ass, they are placing restrictions on how ISPs can run their business. I don't know how you can even suggest that isn't a restriction.

Because we're talking about consumers. Restrictions have long been placed on service providers in telecommunications industries. If you want to debate the ethics of that, fine, but you'll be debating a long-standing precedent of consumer protection through ostensibly acceptable limitations placed on service providers.

You're free to switch to another one, provided that the other one does not also restrict their internet traffic and provided that you actually have the option in your location to choose another broadband provider. I'm in a major city and the choices are very slim.
Then you are focusing on the wrong problem.

FCC should be focusing on promoting more competition, easier entry for new business into the ISP market.

Google entering into ISP market should make this interesting.

beck is just one voice. Ron Paul is also against it for the same reasons I am: government intrusion into and over regulation of the private sector.The part you're missing here is that there *are* no markets without rules and regulations that are established by the government. I get being against *excessive* rules and regulations, but without them you have no marketplace to begin with.

Then you are focusing on the wrong problem.

FCC should be focusing on promoting more competition, easier entry for new business into the ISP market.

:iagree:

Then you are focusing on the wrong problem.

FCC should be focusing on promoting more competition, easier entry for new business into the ISP market.Among other problems, that would amount to a sort of "wealth redistribution" of the existing physical infrastructure.

ISP's have to have the flexibility to experiment with different billing and tier-pricing or whatever else they feel they need to do in order to run a profitable , efficient business (bad words for the left , I know, but without them those ISP's will not exist)...NN straps them down and stifles that form of innovation and experimentation....just like people, companies have to be free to make their own decisions, and fail or succeed based on them....enough of the nanny state, wanting to tell not just people, but also businesses, how to run their affairs....a common theme with democrats' health care ideas.

one aspect of NN is to disallow the providers from charging more money to high volume users or web sites...this hurts everyone...just as with anything else, heavy users SHOULD pay more, be they consumers who download 200GB a day or porn and music, or sites like youtube that take up large amounts of bandwidth...thoese who use a system more, SHOULD pay more...NN tries to stop that...
There's already the option to pay more for a bigger pipe with most carriers.

why should I suffer poor data throughput to my email because some others are downloading 300GB of porn and music? If they want that privilege they need to pay more since they cost the providers more...I am against metered (by the kilobyte) usage, but only up to a point...like many phone carriers you get free long distance, but up to a point, beyond which you pay. This is the same thing.
Have you actually suffered any hit to your home Internet speed because of another user's Internet habits?

Forcing low volume users and web sites to pay the same as heavy users, is nothing but forcing the low volume user to subsidize and pay for the heavy user...how is that fair? It is the same 'spread the wealth' mentality of the welfare state crowd...those heavy internet users will force MY fees to go up as ISP's have to spread their costs...the same idea with welfare and UHC, which I am equally against...let those who use more (internet, welfare, health care, whatever) pay more...it's not my responsibility to subsidize them.
That's the business model the ISPs have established. :dontknow: You're welcome to find an ISP that offers a low-tier package, right?

Among other problems, that would amount to a sort of "wealth redistribution" of the existing physical infrastructure.

How so?

so the private sector should be able to tell you what you can and cannot download? No thanks....

There are existing laws and regulations that already prevent this. Additional "Net Neutrality" legislation is not needed to prevent unfair business practices and anti-competitive acts. If a broadband provider was blocking certain users or content the FCC would already have the power to act on that.

Something to consider, metered access was the standard in much of Europe up until relatively recently, maybe 5 years ago. It got to a point where downloading a single HD movie could cost over $200. But with that rise of video streaming, the people effectively ended that practice as customers moved to ISPs that offered unlimited bandwidth. Now there are plans there where you can get like 50mbps unlimited broadband with free telephone service and a load of on-demand video offerings for like 40 euros/month.

There's already the option to pay more for a bigger pipe with most carriers.

You're confusing speed with volume.

Can I go buy food at a Nike store?

Nike isn't in the food business. Comcast OTOH is often in competition with only 1 or 2 other providers in an area and is in the internet/downloading business

You're confusing speed with volume.
Radeck seems to believe someone else downloading large amounts of data is going to interfere with his browsing experience. That's why I was referring to speed, and your point is what I was getting to. :D

There's already the option to pay more for a bigger pipe with most carriers. good...and hopefully it will stay that way...


Have you actually suffered any hit to your home Internet speed because of another user's Internet habits?At certain times of the day my connection is slower, yes. I have cable which is a pooled connection, not DSL which is a guaranteed connection...so what my neighbors are doing affects my connection to varying degrees.


That's the business model the ISPs have established. :dontknow: You're welcome to find an ISP that offers a low-tier package, right? yes...my provider does have different rates for different speeds (which is not guaranteed and depends on traffic load), allowing me that option and selection, something I understand NN was going to make illegal because it is a tiered service.

Radeck seems to believe someone else downloading large amounts of data is going to interfere with his browsing experience. That's why I was referring to speed, and your point is what I was getting to. :D

I read what he said. He was referring to volume, with key words like "200GB/day" and you came back with ISPs providing internet at different speeds.

Do you honestly think that all bandwidth everywhere is unlimited or something? Have you never been on a network where your internet traffic slows because someone else is downloading something big? Or when there are a lot of people sharing one connection it slows down? Try using an iPhone in San Francisco. That should give you a clue that high volume users slow down traffic for everyone. (Before you tell me that's 3G and not broadband, understand that I use the example because the concept is the same)

Considering BitTorrents make up almost half (or is it more than half now?) of all internet traffic, I think it's unreasonable to expect it to not have an effect on the bandwidth of other people somewhere along the line.

The part you're missing here is that there *are* no markets without rules and regulations that are established by the government. I get being against *excessive* rules and regulations, but without them you have no marketplace to begin with.

Are you saying that without a government we wouldn't have a market place? How can you even begin to think that is true? The first thing that happens when two people interact is an exchange of goods and services...they don't need a government to set rules for them.

Are you saying that without a government we wouldn't have a market place? How can you even begin to think that is true? The first thing that happens when two people interact is an exchange of goods and services...they don't need a government to set rules for them.

I think the first Cavemen that traded some sharp sticks for fire had to file a form 1038-00-41P. :D

I think the first Cavemen that traded some sharp sticks for fire had to file a form 1038-00-41P. :D

He also owes sales tax, property tax, business tax, SS tax, Medicare/Medicaid, and has to claim a property exemption for his place of business....And he forgot to file....

I read what he said. He was referring to volume, with key words like "200GB/day" and you came back with ISPs providing internet at different speeds.
Yes, he was referring to volume there, but the gist of his complaint seemed to be that the big users that did such would affect his experience, as evidenced by the claim "why should I suffer poor data throughput to my email because some others are downloading 300GB of porn and music?"

What does it matter to his connection that someone is downloading 3 MB or 3 GB of porn and music? The volume doesn't matter, the only way his connection is going to be adversely affected is if someone is managing to saturate the connection at the same time he's trying to use it. I've long been a cable customer, and know neighbors who utilize bittorrent while I'm using it myself and have never experienced slow speeds due to it (this is, of course, with UL throttling in place - without which I wouldn't be able to use my own connection for anything other than BT).

Add to that the fact that the ISP caps your connection at the high-end of the rate you pay for anyway (at the modem, via software); so, if your connection is being affected by your neighbor's, they've oversold their service.

Do you honestly think that all bandwidth everywhere is unlimited or something? Have you never been on a network where your internet traffic slows because someone else is downloading something big?Of course bandwidth is not unlimited. It's not as limited as some are trying to claim, however.

The comparison to being on a network is a somewhat poor one, as everyone is sharing the same (comparatively small) pipe to the Internet. I've seen bittorrent traffic bring a network segment to its knees. Home connections aren't shared in the same way, and are generally much faster than the shared link.

Or when there are a lot of people sharing one connection it slows down? Try using an iPhone in San Francisco. That should give you a clue that high volume users slow down traffic for everyone. (Before you tell me that's 3G and not broadband, understand that I use the example because the concept is the same)Those aren't comparable, but I'm guessing you know that.

Considering BitTorrents make up almost half (or is it more than half now?) of all internet traffic, I think it's unreasonable to expect it to not have an effect on the bandwidth of other people somewhere along the line.
No, it's not unreasonable but if someone is so saturating the connection that others nearby cannot use it for low-speed tasks they're not going to be able to use the connection themselves. I'm not sure how much experience you have with bittorrent, I can explain the 'why' of that if you'd like.

Network speeds ebbing and flowing are not necessarily due to the behaviors of others, as seems to be the view of some.

At certain times of the day my connection is slower, yes. I have cable which is a pooled connection, not DSL which is a guaranteed connection...so what my neighbors are doing affects my connection to varying degrees.

Same here. I have speedtest.net linked on my desktop and check it often. After high school gets out there's a noticeable speed drop.

Are you saying that without a government we wouldn't have a market place? How can you even begin to think that is true? The first thing that happens when two people interact is an exchange of goods and services...they don't need a government to set rules for them.

They do if they don't want to be on the receiving end of a rape-sack-pillage-and-burn spree.

this is, of course, with UL throttling in place - without which I wouldn't be able to use my own connection for anything other than BT

Huh, so slowing down/limiting certain traffic has benefits. whodathunkit

I found this to be the most interesting part of your whole post.

Same here. I have speedtest.net linked on my desktop and check it often. After high school gets out there's a noticeable speed drop.

+1

yes...my provider does have different rates for different speeds (which is not guaranteed and depends on traffic load), allowing me that option and selection, something I understand NN was going to make illegal because it is a tiered service.

Based on this comment Radeck, you don't understand NN.

NN wants regulations against tiered content. Tiered pricing structures for speed is ok. Hell, per/KB pricing has nothing to do with NN.

Hypothetical situation. Comcast owns NBC (or soon will). Without NN, Comcast can severely limit or block traffic to CBS.com (Or more likely, block the streaming video options at CBS.com). They could prioritize packets to NBC.com over all other networks. They could even charge more to gain access to certain sites (Like Google and Yahoo).

Net Neutrality protects consumers.

Glenn Beck is attacking net neutrality because he doesn't like what internet blogs say about him, not because he really believes it takes away our freedoms. He's always talking about something that someone said about him online and there seems to be a group of people who always fall victim to what he says. Without net neutrality, the internet will move the way of cable or satellite television in which the ISP will begin to charge you for social media sites, news sites, and torrent sites.

Based on this comment Radeck, you don't understand NN.

NN wants regulations against tiered content. Tiered pricing structures for speed is ok. Hell, per/KB pricing has nothing to do with NN.

Hypothetical situation. Comcast owns NBC (or soon will). Without NN, Comcast can severely limit or block traffic to CBS.com (Or more likely, block the streaming video options at CBS.com). They could prioritize packets to NBC.com over all other networks. They could even charge more to gain access to certain sites (Like Google and Yahoo).

Net Neutrality protects consumers.

Re: your hypothetical. No, they couldn't do that now, without NN legislation. It would be anti-competitive, something we already have laws preventing.

Based on this comment Radeck, you don't understand NN.

NN wants regulations against tiered content. Tiered pricing structures for speed is ok. Hell, per/KB pricing has nothing to do with NN.

Hypothetical situation. Comcast owns NBC (or soon will). Without NN, Comcast can severely limit or block traffic to CBS.com (Or more likely, block the streaming video options at CBS.com). They could prioritize packets to NBC.com over all other networks. They could even charge more to gain access to certain sites (Like Google and Yahoo).

Net Neutrality protects consumers.

As long as they disclose this in their user agreement I don't really have a problem with it. If it's disclosed then people know about it and can vote with their dollar and leave comcast if they dislike the practices. I do have a problem with them doing it without disclosing it, and it would most likely be a breach of contract if they were doing it without disclosing.

pro tip: the government and liberal universities invented the internet

Hypothetical situation. Comcast owns NBC (or soon will). Without NN, Comcast can severely limit or block traffic to CBS.com (Or more likely, block the streaming video options at CBS.com). They could prioritize packets to NBC.com over all other networks. They could even charge more to gain access to certain sites (Like Google and Yahoo)

Is this even happening now? People talk about the "fear mongering" of people thinking the government will take over the internet; how is this not fear mongering saying that an NBC owned Comcast will limit traffic to CBS or ABC considering nothing like that is going on now.

As long as they disclose this in their user agreement I don't really have a problem with it. If it's disclosed then people know about it and can vote with their dollar and leave comcast if they dislike the practices. I do have a problem with them doing it without disclosing it, and it would most likely be a breach of contract if they were doing it without disclosing.

Exactly, there is no need for extra regulations when there are regulations in place protecting consumers already.

Huh, so slowing down/limiting certain traffic has benefits. whodathunkit


:facepalm: Nothing is so black and white.

Preventing some of my own traffic from utilizing all of the bandwidth the ISP is selling me is beneficial to me if I wish to use the connection for other things. This shouldn't be confused with the ISP deciding that what I'm doing with the bandwidth they are selling me is less important than other traffic and should therefore be throttled. Do you see the difference?

If my activity using the bandwidth they're selling me is causing their other customers to experience slowdowns, then they've over-sold their network and need to rethink. They do have one out, by using the terms "up to" when advertising speeds they can always fall back on that as an excuse for slower performance.

If they're absolutely going to mess with people's traffic, it should be universal. At peak times, everyone's speed is capped instead of nitpicking which traffic should be throttled.

Same here. I have speedtest.net linked on my desktop and check it often. After high school gets out there's a noticeable speed drop.
A noticeable speed drop in terms of what you're doing, or just according to the speed test?

What I'm getting at is that with the speed of cable Internet connections, how much does one's speed really have to drop before it's noticeable? The main page of the Podium, for example, is less than a MB of data. If one's 16 Mbps is slowed down to (let's be extreme) 6 Mbps, do you think you'll notice a difference in how long it takes that page to load?

Does this mean Howard Stern can go back to terrestrial radio and not be censured?

How so?Because some ISPs paid to have that copper/fiber run, so if you're going to "force" competition then you're going to have to compensate those companies that paid to have the cables put in the ground. e.g. PacBell gets paid by JoeISP for the use of their lines. Such payment itself would have to be regulated or PacBell would just charge prohibitive prices for the use of their infrastructure.

Are you saying that without a government we wouldn't have a market place? How can you even begin to think that is true? The first thing that happens when two people interact is an exchange of goods and services...they don't need a government to set rules for them.I'm saying that without rules and a mechanism for enforcement (like government) marketplaces wouldn't exist. There is no such thing as a free lunch and there's no such thing as a free market.

Besides, the government provides much of the physical infrastructure that helps expand and maintain the growing marketplace - and growth is something that's required for a healthy economy.

A noticeable speed drop in terms of what you're doing, or just according to the speed test?

What I'm getting at is that with the speed of cable Internet connections, how much does one's speed really have to drop before it's noticeable? The main page of the Podium, for example, is less than a MB of data. If one's 16 Mbps is slowed down to (let's be extreme) 6 Mbps, do you think you'll notice a difference in how long it takes that page to load?

Good question. I'll pay more attention and check. I know sometimes even the web pages slow down pretty good...I'll have to see if there's a correlation....

Does this mean Howard Stern can go back to terrestrial radio and not be censured?

I was hoping it means he would be retiring to take a job in charge of government porn disbursement.....

Because some ISPs paid to have that copper/fiber run, so if you're going to "force" competition then you're going to have to compensate those companies that paid to have the cables put in the ground. e.g. PacBell gets paid by JoeISP for the use of their lines. Such payment itself would have to be regulated or PacBell would just charge prohibitive prices for the use of their infrastructure.

I'm saying that without rules and a mechanism for enforcement (like government) marketplaces wouldn't exist. There is no such thing as a free lunch and there's no such thing as a free market.

Besides, the government provides much of the physical infrastructure that helps expand and maintain the growing marketplace - and growth is something that's required for a healthy economy.

The requirement of Government for a free marketplace is an invention of said Government. “Free Market” does not mean no temporary monopolies and no high prices etc…it means no restrictions to competition. Any rules imposed by the Government will provide a restriction to the ability to compete. As a very basic example…if one individual discovers that he enjoys mowing lawns, and is willing to mow other people’s lawns, he will find customers if his price is acceptable. The amount he is paid is dependent on the # of people who are willing to pay (Demand) and his ability to mow (Supply). If he is the only one willing to mow lawns, he can set his prices to any value he chooses…and no one is forced to buy his service. There is no one stopping a second person from starting a lawn mowing service, and that introduction of competition will allow more Supply in the market. When Supply exceeds Demand, the price will come down for the customer. If demand lowers too far (too much Supply) then someone either has to lower their prices to attract more Demand, or they will be forced to find other avenues of earning money. Without regulations this is a self-righting system, and will balance at the point where Supply = Demand, with of course variation around that level.

If the Government steps in and determines that no one can charge more than $XXX for lawn service, this is a direct restriction on the Free Market, and as such will break it.

Raping, Pillaging, and Burning has nothing to do with a Free Marketplace….not sure where THAT came from.

Is this even happening now? People talk about the "fear mongering" of people thinking the government will take over the internet; how is this not fear mongering saying that an NBC owned Comcast will limit traffic to CBS or ABC considering nothing like that is going on now.
Perhaps nothing like that is going on now because, right now, there are no cable-phone-internet giants who own entire TV networks. :bulb:

As long as they disclose this in their user agreement I don't really have a problem with it. If it's disclosed then people know about it and can vote with their dollar and leave comcast if they dislike the practices. I do have a problem with them doing it without disclosing it, and it would most likely be a breach of contract if they were doing it without disclosing.
:iagree: That's the most important part.

This is where I think FCC should be able to step in and enforce

Because some ISPs paid to have that copper/fiber run, so if you're going to "force" competition then you're going to have to compensate those companies that paid to have the cables put in the ground. e.g. PacBell gets paid by JoeISP for the use of their lines. Such payment itself would have to be regulated or PacBell would just charge prohibitive prices for the use of their infrastructure.
Why do you assume "forced" competition? If we lower taxes on putting cable put in the ground would that be "forced" competition?

It cost PacBell a lot of money to put in the cable why shouldn't they reap the reward? Why does the payment have to be regulated? Why can't a third party put in another cable and charge at lower rate than PacBell? As with the case Google is going to do. People have the tendency to meddle in free market when it's not going at the rate they want.

People can only vote w/their dollars if there's another "candidate" on the "ballot."

I live outside Philadelphia, the national headquarters for Comcast. How much competition do you think we have around here? Verizon FIOS has made a few, relatively small inroads over the past few years, but true "competition" is nearly non-existent wrt high-speed cable options.

People can only vote w/their dollars if there's another "candidate" on the "ballot."

I live outside Philadelphia, the national headquarters for Comcast. How much competition do you think we have around here? Verizon FIOS has made a few, relatively small inroads over the past few years, but true "competition" is nearly non-existent wrt high-speed cable options.
The industry is still at much of it's infancy. It's not too long ago we were still using dial-up AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or Earthlink. Give it time. There is talk of 4G could be the next high speed option.

The industry is still at much of it's infancy. It's not too long ago we were still using dial-up AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or Earthlink. Give it time. There is talk of 4G could be the next high speed option.
Comcast has had a death-grip on high-speed service for over five years. How much longer are we supposed to give it?

If we can see the development of another "Ma Bell" (or Microsoft) in the works, should we facilitate that creation, only to then recoil at the monopolistic behemoth that results? Or take steps to prevent -- or at least slow -- that development?

In addition, now they want to buy an entire TV network... and we're supposed to presume that they wouldn't attempt to regulate/restrict/limit access to competitor content?

This was posted in the other thread so I'll just repost it here.

Without Net Neutrality you could be seeing this soon:

http://trueslant.com/jeffhoard/files/2009/10/NetNue.jpg

Does anyone from the opposition think that would be a good thing? Why or why not?

This was posted in the other thread so I'll just repost it here.

Without Net Neutrality you could be seeing this soon:

http://trueslant.com/jeffhoard/files/2009/10/NetNue.jpg

Does anyone from the opposition think that would be a good thing? Why or why not?
That picture is bias, flawed, and very misleading. Everything is push on to the consumer and no regards to improvement on service.

The chart should put ADSL at much lower rate because they are charging base on website package. You think Google or Amazon would allow their service be stop by $5 fees? They would be paying your ISP so you would never see the fee for it. Would you be willing to pay a premium $5 to your ISP if your netflix movie can download the movie an hour faster or watch it in better quality(bigger file)? ISP now has income / incentive to build a better pipeline for your movie watching experience.

To me this is no different than Spirit Airline thread (person only use their ISP to check e-mail vs someone download P2P 24/7) or how Cable TV charge for premium channel(why don't government force cable/satellite to offer all channels?)

you know, i and a lot of other americans don't really like how increasingly expensive cable tv is...

considering japan has unlimited 100 mbps internet for $50 a month, it seems like the lack of competition and regulation in america will hinder our competitive edge and hurt our consumers in this arena.

This was posted in the other thread so I'll just repost it here.

Without Net Neutrality you could be seeing this soon:

http://trueslant.com/jeffhoard/files/2009/10/NetNue.jpg

Does anyone from the opposition think that would be a good thing? Why or why not?

If the alternative was paying $75 a month for access to everything yes, I would certainly want ala carte pricing. If it lowers the base cost then fine. I don't use bit torrents, I don't watch Youtube, if I paid a reduced base price and then just paid extra for netflix and gaming servers for the months I use them I'd come out ahead.

If the alternative was paying $75 a month for access to everything yes, I would certainly want ala carte pricing. If it lowers the base cost then fine. I don't use bit torrents, I don't watch Youtube, if I paid a reduced base price and then just paid extra for netflix and gaming servers for the months I use them I'd come out ahead.

Which I find it interesting...some may be fine with the way Spirit carry-on fee but not fine with this.

That picture is bias, flawed, and very misleading. Everything is push on to the consumer and no regards to improvement on service.

I'll agree it's slightly biased. It's still possible scenario, however.

The chart should put ADSL at much lower rate because they are charging base on website package.

Say again? I don't understand.

You think Google or Amazon would allow their service be stop by $5 fees? They would be paying your ISP so you would never see the fee for it.

How would Google or Amazon have a say in what XYZ Internet Company charges their customers? Are you saying they would step in and voluntarily pay the ISP for their customers?

Would you be willing to pay a premium $5 to your ISP if your netflix movie can download the movie an hour faster or watch it in better quality(bigger file)?

I'm willing to pay for the speed which they advertise.

ISP now has income / incentive to build a better pipeline for your movie watching experience.

How do they have incentive? The only incentive they have is to keep micro managing their customers to save them money and charge us more.

... how Cable TV charge for premium channel(why don't government force cable/satellite to offer all channels?)

No one is stopping individual websites from charging for access. ;)

Which I find it interesting...some may be fine with the way Spirit carry-on fee but not fine with this.

I'm fine with Spirit carry-on fees, but not with this. An airline is a mode of transportation and it's expected to get you from point A to point B. The other extras, like luggage and food, are just that, extras. Allowing an ISP to limit access to different websites changes the "destination." You're no longer buying access to the internet, you're buying access to Comcast's version of the internet.

I personally consider it to be a limitation on free speech. I'm proud to live in a country where my internet is not censored like that of so many others in the world. Not that things will become like they are in China. ISPs will likely only limit access to websites that I don't use and that only small fringe groups utilize, but I don't want to go down that road that may eventually lead to a limitation of access to information I do want.

The requirement of Government for a free marketplace is an invention of said Government. “Free Market” does not mean no temporary monopolies and no high prices etc…it means no restrictions to competition. The requirement of a legislative and enforcement body for a marketplace is not an invention of government. It is a requirement for a marketplace. And just about any law can amount to a "restrictuion to competition" at some level or another. What about regulations on the amount of pollution a company can produce? Or on the amount of vertical markets that a single entity can control? Or heck, the protections that a corporation provide? Those are all examples of government interference in the "free" marketplace.

Contract enforcement is handled by government as well. You seem to dismiss government as an unwanted intruder into the marketplace, while ignoring that it is the same government that provides for the continued stable existence of that marketplace. And as I originally stated (not sure if you missed it), I *get* being against "excessive" intervention. But to be against *any* intervention is absurd because you need a government to establish and maintain the rules of that marketplace. And to do that, government needs to intervene at some point.

Raping, Pillaging, and Burning has nothing to do with a Free Marketplace….not sure where THAT came from.Me neither, considering I never said anything of the sort.

How would Google or Amazon have a say in what XYZ Internet Company charges their customers? Are you saying they would step in and voluntarily pay the ISP for their customers?

Actually, that's the method I heard more. It would be the same price to the customers that it is now and the ISPs would charge Google or Amazon for the ability to have their page load faster than others and be listed as a "preferred website" or similar.

Me neither, considering I never said anything of the sort.

I did, and it goes along with what you just said. Laws in general are designed to protect people. This includes trade laws. Since "people" is a very big group and since within that group there are conflicting parties, however, perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that the very purpose of laws is to facilitate fairness. Fairness with regard to what depends on the situation, but why is it that any of you suppose raping, sacking, pillaging, and burning are illegal? Because the Bible says so? The fact is every law in society has an impact on the marketplace. (That's true because the idea of a "marketplace" itself is a fabrication of delusion facilitated by security--that is security is a necessity for fair trade.) In a truly free marketplace, certain unscrupulous characters would never have to pay for anything. Of course, if someone did steal your stuff, he or she might have to worry about vengeance from you and/or your friends, who in turn would have to worry about retaliation from the sinister bandits who nabbed your goods, and it would be a generally unpleasant experience for lots of people. But the idea of government in the first place is rooted in social contract: we give Big Brother this power to find bandits and toss them in jail to discourage or prevent banditism (not a word--sue me) in the first place.

Ergo, in a truly free marketplace, there are no restrictions on individual parties violating the integrity of that marketplace. It sounds like a ridiculous notion, and I point it out for that reason: it's what your opposition is encouraging, though taken to its most pointed extreme.

Why do you assume "forced" competition? If we lower taxes on putting cable put in the ground would that be "forced" competition?We don't really want a bunch of redundant cable in the ground, do we? That's just more overall cost, regardless of how cheap the taxes and permits might be.

It cost PacBell a lot of money to put in the cable why shouldn't they reap the reward? I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't. I'm telling you what the practical effects of opening up the marketplace to competition will be, from a devil's advocate POV. If CompanyA (PacBell) put all of the copper in, and it's extremely inefficient (to the point of being impossible) for CompanyB (JoeISP) to run their own copper, then the alternative is to have CompanyA lease the use of their copper to CompanyB. If you let CompanyA decide the pricing structure for that lease, and CompanyA has a built-in incentive to not let competitors into their market, then you've effectively done nothing. In order to effectively allow CompanyB to compete with CompanyA then at some point you have to mediate the pricing structure for those leases.

Actually, that's the method I heard more. It would be the same price to the customers that it is now and the ISPs would charge Google or Amazon for the ability to have their page load faster than others and be listed as a "preferred website" or similar.

That's the original Net Neutrality push I read about, but some how more recent news and our podium discussion tend to focus only on the consumer. I am not sure why that is...

That's the original Net Neutrality push I read about, but some how more recent news and our podium discussion tend to focus only on the consumer. I am not sure why that is...

Probably because Google and Amazon are big supporters of net neutrality. It's more conceivable to me that they'd block traffic from those ISPs to their services than pay the fee, since doing so would severely hurt the capabilities of those services (thereby discouraging their tactics by reducing customer base sizes). This of course is all speculation.

I did, and it goes along with what you just said. Laws in general are designed to protect people. This includes trade laws. Since "people" is a very big group and since within that group there are conflicting parties, however, perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that the very purpose of laws is to facilitate fairness. Fairness with regard to what depends on the situation, but why is it that any of you suppose raping, sacking, pillaging, and burning are illegal? Because the Bible says so? The fact is every law in society has an impact on the marketplace. (That's true because the idea of a "marketplace" itself is a fabrication of delusion facilitated by security--that is security is a necessity for fair trade.) In a truly free marketplace, certain unscrupulous characters would never have to pay for anything. Of course, if someone did steal your stuff, he or she might have to worry about vengeance from you and/or your friends, who in turn would have to worry about retaliation from the sinister bandits who nabbed your goods, and it would be a generally unpleasant experience for lots of people. But the idea of government in the first place is rooted in social contract: we give Big Brother this power to find bandits and toss them in jail to discourage or prevent banditism (not a word--sue me) in the first place.

Ergo, in a truly free marketplace, there are no restrictions on individual parties violating the integrity of that marketplace. It sounds like a ridiculous notion, and I point it out for that reason: it's what your opposition is encouraging, though taken to its most pointed extreme.Ah, got it. I missed your post the first time. I completely agree.

Ah, got it. I missed your post the first time. I completely agree.

No worries. It was a very snide post. ;)

They do if they don't want to be on the receiving end of a rape-sack-pillage-and-burn spree.

Ergo, in a truly free marketplace, there are no restrictions on individual parties violating the integrity of that marketplace.

:huh: :shake:

A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud.

You're referring to anarchy, not free market. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)

We don't really want a bunch of redundant cable in the ground, do we? That's just more overall cost, regardless of how cheap the taxes and permits might be.

I'm not really arguing that they shouldn't. I'm telling you what the practical effects of opening up the marketplace to competition will be, from a devil's advocate POV. If CompanyA (PacBell) put all of the copper in, and it's extremely inefficient (to the point of being impossible) for CompanyB (JoeISP) to run their own copper, then the alternative is to have CompanyA lease the use of their copper to CompanyB. If you let CompanyA decide the pricing structure for that lease, and CompanyA has a built-in incentive to not let competitors into their market, then you've effectively done nothing. In order to effectively allow CompanyB to compete with CompanyA then at some point you have to mediate the pricing structure for those leases.
Actually we do want redundant cable, it allows fail-safe or parallelism (getting double the pipe life if you were able to use both)

There is no such thing CompanyA run to the point of impossible for CompanyB to run their own copper. Even if it's possible then Company B should invest into other form of technology, cable, wireless tower, or satellite. There are always around it...if CompanyB isn't smart enough then they don't deserve to exist in the market. Of course Company A has no incentive, Company B has pay them at the cost to compensate for the copper line and taking their customer, otherwise you are just underfunding CompanyA. What incentive will they have to put more copper line in? Every time they put in copper line, CompanyB will just steal the benefit. You can't force a competing market to be successful, because iIn the end both will suffer.

My take on it is that while I would love to see it happen, it goes against my principles. I wouldn't have minded it either way. If I had to pick a side, I would pick no interference as long as there is enough mobility (ability to pick other providers).

That's the original Net Neutrality push I read about, but some how more recent news and our podium discussion tend to focus only on the consumer. I am not sure why that is...

Mixels touched on it here:

Probably because Google and Amazon are big supporters of net neutrality. It's more conceivable to me that they'd block traffic from those ISPs to their services than pay the fee, since doing so would severely hurt the capabilities of those services (thereby discouraging their tactics by reducing customer base sizes). This of course is all speculation.

I assume once the first company does it and tries to go after Google/Amazon, they're going to get the big middle finger from G/A. The customers will be upset that they can't access websites that they've been able to access before. XYZ Internet Company will take a beating from their customers and they'll probably relent just to eventually raise the price to the consumer.

I just don't see XYZ being able to dictate to every website on the internet (or a big few) that they suddenly have to pay them for their customers' access.

That is as long as there is mobility (ability to pick other providers).

That's one big problem, right there ^. Up until 2 months ago I had one choice of high speed internet, Comcast. FiOS has finally moved into the neighborhood so now I have 2 choices. Also, I believe FiOS is done with their fiber rollout so no new markets will be getting FiOS anytime soon.

:huh: :shake:
Superb argument. You got me there.

You're referring to anarchy, not free market. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)

I know what you mean. My point is that a truly free market is only possible through anarchy. Any model of a free market that involves government enforcement of rules that could or do impact that marketplace is a line in the sand and falls victim to the slippery slope fallacy. Here, we define acceptable government intervention in a way that we feel adequately supports fairness for all parties involved in economic exchange, and the discouragement of further measures presupposes that fairness is possible in absence of those measures. Every marketplace that is meant to be successful must be controlled in some way by a third party because history and human nature have shown us that the original parties entangled in that marketplace are incapable or unwilling to promote the best interests of the marketplace overall. This can lead to abuse, which can lead to opposition, which can lead to violence or even war. Economic control is necessary for the same reasons social control is, and indeed social controls have an integral role in the maintenance of economic stability. You can't separate the two.

I assume once the first company does it and tries to go after Google/Amazon, they're going to get the big middle finger from G/A. The customers will be upset that they can't access websites that they've been able to access before. XYZ Internet Company will take a beating from their customers and they'll probably relent just to eventually raise the price to the consumer.

I just don't see XYZ being able to dictate to every website on the internet (or a big few) that they suddenly have to pay them for their customers' access.

Google might do this even if Google isn't the one being targeted. They have the clout to force ISPs to be neutral by cutting off access to Google to any ISP that isn't.

Say again? I don't understand.
The chart is pricing ADSL at $29.95. If they are going to charge web package deal then it should be priced at $9.95 or something.

How would Google or Amazon have a say in what XYZ Internet Company charges their customers? Are you saying they would step in and voluntarily pay the ISP for their customers?
Yes they would voluntarily pay...just like your cable company is paying your content provider.

I'm willing to pay for the speed which they advertise.
Some people might prefer to pay more for faster p2p service only.

How do they have incentive? The only incentive they have is to keep micro managing their customers to save them money and charge us more.
More people use the service means more income for them. What better way to attract more service by providing better service?

Google might do this even if Google isn't the one being targeted. They have the clout to force ISPs to be neutral by cutting off access to Google to any ISP that isn't.

I'd find that unlikely. Google is lots of bark and little bit. Even after China's decision to attempt to force Google to censor results, Google had to kick itself toward relocating. And even then, they didn't leave China--just relocated to Hong Kong, where they hope China will not enforce censorship requirements.

Highfloydelity makes a good point, though: precedent is a powerful force. If any ISP tried to start this initiative by petitioning these immensely powerful websites that so strongly support net neutrality to pay a fee, they'd be met with a laugh in the face. It's like a buzzard asking a lion to please die so it can feast.

you know, i and a lot of other americans don't really like how increasingly expensive cable tv is...

considering japan has unlimited 100 mbps internet for $50 a month, it seems like the lack of competition and regulation in america will hinder our competitive edge and hurt our consumers in this arena.

And Japan's EXTREMELY high population density has nothing to do with that price?

And Japan's EXTREMELY high population density has nothing to do with that price?

Is broadband much cheaper in very densely populated parts of the US?

I know what you mean. My point is that a truly free market is only possible through anarchy. Any model of a free market that involves government enforcement of rules that could or do impact that marketplace is a line in the sand and falls victim to the slippery slope fallacy. Here, we define acceptable government intervention in a way that we feel adequately supports fairness for all parties involved in economic exchange, and the discouragement of further measures presupposes that fairness is possible in absence of those measures. Every marketplace that is meant to be successful must be controlled in some way by a third party because history and human nature have shown us that the original parties entangled in that marketplace are incapable or unwilling to promote the best interests of the marketplace overall. This can lead to abuse, which can lead to opposition, which can lead to violence or even war. Economic control is necessary for the same reasons social control is, and indeed social controls have an integral role in the maintenance of economic stability. You can't separate the two.
So you're saying that there needs to be excessive regulations otherwise people want anarchy? :confused:

You lost me... :unsure:

That's one big problem, right there ^. Up until 2 months ago I had one choice of high speed internet, Comcast. FiOS has finally moved into the neighborhood so now I have 2 choices. Also, I believe FiOS is done with their fiber rollout so no new markets will be getting FiOS anytime soon.

In many areas you can use a 3rd party that goes through the existing infrastructure. (companies like dslextreme)

So you're saying that there needs to be excessive regulations otherwise people want anarchy? :confused:

You lost me... :unsure:

He was trying to be technical... A free market isn't truly free if it has interference. This is why the "Free Market" argument works so well. There is almost always interference, so you can always claim "but in a free market"

Personally, I like the market to be as free as possible, but realize some regulations are actually good. My biggest issue is when the govt goes overboard with regulations. You give them a little, they take a lot.

Google might do this even if Google isn't the one being targeted. They have the clout to force ISPs to be neutral by cutting off access to Google to any ISP that isn't.

Good point.

The chart is pricing ADSL at $29.95. If they are going to charge web package deal then it should be priced at $9.95 or something.

And you're welcomed to that opinion. It's the author of that images personal opinion that it would be priced higher. Point taken.

Yes they would voluntarily pay...just like your cable company is paying your content provider.

I see... Interesting proposal but I just don't see it happening.

I'm curious... Does a cable provider pay for public channels such as PBS?

Some people might prefer to pay more for faster p2p service only.

So those people may have 10Mbps for P2P but only 5mbps for web surfing? Is that what you're suggesting in that example?

More people use the service means more income for them. What better way to attract more service by providing better service?

You've never been with Comcast have you? :lol:

In many areas you can use a 3rd party that goes through the existing infrastructure. (companies like dslextreme)

No DSL lines in my neighborhood. ;) Comcast doesn't share, at least not in my area.

And Japan's EXTREMELY high population density has nothing to do with that price?
:iagree:

Finally found a place to post this article
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/31/broadband.south.korea/index.html?

People in the United States basically invented the Internet. So U.S. connections must be the fastest and cheapest in the world, right?

Not so much.

Broadband Internet speeds in the United States are only about one-fourth as fast as those in South Korea, the world leader, according to the Internet monitoring firm Akamai.

And, as if to add insult to injury, U.S. Internet connections are more expensive than those in South Korea, too.

The slower connection here in the U.S. costs about $45.50 per month on average, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In South Korea, the much-faster hookup costs $17 per month less. An average broadband bill there runs about $28.50.

So why is U.S. Internet so much slower and pricier than broadband connections in South Korea? The question is timely, as the U.S. government pushes forward with a "broadband plan" that aims to speed up connections, reduce costs and increase access to the Internet, especially in rural areas.

Map: U.S. Internet is slower than Slovakia's?

The comparison between South Korea and the United States is not perfectly instructive, especially since "we probably won't ever be South Korea," said Robert Faris, research director at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

"The whole political and social climate is so different, the geography is different, the history is so different," he said. "It's all pretty different."

With those caveats in mind, here are the five potential reasons U.S. Internet speeds are slower and more expensive than those in South Korea. This list was gleaned from interviews with broadband experts and from policy papers:

Korean competition

Countries with fast, cheap Internet connections tend to have more competition.

In the U.S., competition among companies that provide broadband connections is relatively slim. Most people choose between a cable company and a telephone company when they sign up for Internet service.

In other countries, including South Korea, the choices are more varied.

While there isn't good data on how many broadband carriers the average consumer has access to, "I think we can infer that South Korea has more [competition in broadband] than the United States," Faris said. "In fact, most countries have more than the United States."

Some academics, including Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center, have criticized the U.S. government's broadband plan as not doing enough to create the kind of competition that is present in other countries.

In a New York Times editorial, Benkler says competition will reduce costs for broadband consumers.

"Without a major policy shift to increase competition, broadband service in the United States will continue to lag far behind the rest of the developed world," he writes.

Culture and politics

There are stark cultural differences between hyper-connected Korea, where more than 94 percent of people have high-speed connections, according to the OECD, and the United States, where only about 65 percent of people are plugged into broadband, according to an FCC survey.

The South Korean government has encouraged its citizens to get computers and to hook up to high-speed Internet connections by subsidizing the price of connections for low-income and traditionally unconnected people.

One program, for example, hooked up housewives with broadband and taught them how to make use of the Web in their everyday lives.

Parents in Korea, who tend to place high value on education, see such connections as necessities for their children's educations, said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

These cultural differences mean Korea has a more insatiable demand for fast Internet connections, he said. That demand, in turn, encourages telecommunications companies to provide those connections.

Faris, of the Berkman Center, said no one society has a stronger appetite for Internet connectivity than another. Korea's government simply has whetted that appetite, and provided the incentives to make high-speed connections accessible to a large segment of society.

Political culture has more to do with it, he said.

"The United States is a more litigious culture than others, and the power of the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to regulate is not as strong here as it is in other countries," which means its less likely that the U.S. will pass policies to promote the growth of ultra-fast broadband.

Open versus closed networks

There is vigorous debate in the telecommunications world about the role "open networks" have in creating fast, cheap Internet connections.

The idea behind an "open" system is essentially that, for a fee, broadband providers must share the cables that carry Internet signals into people's homes.

Companies that build those lines typically oppose this sharing. A number of governments, including South Korea and Japan and several European countries, have experimented with or embraced infrastructure-sharing as a way to get new companies to compete in the broadband market.

The U.S. does not require broadband providers to share their lines, and some experts cite Korea's relative openness as one reason the Internet there is so much faster and cheaper than it is here.

The most important thing is that countries create a way for companies to enter the broadband market without having to pay for huge amounts of infrastructure, said Faris.

Population density

South Korea, with more than 1,200 people per square mile, is a lot denser than the United States, where 88 people live in the same amount of space, and where rural areas and suburbs are large.

The result for broadband? It costs less to set up Internet infrastructure in a tightly populated place filled with high-rise-apartments, such as South Korea, than it does in the United States, where rural homes can be great distances apart.

In both countries, copper wires tend to carry broadband signals from fiber optic cables and into the home. Data can travel fast on copper wire, but it slows down the farther it goes.

In South Korea, that's usually just from the base of an apartment building to a particular unit. In the U.S., copper wire may have to link a home with a fiber optic cable that's a mile away.

Korea had a plan ... a decade ago

In the 1990s, South Korea set a priority that it would be a highly connected country with a high degree of Internet literacy.

"They made this a priority 10 years ago and they've really executed on it," said Atkinson, from ITIF, the Internet policy think tank.

The country is still four to five years ahead of the U.S. when it comes to broadband policy, even as the United States tries to catch up, said Taylor Reynolds, an economist at OECD.

"Korea has long been a leader in broadband and in very fast broadband," he said. "And, in fact, the technology that Korea has used for probably the past four to five years is VDSL, and that's a technology that's now being put in by AT&T" in the United States.

Meanwhile, Korea is abandoning that technology in favor of the next big thing, Reynolds said. That likely involves bringing super-fast fiber optic cables straight into homes. And, according to a recent report by the Berkman Center, that could make South Korean Internet 10 times faster than it is now.

Faris said Korea's clear-cut plan helped lead to its faster broadband speeds.

"A big difference is that Korea made a decisive move to expand Internet in the country," he said. "They said we want to be very good at connecting to the Internet. A lot of government money was thrown at it ...

"The U.S. has taken a fairly hands-off approach to the sector. They've left it to the private sector. There's been some money put into it, but not that much, on a per capita basis. We just haven't taken it that seriously."
Unfortunately our infrastructure cost more due to our size. Which might explain why Korea provider have more open network because it cost less to build up the infrastructure so cost of sharing isn't that high. This is why I think wireless broadband would be the next contender. One tower can cover a lot of area without physically putting down miles of line and connect it to individual house

So you're saying that there needs to be excessive regulations otherwise people want anarchy? :confused:

You lost me... :unsure:

No, I'm implying that a controlled market is not the same thing as an absolutely controlled market. It's generally considered preferable to the alternative that the government make at least some rules to govern fair exchange, and it annoys me when, in the course of debates over whether a new sanction should be considered necessary in that context, people employ the sensationalist argument, "But it hurts the idea of a free marketplace!"

That word "free" is a buzzword, and it evacuates the contention of all rational meaning in deference to emotional entanglement.

I know what you mean. My point is that a truly free market is only possible through anarchy.

The more I think about this, the more it seems flawed. A "truly free market" would be one in which people choose to willfully exchange goods and services. As soon as you throw in FUD (i.e. murder, war, etc) it ceases to be a free market and turns into chaos.

The more I think about this, the more it seems flawed. A "truly free market" would be one in which people choose to willfully exchange goods and services. As soon as you throw in FUD (i.e. murder, war, etc) it ceases to be a free market and turns into chaos.

That's because a "market" is only possible through third party enforcement. ;) I even said so. See!

I did, and it goes along with what you just said. Laws in general are designed to protect people. This includes trade laws. Since "people" is a very big group and since within that group there are conflicting parties, however, perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that the very purpose of laws is to facilitate fairness. Fairness with regard to what depends on the situation, but why is it that any of you suppose raping, sacking, pillaging, and burning are illegal? Because the Bible says so? The fact is every law in society has an impact on the marketplace. (That's true because the idea of a "marketplace" itself is a fabrication of delusion facilitated by security--that is security is a necessity for fair trade.) In a truly free marketplace, certain unscrupulous characters would never have to pay for anything. Of course, if someone did steal your stuff, he or she might have to worry about vengeance from you and/or your friends, who in turn would have to worry about retaliation from the sinister bandits who nabbed your goods, and it would be a generally unpleasant experience for lots of people. But the idea of government in the first place is rooted in social contract: we give Big Brother this power to find bandits and toss them in jail to discourage or prevent banditism (not a word--sue me) in the first place.

Ergo, in a truly free marketplace, there are no restrictions on individual parties violating the integrity of that marketplace. It sounds like a ridiculous notion, and I point it out for that reason: it's what your opposition is encouraging, though taken to its most pointed extreme.

It's generally considered preferable to the alternative that the government make at least some rules to govern fair exchange
What is "it"?

and it annoys me when, in the course of debates over whether a new sanction should be considered necessary in that context, people employ the sensationalist argument, "But it hurts the idea of a free marketplace!"
OK, if that was the only argument, sure that would be annoying; the same as "but that leads to monopolies".

That word "free" is a buzzword, and it evacuates the contention of all rational meaning in deference to emotional entanglement.
Sort of like the buzzword "monopoly" I suppose.

No DSL lines in my neighborhood. ;) Comcast doesn't share, at least not in my area.

not to quibble, but dsl runs over phone lines, not cable, so comcast should have nothing to do with it.

That's because a "market" is only possible through third party enforcement. ;) I even said so. See!

What's your point then? I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that to have a free market system you need some sort of intervention to stop force and fraud. The argument is that excessive regulations is against the free market, not that the free market should be anarchy.

What is "it"?
that the government make at least some rules to govern fair exchange

OK, if that was the only argument, sure that would be annoying; the same as "but that leads to monopolies".
That was the only argument in this tangent of discussion. Some foolish little hobgoblin posted this:
Are you saying that without a government we wouldn't have a market place? How can you even begin to think that is true? The first thing that happens when two people interact is an exchange of goods and services...they don't need a government to set rules for them.
This line of chatting stemmed from that comment and my subsequent quip regarding its ridiculousness.

Sort of like the buzzword "monopoly" I suppose.
Sure. Throw it on the pile with "evil," "WMD," "terrorist," "racist," and "Santa Clause."

The more I think about this, the more it seems flawed. A "truly free market" would be one in which people choose to willfully exchange goods and services. As soon as you throw in FUD (i.e. murder, war, etc) it ceases to be a free market and turns into chaos.
Free market would still have to follow some basic rules. Promise / contract can't be null and void on a whim by a single party. Both party would have to upfront about what/how they are selling and buying. Or else it will be total chaos.

Even Anarcho-capitalism / Free-market anarchism have rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics
It may be the law we are familiar with, set by the government, but there will be laws/rules in play.

This line of chatting stemmed from that comment and my subsequent quip regarding its ridiculousness.

That's not ridiculous, however. One does not need a "government" to act as the third party that intervenes against force and fraud. I think the confusion sets in due to the difference between "macro" and "micro" markets

That's not ridiculous, however. One does not need a "government" to act as the third party that intervenes against force and fraud.

It's a circular definition. Any group or party that serves that function is acting in the capacity of governance. Therefore, he, she, or it is a form of government.

That's because a "market" is only possible through third party enforcement. ;) I even said so. See!

Market's occurred long before the idea of third party enforcement. No matter how many times you say it.

You are trying to make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only "free" market. However, your assumption is also false, because once a party brings force to that market it will no longer be a market. People will not bring their goods or services to that market place if they feel unsafe to do so.

The "third" party enforcement need not be government. It could be a private party that exists to ensure a safe and secure market place. It would be in this third parties interest to remain impartial, otherwise their reputation as providing a safe and secure marketplace would be tarnished and nobody would seek their service.

Ebay is an example of a non-governmental third party that provides a service to try and ensure a safe and secure market place. They are only as successful as the perception that they do not favor either side of the transaction, and do provide secure transactions.

Free market would still have to follow some basic rules. Promise / contract can't be null and void on a whim by a single party. Both party would have to upfront about what/how they are selling and buying. Or else it will be total chaos.

Even Anarcho-capitalism / Free-market anarchism have rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It may be the law we are familiar with, set by the government, but there will be laws/rules in play.

That's what I meant. Mixels wasn't describing a "truly free market" by saying that they don't take into account external forces such as fraud.

Any group or party that serves that function is acting in the capacity of governance. Therefore, he, she, or it is a form of government.

SilentDeth brings up a great point; do you consider Ebay to be a government?

Market's occurred long before the idea of third party enforcement. No matter how many times you say it.

You are trying to make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only "free" market. However, your assumption is also false, because once a party brings force to that market it will no longer be a market. People will not bring their goods or services to that market place if they feel unsafe to do so.

The "third" party enforcement need not be government. It could be a private party that exists to ensure a safe and secure market place. It would be in this third parties interest to remain impartial, otherwise their reputation as providing a safe and secure marketplace would be tarnished and nobody would seek their service.

Ebay is an example of a non-governmental third party that provides a service to try and ensure a safe and secure market place. They are only as successful as the perception that they do not favor either side of the transaction, and do provide secure transactions.

Damn you put up ebay as an example...while reading your post I was thinking craiglist.

Good example :thumbup:

Actually we do want redundant cable, it allows fail-safe or parallelism (getting double the pipe life if you were able to use both) Not if it's run between a bunch of houses and JoeISP's location only. Redundant doesn't mean fault tolerant unless the runs are identical (i.e. they begin and end in the same place).

And carry that forward a step - so now we're in the position of advocating making it cheap enough for JoeISP to run an identical cable run to the BigCompany in his market. We've eliminated some of the taxes and regulations surrounding the installation of cable (even if they might have been in place for good reason.) Now BigCompany is going to sue to recoup the money it spent when those taxes and regulations made their cable runs more expensive. Or at the very least they're going to lobby against making those taxes and regulations lesser for JoeISP.

Damn you put up ebay as an example...while reading your post I was thinking craiglist.

Good example :thumbup:

I don't use Craigslist often, but do they act as a sort of regulatory system between the buyer and seller?

Market's occurred long before the idea of third party enforcement. No matter how many times you say it.
Examples?

You are trying to make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is the only "free" market. However, your assumption is also false, because once a party brings force to that market it will no longer be a market. People will not bring their goods or services to that market place if they feel unsafe to do so.
Right. The act of making people feel safe to do so is an act of governance. That's what government is (or is supposed to be).

The "third" party enforcement need not be government. It could be a private party that exists to ensure a safe and secure market place. It would be in this third parties interest to remain impartial, otherwise their reputation as providing a safe and secure marketplace would be tarnished and nobody would seek their service.

Ebay is an example of a non-governmental third party that provides a service to try and ensure a safe and secure market place. They are only as successful as the perception that they do not favor either side of the transaction, and do provide secure transactions.
Where does eBay derive the authority to provide the protection it does? And how does it go about that provision?

not to quibble, but dsl runs over phone lines, not cable, so comcast should have nothing to do with it.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant there are no DSL Hubs nearby (meaning no DSL service even though there are phone lines) and that Comcast doesn't share it's copper/fiber lines. Not that they wouldn't if proposed, just that it doesn't happen now.

I don't use Craigslist often, but do they act as a sort of regulatory system between the buyer and seller?

Not AFAIK. They're just classified ads. So they act as a regulatory system as much as the local newspaper does.

Examples?


Right. The act of making people feel safe to do so is an act of governance. That's what government is (or is supposed to be).


Where does eBay derive the authority to provide the protection it does? And how does it go about that provision?

Markets existed before their were governments, there was economics and trade before there were governments. The desire to provide increased security for trade, was one of the driving mechanisms leading to the invention of governments.

Ultimately markets are based on trust. Party A has to trust that they can deal safely and securely with Party B, and vise versa. There are multiple ways to achieve this trust. A highly regulatory government is certainly one mechanism, but there are costs associated with paying individuals to administrate, regulate, and enforce, and collect the taxes to cover these costs.

The first markets started would have started with the first humans, trade would have only occurred between family members. Trade would then occur within a tribe, word would spread quickly within a tribe if an individual traded dishonestly.

Trade between tribes was the next step. Tribes would have to develop a certain amount of trust between each other before they'd be willing to trade with each other. Certainly there were times that this trade was done dishonestly and this certainly led to war between these tribes. If both parties wished the trade to continue it would be in both parties interest to do so honestly.

This is one reason why Ebay is successful, it allows those participating in the market to leave feedback on those they have traded with. A person who has negative feedback will find it harder to buy or sell goods, sellers are often times weary of sending their products to buyers who are new or have little established feedback. Ebay effectively encourages trade because of the trust it provides, not through government force, but through tracking successful trade history.

I'm much more comfortable with ebay then I am with craigslist. I've considered getting a conceal and carry permit because of the unknown when dealing with craigslist. I'll always let somebody else know what address and time I'm meeting somebody on CL, and have my hand on the phone when meeting the person.

That's because a "market" is only possible through third party enforcement. ;) I even said so. See!

Another example of how your claim is not true is black markets. Black markets exist without any third party enforcement. The black market under soviet rule thrived. Alcohol and drug prohibition didn't stop the sale of these items just because there was no longer third party enforcement. Certainly the black market poses an increased level of risk, however these markets are still dependent on a level of trust and reputation. A drug dealer that "cuts" their drugs with other things will lose buyers, the buyers will buy drugs from a dealer that doesn't. A gang buying from a drug smuggler can only kill so many smugglers before word gets out that that gang can't be trusted. If the black market were too violent, or too unsafe of a place to do business, it would wither a die, however the fact that the drug market has flourished for so long is a testament that it is safer and more honest then one would assume.

I don't use Craigslist often, but do they act as a sort of regulatory system between the buyer and seller?
Not really ...it's more of use it at your own risk. But a market exist under it.

Not really ...it's more of use it at your own risk. But a market exist under it.

Gotcha.

Japan's Warp-Speed Ride to Internet Future (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html)

Americans invented the Internet, but the Japanese are running away with it.

Broadband service here is eight to 30 times as fast as in the United States -- and considerably cheaper. Japan has the world's fastest Internet connections, delivering more data at a lower cost than anywhere else, recent studies show.

Accelerating broadband speed in this country -- as well as in South Korea and much of Europe -- is pushing open doors to Internet innovation that are likely to remain closed for years to come in much of the United States.

The speed advantage allows the Japanese to watch broadcast-quality, full-screen television over the Internet, an experience that mocks the grainy, wallet-size images Americans endure.

Ultra-high-speed applications are being rolled out for low-cost, high-definition teleconferencing, for telemedicine -- which allows urban doctors to diagnose diseases from a distance -- and for advanced telecommuting to help Japan meet its goal of doubling the number of people who work from home by 2010.

"For now and for at least the short term, these applications will be cheaper and probably better in Japan," said Robert Pepper, senior managing director of global technology policy at Cisco Systems, the networking giant.

Japan has surged ahead of the United States on the wings of better wire and more aggressive government regulation, industry analysts say.

The copper wire used to hook up Japanese homes is newer and runs in shorter loops to telephone exchanges than in the United States. This is partly a matter of geography and demographics: Japan is relatively small, highly urbanized and densely populated. But better wire is also a legacy of American bombs, which razed much of urban Japan during World War II and led to a wholesale rewiring of the country.

In 2000, the Japanese government seized its advantage in wire. In sharp contrast to the Bush administration over the same time period, regulators here compelled big phone companies to open up wires to upstart Internet providers.

In short order, broadband exploded. At first, it used the same DSL technology that exists in the United States. But because of the better, shorter wire in Japan, DSL service here is much faster. Ten to 20 times as fast, according to Pepper, one of the world's leading experts on broadband infrastructure.

Indeed, DSL in Japan is often five to 10 times as fast as what is widely offered by U.S. cable providers, generally viewed as the fastest American carriers. (Cable has not been much of a player in Japan.)

Perhaps more important, competition in Japan gave a kick in the pants to Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT), once a government-controlled enterprise and still Japan's largest phone company. With the help of government subsidies and tax breaks, NTT launched a nationwide build-out of fiber-optic lines to homes, making the lower-capacity copper wires obsolete.

"Obviously, without the competition, we would not have done all this at this pace," said Hideki Ohmichi, NTT's senior manager for public relations.

His company now offers speeds on fiber of up to 100 megabits per second -- 17 times as fast as the top speed generally available from U.S. cable. About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines -- roughly nine times the number in the United States.

The burgeoning optical fiber system is hurtling Japan into an Internet future that experts say Americans are unlikely to experience for at least several years.

Shoji Matsuya, director of diagnostic pathology at Kanto Medical Center in Tokyo, has tested an NTT telepathology system scheduled for nationwide use next spring.

It allows pathologists -- using high-definition video and remote-controlled microscopes -- to examine tissue samples from patients living in areas without access to major hospitals. Those patients need only find a clinic with the right microscope and an NTT fiber connection.

"Before, we did not have the richness of image detail," Matsuya said, noting that Japan has a severe shortage of pathologists. "With this equipment, I think it is possible to make a definitive remote diagnosis of cancer."

Japan's leap forward, as the United States has lost ground among major industrialized countries in providing high-speed broadband connections, has frustrated many American high-tech innovators.

"The experience of the last seven years shows that sometimes you need a strong federal regulatory framework to ensure that competition happens in a way that is constructive," said Vinton G. Cerf, a vice president at Google.

Japan's lead in speed is worrisome because it will shift Internet innovation away from the United States, warns Cerf, who is widely credited with helping to invent some of the Internet's basic architecture. "Once you have very high speeds, I guarantee that people will figure out things to do with it that they haven't done before," he said.

As a champion of Japanese-style competition through regulation, Cerf supports "net neutrality" legislation now pending in Congress. It would mandate that phone and cable companies treat all online traffic equally, without imposing higher tolls for certain content.

The proposed laws would probably save billions for companies such as Google and Yahoo, but consumer advocates say they would also save money for most home Internet users.

U.S. phone and cable companies, which control about 98 percent of the country's broadband market, strongly oppose the proposed laws, saying they would discourage the huge investments needed to upgrade broadband speed.

Yet the story of how Japan outclassed the United States in the provision of better, cheaper Internet service suggests that forceful government regulation can pay substantial dividends.

The opening of Japan's copper phone lines to DSL competition launched a "virtuous cycle" of ever-increasing speed, said Cisco's Pepper. The cycle began shortly after Japanese politicians -- fretting about an Internet system that in 2000 was slower and more expensive than what existed in the United States -- decided to "unbundle" copper lines.

For just $2 a month, upstart broadband companies were allowed to rent bandwidth on an NTT copper wire connected to a Japanese home. Low rent allowed them to charge low prices to consumers -- as little as $22 a month for a DSL connection faster than almost all U.S. broadband services.

In the United States, a similar kind of competitive access to phone company lines was strongly endorsed by Congress in a 1996 telecommunications law. But the federal push fizzled in 2003 and 2004, when the Federal Communications Commission and a federal court ruled that major companies do not have to share phone or fiber lines with competitors. The Bush administration did not appeal the court ruling.

"The Bush administration largely turned its back on the Internet, so we have just drifted downwards," said Thomas Bleha, a former U.S. diplomat who served in Japan and is writing a history of how that country trumped the United States in broadband.

As the United States drifted, a prominent venture capitalist in Japan pounced on his government's decision to open up the country's copper wire.

[...]

Markets existed before their were governments, there was economics and trade before there were governments. The desire to provide increased security for trade, was one of the driving mechanisms leading to the invention of governments.

Ultimately markets are based on trust. Party A has to trust that they can deal safely and securely with Party B, and vise versa. There are multiple ways to achieve this trust. A highly regulatory government is certainly one mechanism, but there are costs associated with paying individuals to administrate, regulate, and enforce, and collect the taxes to cover these costs.

The first markets started would have started with the first humans, trade would have only occurred between family members. Trade would then occur within a tribe, word would spread quickly within a tribe if an individual traded dishonestly.

Trade between tribes was the next step. Tribes would have to develop a certain amount of trust between each other before they'd be willing to trade with each other. Certainly there were times that this trade was done dishonestly and this certainly led to war between these tribes. If both parties wished the trade to continue it would be in both parties interest to do so honestly.

This is one reason why Ebay is successful, it allows those participating in the market to leave feedback on those they have traded with. A person who has negative feedback will find it harder to buy or sell goods, sellers are often times weary of sending their products to buyers who are new or have little established feedback. Ebay effectively encourages trade because of the trust it provides, not through government force, but through tracking successful trade history.

I'm much more comfortable with ebay then I am with craigslist. I've considered getting a conceal and carry permit because of the unknown when dealing with craigslist. I'll always let somebody else know what address and time I'm meeting somebody on CL, and have my hand on the phone when meeting the person.

Dems ain't examples. I guarantee you in every single successful market you can ever describe, some third party is providing rules and regulations that govern trade and protect both buyers and sellers. Gare-uhn-teed.

In the example of eBay, yes, eBay is acting as a sort of governing body. It sets rules that all participants in the program must follow, provides services to protect buying and selling parties, and collects fees for doing so. And remember: eBay is the third party when you view transactions individually. It doesn't actually buy or sell anything. Of course it sounds silly to call eBay a government because it doesn't have governance over a geographical region, but nevertheless we see some of the most basic elements of government in its example as well as other examples like Amazon Marketplace. Perhaps its worth mentioning that governments themselves are (or were) more or less clubs or gangs that assume leadership over a people. The idea of a "virtual" demographic seems silly, but given the leaps and bounds being made in remote communications technologies, I generally wonder at the possibility of a nation linked by networks and not by land masses... That's another discussion entirely though.

Another example of how your claim is not true is black markets. Black markets exist without any third party enforcement. The black market under soviet rule thrived. Alcohol and drug prohibition didn't stop the sale of these items just because there was no longer third party enforcement. Certainly the black market poses an increased level of risk, however these markets are still dependent on a level of trust and reputation. A drug dealer that "cuts" their drugs with other things will lose buyers, the buyers will buy drugs from a dealer that doesn't. A gang buying from a drug smuggler can only kill so many smugglers before word gets out that that gang can't be trusted. If the black market were too violent, or too unsafe of a place to do business, it would wither a die, however the fact that the drug market has flourished for so long is a testament that it is safer and more honest then one would assume.

:secret: Black markets usually are operated by powerful criminal organizations. They act as third party enforcement. I think you mean gray markets.

CraigsList is a gray market. How well do you think that would work if people didn't already have protections from the US government? My guess: not very well. Not very well at all.

shhh. the government is always wrong and the market is always right.

:
Market's occurred long before the idea of third party enforcement. No matter how many times you say it.
Examples?

cave-men trading with each other?
remote tribes in africa and south america trading together?
black and gray markets all over the world in every country?
garage sales in your neighborhood?

cave-men trading with each other?
Link to evidence that cave men did trade with each without bashing each other's heads in and without Caveman Senior informing both parties that if either one tries to bash the other's head in, he will bash the aggressor's head in.

remote tribes in africa and south america trading together?
Link to evidence that tribal natives in Africa and South America trade with each other without impaling each other with pointy weapons or without Tribal Native Senior informing both parties that if either one tries to impale the other, he will impale the aggressor.

black and gray markets all over the world in every country?
garage sales in your neighborhood?
My redundancy generator has run out of fuel. Except for that it's not needed for the last one. I can't kill, rob, or defraud people at garage sales because I know the gub'mint will arrest me and possibly execute me if I do.

Link to evidence that cave men did trade with each without bashing each other's heads in and without Caveman Senior informing both parties that if either one tries to bash the other's head in, he will bash the aggressor's head in.


Link to evidence that tribal natives in Africa and South America trade with each other without impaling each other with pointy weapons or without Tribal Native Senior informing both parties that if either one tries to impale the other, he will impale the aggressor.


My redundancy generator has run out of fuel. Except for that it's not needed for the last one. I can't kill, rob, or defraud people at garage sales because I know the gub'mint will arrest me and possibly execute me if I do.

It's running out of fuel because it's based on hot air. Look in any history book, there's tons of archeoligical evidence.

http://www.chaz.org/Arch/Turkana/Jarigole/TRADE.HTM

Certainly there was some violence, but there's violence at modern stores even with the government. Trade works to the extent two parties trust each other, a third party can help but it's not a requirement.

Trade works to the extent two parties trust each other, a third party can help but it's not a requirement.Trade can happen between two individuals that trust each other - even tight communities of people that trust each other. But modern markets simply cannot exist without a third party governing mechanism. Our great experiment in capitalism would not have been successful without government providing the infrastructure, the standard currency, the contract legislation, and the educated workforce that it has. Can you point to a modern, large scale market that does not have a third party governing entity involved? I don't think so, because they do not exist. As Mixels pointed out, grey markets don't require the regulation infrastructure but I cannot think of an example of a valid grey market that doesn't depend entirely upon the underlying markets for its existence (i.e. oil futures depend upon the oil market.)

Can you point to a modern, large scale market that does not have a third party governing entity involved?

Is the illicit drug trade large enough?

OK, I know that I am jumping in late in the discussion but there are a lot of misconceptions that need to be corrected.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with pricing for services. Nobody is going to force anybody to give low prices for internet service. Net Neutrality in its purest form is preventing ISPs from affecting the customers' Internet usage. Traffic to Google is treated the same as traffic to Yahoo or traffic to the ISP's own content website.

ISPs are in the business of what? Providing dumb pipes for internet services. They are like the telephone companies in that regard - phone companies charge only for the usage of their phone lines and they do not care what you do with the phone lines, whether it is for voice calling, dial-up internet, and/or faxing. Would you be OK with telephone companies saying that you have to pay $5/month for the right to send faxes over their phone lines? What if they say that you can have unlimited and free phone calls to Pizza Hut but you would have to pay $1 for every phone call to Dominos? Would you be OK with that?

If the FCC cannot mandate Net Neutrality then they have the nuclear option available to them which is to designate ISPs as class 2 common carriers. What does that mean? It simply means that ISPs would be regulated exactly like telephone companies. They wouldn't be able to discriminate between packets just as phone companies are not allowed to discriminate between phone calls, faxes, dial-up internet, etc.

So it boils down to this: if you don't want the phone companies to discriminate between phone calls then you also don't want ISPs to discriminate between packets, either. ISPs are just next generation phone companies - like phone companies, they own underground copper/fiber wires in the last mile and they have switches and all that telecommunications stuff.

Recently, the FCC had tried very hard to classify ISPs as information service providers (class 1) which are very lightly regulated instead of telecommunications providers (class 2 common carriers) which are very heavily regulated. I think this was a mistake - when a company owns copper/fiber wires in the last mile, they have an effective monopoly over that and should have been classified as telecommunications providers (class 2). This was the logical classification.

It has been argued that people can "vote with their wallets" if they don't like what the ISP is doing. Problem is that ISPs are like the phone companies. In the 1980s, before the advent of the internet, could you have voted with your wallet with regards to your local phone company? The situation is exactly the same today with the ISPs. You cannot "vote with your wallet" precisely because the choices are limited today with the ISPs as they were limited back then with the RBOCs.

Then we come to the argument that ISPs can simply install more cables in the last mile, thus giving competition to the existing competition. It has been argued that JoeISP could run cable wires from the local office to every house/residence/etc within a 5 mile radius and give Comcast some serious competition. The problem with the argument is that it is currently ILLEGAL in most municipalities to run cable wires anywhere. Municipalities have given exclusive monopoly licenses to Comcast, Cox, etc. in their areas for cable service.

In order to get rid of these exclusive municipal monopolies in cable, you would have to pass a federal law that prohibits such monopolies at the local level. Such a law would be against the states rights that many have espoused.

Net Neutrality is simply a way for the FCC to impose an important part of class 2 common carrier regulation on the ISPs without having to actually classify them as class 2 common carriers. It is the better option than classifying ISPs as class 2 common carriers and subjecting them to common carrier regulations.

The industry is still at much of it's infancy. It's not too long ago we were still using dial-up AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, or Earthlink. Give it time. There is talk of 4G could be the next high speed option.

The problem with the comparison to dial-up companies is that the dial-up companies DID NOT OWN the phone lines that you were using to connect to them. You could shift from one dial-up company to another dial-up company at will. New dial-up companies could enter the marketplace with little upfront cost. Whenever you changed a dial-up company, did your phone line/company change? NO.

If your RBOC (Bell Atlantic, for example) also provided dial-up internet service in competition with AOL/Compuserve/etc AND it also owned the phone line going into your house, did it have the ability to prevent AOL/Compuserve/etc. from providing dial-up service to you? YES, it had that ability. Did it use that ability? NO. Why? Because it was regulated as a class 2 common carrier and was prohibited from engaging in phone call discrimination! This class 2 common carrier regulation was why you had the freedom to move from AOL to Compuserve to Prodigy to any other dial-up ISP on the SAME phone line.

In the case of the broadband ISP, the ISP OWNS the phone line/cable line AND provides the internet service over that line. It is like the RBOC owning the phone line AND offering dial-up internet service. If you didn't like the internet service that Comcast is providing (maybe it is blocking access to your favorite website), you can't change to a different ISP since Comcast won't allow anybody else to use its cable wires to provide the ISP service. And Comcast can disallow competitors to use its wires precisely because it is not regulated as a class 2 common carrier. The RBOC also has the same ability with regards to disallowing of competing dial-up services but cannot utilize it because of the class 2 common carrier regulation.

So the question becomes: would you have been OK with your RBOC offering its own dial-up service as the ONLY dial-up service option over its phone lines to your house?

Is the illicit drug trade large enough?It's not a valid example because black markets rely on their own means of enforcement; i.e. "guido breaks your legs." It's not a stable or coherent market.

It's not a valid example because black markets rely on their own means of enforcement; i.e. "guido breaks your legs." It's not a stable or coherent market.

I've known multiple drug dealers in my life. None of these dealers were connected. None of them relied on the threat of "guido" to keep from getting ripped off, either when buying or selling their "product".

It's probably a more stable market then most of wall street. As I said before a "third party enforcer" will definetely help free a market from some of the risk involved, however it is by no means a requirement.

I knew these people before they started dealing, or at least before I knew they dealt, I never purchased anything from them, and I'm no longer friends or aquaintances with any of them.

I've known multiple drug dealers in my life. None of these dealers were connected. None of them relied on the threat of "guido" to keep from getting ripped off, either when buying or selling their "product". That's great for them, but it certainly doesn't represent the norm of black markets in general. The threat of guido needs to be nothing more than implied. What would your multiple dealers have done to people who cheated them out of money? They had to have some sort of enforcement mechanism. How much do you think any average dealer's system resembles the justice system we have?

It's probably a more stable market then most of wall street. Even with it's ups and downs wall street is much better than drug dealing (or any other black market for that matter) in terms of stability. Heck, even the housing market is more stable than the drug market. Black markets face all sorts of problems because they're illegal. As a result, they suffer from huge shortages of supply and large variances in demand.

As I said before a "third party enforcer" will definetely help free a market from some of the risk involved, however it is by no means a requirement.And it's been agreed that trade can happen - amongst small, cohesive groups of people - without a trusted third party enforcement mechanism. So how about this - it's a requirement for any kind of market that even remotely resembles any modern one in terms of either size or stability.

No, I no longer know any of these people.They go out of business? I guess competition's rough in the black market. :P

(sorry, couldn't resist)

I've known multiple drug dealers in my life. None of these dealers were connected. None of them relied on the threat of "guido" to keep from getting ripped off, either when buying or selling their "product".
Then chances are, they got ripped off a lot. ;)

It's not a valid example because black markets rely on their own means of enforcement; i.e. "guido breaks your legs."
Exactly, no government based 3rd party, like you asked for.

It's not a stable or coherent market.

And what makes a market stable and/or coherent? Government?

EDIT: You answered that in the above post. Guess I should read the entire thread...

And I read your other post wrong. :doh:

I'm batting ofer 2 here.

And it's been agreed that trade can happen - amongst small, cohesive groups of people - without a trusted third party enforcement mechanism. So how about this - it's a requirement for any kind of market that even remotely resembles any modern one in terms of either size or stability.

They go out of business? I guess competition's rough in the black market. :P

(sorry, couldn't resist)

I haven't seen Mixels agree to that.

However, no I don't think with some kind of third party enforcement you would not see a market grow into today's modern economies. Without third party enforcement both sides must shoulder the additional expense of protection in transactions with unknown individuals. This third party need not be a government, it could just as easily be a company who's job it was to see that trades were done fairly and if not bane the offenders from trading in their market until they've made reparations. This effectively how stock markets, and ebay work. Anyone could sell stock anywhere they want to anyone they want, but NASDAQ is a company setup to ensure that trades happen quickly and securely and the party buying has the cash needed.



They go out of business? I guess competition's rough in the black market. :P
(sorry, couldn't resist)
I knew that was coming ;)

No, I never heard of any of the dealers getting ripped off. A few were people I knew in college, and lost touch with after graduating and moving. A few were long time friends who after they quit their jobs and started dealing full time I decided that I didn't want to be their friends any longer. This was all more then 10 years ago so the statute of limitations has expired.

It's running out of fuel because it's based on hot air. Look in any history book, there's tons of archeoligical evidence.

http://www.chaz.org/Arch/Turkana/Jarigole/TRADE.HTM

Certainly there was some violence, but there's violence at modern stores even with the government. Trade works to the extent two parties trust each other, a third party can help but it's not a requirement.
Trust, mi amor. Read on. And wtf is that article? Are you trying to say that trade happened before modern nations existed, therefore no governing body facilitated or supported those trades? :secret: There are many other forms of government besides the US's own, some of which are quite a lot less powerful.

Trade can happen between two individuals that trust each other - even tight communities of people that trust each other. But modern markets simply cannot exist without a third party governing mechanism. Our great experiment in capitalism would not have been successful without government providing the infrastructure, the standard currency, the contract legislation, and the educated workforce that it has. Can you point to a modern, large scale market that does not have a third party governing entity involved? I don't think so, because they do not exist. As Mixels pointed out, grey markets don't require the regulation infrastructure but I cannot think of an example of a valid grey market that doesn't depend entirely upon the underlying markets for its existence (i.e. oil futures depend upon the oil market.)
This would be the ultimate dilemma. Trade can exist between people who know each other, but a market is a complex web of trade--an economic system. Where we draw the line between what a market is versus individual instances of trade is certainly contestable, but I don't see why it is hard to understand that two people who do not trust each other cannot trade without some sort of third party enforcing the integrity of the trade. That third party, however minimally, is acting in the capacity of government as government because that's what government is. I think that's part of the hangup: the idea of government in general has taken on such an overbearing, all-powerful context (thanks George) that it seems ridiculous to some to assume that Uncle Bob the Cave Man could himself be a very simple sort of government by performing certain roles within his society, nation, tribe, or whatever.

I've known multiple drug dealers in my life. None of these dealers were connected. None of them relied on the threat of "guido" to keep from getting ripped off, either when buying or selling their "product".

It's probably a more stable market then most of wall street. As I said before a "third party enforcer" will definetely help free a market from some of the risk involved, however it is by no means a requirement.

I knew these people before they started dealing, or at least before I knew they dealt, I never purchased anything from them, and I'm no longer friends or aquaintances with any of them.
Incidentally, the stability of certain drug markets (not nearly all) often has quite a lot to do with the rarity of dealers. Any guesses as to why they are rare? In this case, the government doesn't explicitly protect the dealers, but it enforces rules that are responsible for the rarity. That rarity itself protects them to a degree, since drug buyers have a compelling physical drive to acquire the drugs and can't without a dealer. But you're forgetting a very important reality: the dealers to which you are referring (I assume American, since they wouldn't last five seconds in a less googly-eyed puppies-and-butterflies type country) are protected by the same entity that protects everyone else: ye old granddaddy Uncle Sam. If you murder a drug dealer, you're still on the line for murder. True story.

In the case of the broadband ISP, the ISP OWNS the phone line/cable line AND provides the internet service over that line. It is like the RBOC owning the phone line AND offering dial-up internet service. If you didn't like the internet service that Comcast is providing (maybe it is blocking access to your favorite website), you can't change to a different ISP since Comcast won't allow anybody else to use its cable wires to provide the ISP service. And Comcast can disallow competitors to use its wires precisely because it is not regulated as a class 2 common carrier.

this is not true where I live...I dont know about other areas, maybe this is something unique to Texas? But Time Warner in a JV with comcast owned the cable system where I live. Since then TW has withdrawn from the JV, leaving us with Comcast. In either case, we are free to choose ISP's over Comcast's cable. I personally am with Earhtlink for about 10 years now as they offered slightly lower prices than TW. The person who showed up to hook me up was actually a TW employee, so obviously Earthlink has some sort of arrangement with Comcast to lease their lines

this is not true where I live...I dont know about other areas, maybe this is something unique to Texas? But Time Warner in a JV with comcast owned the cable system where I live. Since then TW has withdrawn from the JV, leaving us with Comcast. In either case, we are free to choose ISP's over Comcast's cable. I personally am with Earhtlink for about 10 years now as they offered slightly lower prices than TW. The person who showed up to hook me up was actually a TW employee, so obviously Earthlink has some sort of arrangement with Comcast to lease their lines

What you described is VERY UNIQUE to your area. All along the West coast from Seattle to Los Angeles to San Diego and even including Las Vegas, Comcast does not allow anyone else to provide internet services over its pipe. Comcast is BOTH the pipe owner AND the service provider. This is true for pretty much all other areas of the country including the East Coast.

I think the very fact that the last mile cable pipes that go to your house was installed through a joint venture between Comcast/Time Warner is the reason why Earthlink could even provide internet service over those pipes in the first place. I'm sure there was something in the JV agreement that allowed for other ISPs to provide service over the pipes. If it wasn't for that agreement, Comcast wouldn't even have allowed Earthlink to provide the service. You can ask Earthlink about that and they'll confirm it.

Do you realize that your experience with this very unique cable internet arrangement may have affected your judgment with regards to Net Neutrality? If you were living in San Francisco and had the choice between Pacbell (RBOC) and Comcast and nobody else, you might be thinking differently about Net Neutrality.

Trade can happen between two individuals that trust each other - even tight communities of people that trust each other. But modern markets simply cannot exist without a third party governing mechanism. Our great experiment in capitalism would not have been successful without government providing the infrastructure, the standard currency, the contract legislation, and the educated workforce that it has. Can you point to a modern, large scale market that does not have a third party governing entity involved? I don't think so, because they do not exist. As Mixels pointed out, grey markets don't require the regulation infrastructure but I cannot think of an example of a valid grey market that doesn't depend entirely upon the underlying markets for its existence (i.e. oil futures depend upon the oil market.)
Those two points I have to strongly disagree.

Money wasn't invented by the government...it was invented by the market and the "government" took over the function. Poker chips, Console online points, Linden(second life), cigarette(in prison) etc can all be considered a form of currency. There is a market demand for these currency.

Private education can work just as well. Private College, Vocational school, Apprenticeship,

Another example of how your claim is not true is black markets. Black markets exist without any third party enforcement. The black market under soviet rule thrived. Alcohol and drug prohibition didn't stop the sale of these items just because there was no longer third party enforcement. Certainly the black market poses an increased level of risk, however these markets are still dependent on a level of trust and reputation. A drug dealer that "cuts" their drugs with other things will lose buyers, the buyers will buy drugs from a dealer that doesn't. A gang buying from a drug smuggler can only kill so many smugglers before word gets out that that gang can't be trusted. If the black market were too violent, or too unsafe of a place to do business, it would wither a die, however the fact that the drug market has flourished for so long is a testament that it is safer and more honest then one would assume.
I believe Sweden black market would be a good example. A lot of their black market isn't base on drug rather everyday item due to high taxation.

Those two points I have to strongly disagree.

Money wasn't invented by the government...it was invented by the market and the "government" took over the function. Poker chips, Console online points, Linden(second life), cigarette(in prison) etc can all be considered a form of currency.

Private education can work just as well. Private College, Vocational school, Apprenticeship,

Err, no. Money as we know it today was invented by a government. Once upon a time, there were commonly accepted forms of currency that weren't necessarily endorsed by any government, but these currencies weren't valuable implicitly. They were valuable because they were made of something valuable, such as gold or silver. Then, some time later, along came a spider who started producing bills and coins with less expensive metals such that the money itself no longer held an implicit value--but, argued the spider, your money will derive value from actual goods owned by society. Not so long ago, it happened to be the case that you could exchange notes, which were legal tender in the paper form, for silver or gold. Money as we know it is not a trade good. It is money, which is only valuable because government enforces its value.

Cigarettes are more like gold and silver coins. They're valuable because the thing itself is inherently valuable. Console points and poker chips, like money, are valuable because some third party enforces their value.

Even in cases where money is not involved, though, some third party must ensure the integrity of trade. This may not be necessarily true for all societies everywhere, but here in the west and throughout European and Asian histories with which I am familiar, people have always been indubitably unscrupulous. That is a generalization, and it is a deserved one: although there have been plenty of honest people throughout recorded history, there have been many, many more scoundrels. Without third party enforcement, there cannot be sufficient trust for merchants to do business with various and uncertain people.

Now, I have over the last few days developed a criticism of my own government argument, which is that the third party doing the enforcement need not be static. For example, suppose in the prison example you give apple that prisoners engage in honest trade with each other because they fear retaliation from the prison population as a whole if they violate the "rules." In that case there is no specific entity doing the enforcing, though there is certainly a notion of enforcement. Whether or not a population can be considered the governor of itself is maybe a notion for consideration in another thread, but it's something to think about.

Err, no. Money as we know it today was invented by a government.
err no....early US money was not issued by the government. Each bank had their own paper currency, which had nothing to do with government...only later did the government take over that function, doing away with all the different individual bank currencies and printing its own standard currency for the entire country.

in other instance money took on whatever form a society decided it to be...in some it was beads, in tribal africa it was cattle, in others it was salt....only in large organized civilizations did gold, silver etc and coins become instituted by governments and used as money in order to standardize economic activity.

The problem with the comparison to dial-up companies is that the dial-up companies DID NOT OWN the phone lines that you were using to connect to them. You could shift from one dial-up company to another dial-up company at will. New dial-up companies could enter the marketplace with little upfront cost. Whenever you changed a dial-up company, did your phone line/company change? NO.

If your RBOC (Bell Atlantic, for example) also provided dial-up internet service in competition with AOL/Compuserve/etc AND it also owned the phone line going into your house, did it have the ability to prevent AOL/Compuserve/etc. from providing dial-up service to you? YES, it had that ability. Did it use that ability? NO. Why? Because it was regulated as a class 2 common carrier and was prohibited from engaging in phone call discrimination! This class 2 common carrier regulation was why you had the freedom to move from AOL to Compuserve to Prodigy to any other dial-up ISP on the SAME phone line.

In the case of the broadband ISP, the ISP OWNS the phone line/cable line AND provides the internet service over that line. It is like the RBOC owning the phone line AND offering dial-up internet service. If you didn't like the internet service that Comcast is providing (maybe it is blocking access to your favorite website), you can't change to a different ISP since Comcast won't allow anybody else to use its cable wires to provide the ISP service. And Comcast can disallow competitors to use its wires precisely because it is not regulated as a class 2 common carrier. The RBOC also has the same ability with regards to disallowing of competing dial-up services but cannot utilize it because of the class 2 common carrier regulation.

So the question becomes: would you have been OK with your RBOC offering its own dial-up service as the ONLY dial-up service option over its phone lines to your house?
You are not 100% correct. Did you ever see the fine print where dial-up provider says you might have to pay long distant charge? The fact is the phone company that owns the line are getting paid for you using the line. Even if you didn't pay for it your dial-up ISP was paying for it. If I recall some small ISP were sued because they running through residential rate.

Let me ask you this...what's the time gap between phone line to dial-up vs cable tv to cable internet? Today we have high expectation of new technology to quickly drop their rate. The reason I mentioned dial-up isn't to compare the two rather to show how quickly technology is changing and that people's demand are faster than recouping the cost investment in these new technology. If cable/copper wire/optical infrastructure is cheap then in theory we should be seeing the same level of competition we see in cell phone market.

Once 4G network is up we may see Satellite TV type competition in the internet market. :dontknow: There is already some offering for 3G network(as seen in commercial for business)

err no....early US money was not issued by the government. Each bank had their own paper currency, which had nothing to do with government...only later did the government take over that function, doing away with all the different individual bank currencies and printing its own standard currency for the entire country.

in other instance money took on whatever form a society decided it to be...in some it was beads, in tribal africa it was cattle, in others it was salt....only in large organized civilizations did gold, silver etc and coins become instituted by governments and used as money in order to standardize economic activity.

You say potato.

That's a function of government. I don't mean the government. I mean government. Look it up.

Err, no. Money as we know it today was invented by a government.

Which government? And what money?

Judges shoot down another one of Obama's government takeover targets, say FCC has no authority...I wonder if Obama will badmouth the judges in his next State of the Union speech...let's watch the scramble in the House and Senate to pass a bill GIVING authority to the FCC...after all, you cant effectively control propaganda when you dont control the medium....it starts with an innocent enough sounding idea such as 'net neutrality', but in reality it is just baby step number one of state control: get your foot in the door first, then slowly wedge the door more open until you have what you want...the same philosophy the socialists are using with health care.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

This is the most retarded comment I have ever read on the internet. It confuses about a dozen issues, and ignores the fact that the policies in this case had nothing to do with Obama or his appointees.

Which government? And what money?

Not commodity money. Bank notes or representative money, which is what I meant when I said "money as we understand it today."

Not commodity money. Bank notes or representative money, which is what I meant when I said "money as we understand it today."
Nevermind, I didn't realize "representative money" referred only to paper monies.

Would you be OK with telephone companies saying that you have to pay $5/month for the right to send faxes over their phone lines? What if they say that you can have unlimited and free phone calls to Pizza Hut but you would have to pay $1 for every phone call to Dominos? Would you be OK with that?

It may be shady, but the telephone companies do regulate where you call. Since its technically against FCC regulations to actually block traffic they simply underprovision capacity to the terminating carrier so the dialer gets a busy signal. So rather than charge extra, they just make you try over and over until you finally get thru

Not commodity money. Bank notes or representative money, which is what I meant when I said "money as we understand it today."

and I explained how 'bank notes' were issued by each bank in their own unique currency, not the government. "Government" unified / standardized money in the form we know it today did not exist in the USA until 1861 (http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm) Prior to that there were about 30,000 different varieties of currency by about 1600 different banks.

Would you be OK with telephone companies saying that you have to pay $5/month for the right to send faxes over their phone lines? What if they say that you can have unlimited and free phone calls to Pizza Hut but you would have to pay $1 for every phone call to Dominos? Would you be OK with that?
Telephonics and internettery have nothing in common though. The data does not work the same. Telephone data is very limited and has to be sent in a specific way (a phone call is only work is data is transferred in a chronological order). Plus phone calls to different persons have no effect on the usage of the network. A call to anywhere is pretty much the same now.

Net neutrality fails because it allows companies like Google to get free access to the end of the pipe without having any requirement for neutrality on their end. Only ISPs have to be neutral in regards to data. Google can still bury websites and services (like Apple does on a daily basis) and that is allowed. Skype can limit or prohibit calls to states or countries it does not like, but an ISP could not limit connections to Skype's servers. It seems to go on a naive belief that internet companies are good while service providers are evil. It also assumes that applications are neutral regarding data requirements.

But more than anything it is unnecessary. We have gone over 20 years where companies have manage to prioritize data as needed to keep the world moving. From data management to taking care of SPAM the networks have done what was necessary to keep things running alright. The problem of the internet is that it is nearly impossible to properly codify and then enforce rules that would actually benefit users. So why bother?

You are not 100% correct. Did you ever see the fine print where dial-up provider says you might have to pay long distant charge?

The fine print is only for those who have dial-up service with the ISP and the ISP's dial-up phone numbers are located outside the "unlimited local" phone area for the subscriber (eg. you live in California and subscribe to a Tennessee ISP that has local Tennessee numbers only). This fine print is just an unimportant legalese since most, if not all, of the dial-up subscribers subscribe with ISPs that have LOCAL dial-up numbers that they could connect to without paying any long distance charges.

The fact is the phone company that owns the line are getting paid for you using the line.

Paid by whom? THE SUBSCRIBER. Just as Comcast is being paid by the subscriber for the usage of its cable wires.

Even if you didn't pay for it your dial-up ISP was paying for it. If I recall some small ISP were sued because they running through residential rate.

The ISP is paying to the RBOCs for the dial-up phone lines only. The subscribers connect to the dial-up lines. So the RBOCs are being paid by 1) ISPs for the dial-up lines and 2) subscribers for the home phone line.

Likewise, Comcast subscribers are paying for the home cable internet. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. are paying for the T-3, OC3, and fiber lines to the internet. Both ends (the subscribers and the content providers) are paying for the internet connectivity.

The difference between two scenarios is that Comcasat CAN and WILL block/restrict access to the other end (Google, yahoo, MS, etc.) and/or wants to charge more for the access to the other end even though the subscribers are already paying for the pipes. The RBOC CAN also impose similar restrictions (eg. you must pay more for calls to Pizza Hut numbers but it's free to Dominos or you cannot use the phone line to dial-up to this ISP but you can dial-up to that ISP, etc. ) but they are prohibited from doing this because of their class 2 common carrier regulations.

Let me ask you this...what's the time gap between phone line to dial-up vs cable tv to cable internet?

The time gap is irrelevant. A cable internet connection is no different than a regular phone line connection. You are paying for the right to use the pipe/wire AND send/receive the calls over that pipe/wire. Is Comcast a pipe provider or a services provider like Google/Yahoo?MS? If it is the former, then it must be regulated like a RBOC. If it is the latter then it shouldn't be regulated but it also shouldn't have the control over its pipes. Do you see the difference?

Today we have high expectation of new technology to quickly drop their rate. The reason I mentioned dial-up isn't to compare the two rather to show how quickly technology is changing and that people's demand are faster than recouping the cost investment in these new technology. If cable/copper wire/optical infrastructure is cheap then in theory we should be seeing the same level of competition we see in cell phone market.

I don't think you understand the economics of pipe/wire installation. A cable/copper wire/fiber costs THE SAME as a regular old phone line in terms of installation costs, man hours, labor, etc. That's because you still have to dig up streets, seek/pay for right of way, etc. These are PHYSICAL wires. Installing new cable/copper/fiber infrastructure does NOT get cheaper over time. Technology improvements do nothing to reduce the costs of installation.

Once 4G network is up we may see Satellite TV type competition in the internet market. :dontknow: There is already some offering for 3G network(as seen in commercial for business)

Problem is that the 4G/3G spectrum is not unlimited and is just as expensive, if not more so, than installing physical wires. Do you see how the iPhone brought the AT&T network to its knees? It was the first smartphone that actually took advantage of mobile browsing and people used it the way it was designed for. There is no guarantee that 4G will actually become a viable competitor to cable/DSL/FiOS due to the limited bandwidth available over that spectrum.

It may be shady, but the telephone companies do regulate where you call. Since its technically against FCC regulations to actually block traffic they simply underprovision capacity to the terminating carrier so the dialer gets a busy signal. So rather than charge extra, they just make you try over and over until you finally get thru

That sounds EXACTLY like the ISPs like Comcast throttling BitTorrent traffic and/or reducing access/bandwidth to certain websites. And I'm sure that such practices are against the common carrier regulations.

Are people who are against Net Neutrality OK with the practices by RBOC described by vivahate?

Telephonics and internettery have nothing in common though. The data does not work the same. Telephone data is very limited and has to be sent in a specific way (a phone call is only work is data is transferred in a chronological order). Plus phone calls to different persons have no effect on the usage of the network. A call to anywhere is pretty much the same now.

Those differences are irrelevant because in both cases, you are paying/renting the pipes that transmit the information. How the information is transmitted has nothing to do with the rental of the pipes. If Comcast is having trouble meeting the bandwidth needs of its customers then it must either expand its infrastructure and/or charge more for the bandwidth. Discriminating between packets turns Comcast from a dumb pipe renter into a gatekeeper. Remember, the RBOCs have the ability to be a gatekeeper for phone calls but they are prohibited by common carrier regulations from engaging in any gatekeeping.

Net neutrality fails because it allows companies like Google to get free access to the end of the pipe without having any requirement for neutrality on their end.

This argument is an EPIC FAIL. How do you think Google connects to the internet in the first place? Do they plug in a cable into their server farms and somehow get the Internet access for FREE? Google is ALREADY PAYING for the Internet access to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars a month for 100 Gbits to 1,000 Gbits per second fiber connectivity to their various server farms. So tell me, how exactly is Google getting "free access" to the end of the pipe if they are already ponying up millions per month for the internet access to the end of the pipe?

Only ISPs have to be neutral in regards to data.

Correction: Only ISPs that OWN the pipes have to be neutral with regards to the data.

Google can still bury websites and services (like Apple does on a daily basis) and that is allowed. Skype can limit or prohibit calls to states or countries it does not like, but an ISP could not limit connections to Skype's servers. It seems to go on a naive belief that internet companies are good while service providers are evil. It also assumes that applications are neutral regarding data requirements.

Your analogy between Google/Skype and Comcast is another EPIC FAIL.

Are you seriously comparing SERVICE PROVIDERS with PIPE OWNERS??? Google/Skype don't own the pipes that consumers use to connect to the Internet. If Google blocks/buries websites, consumers can instantly switch to Bing or yahoo or Baidu or any other millions of other search engines. You can do that with a CLICK OF A MOUSE.

If Comcast blocks/buries websites, who the hell are the consumers going to switch to? Can they switch ISPs with a click of a mouse? That's a pipe dream (pun intended). Remember, Comcast doesn't allow other ISPs to provide service over its pipes. Your only alternative would be the local phone company and even that company may engage in packet discrimination.

Don't like Skype blocking certain numbers? With a CLICK OF A MOUSE, you can go to another provider on the Internet who won't block the numbers. Can't find another provider? Start up your own company for a few thousand dollars and provide the competing services.

In summary, Google/Skype provides software services. Comcast provides pipe rentals. A very big difference.

But more than anything it is unnecessary. We have gone over 20 years where companies have manage to prioritize data as needed to keep the world moving. From data management to taking care of SPAM the networks have done what was necessary to keep things running alright. The problem of the internet is that it is nearly impossible to properly codify and then enforce rules that would actually benefit users. So why bother?

The reason it worked just fine for the past 20 years is because the Internet was a novelty and most people were using dial-up internet over heavily regulated phone lines and ISPs did not own those phone lines and thus were prevented by intense competition from packet discrimination.

But now we live in a world where the ISP owns both the phone lines/cable lines AND provides the internet services. Now, they have the ability for packet discrimination. And now, they can do packet discrimination to earn more profits. That is the difference between now and the past 20 years.

The problem of the internet is that it is nearly impossible to properly codify and then enforce rules that would actually benefit users. So why bother?If that's true then what are DNS, HTTP, TCP/IP, IGMP, BGMP, L2TP, H.323, etc.?

FCC may kiss my ass.

And you may kiss the ISPs' asses.

My problem with ISP lack of neutrality was their general lack of transparency. The same as in credit, housing, banking, energy, etc... The government should be working to ensure transparency.

If Comcast offered 6mbps except to Skype and Hulu for $30/month, but Verizon offered 6mbps everywhere for $35/mo I would choose Verizon, my parents would choose Comcast. That's how capitalism should work. Instead Comcast lied about throttling bandwidth and these companies' "unlimited" internet is not unlimited. Unfortunately, the limits are usually not made clear by the ISP.

My problem with ISP lack of neutrality was their general lack of transparency. The same as in credit, housing, banking, energy, etc... The government should be working to ensure transparency.

If Comcast offered 6mbps except to Skype and Hulu for $30/month, but Verizon offered 6mbps everywhere for $35/mo I would choose Verizon, my parents would choose Comcast. That's how capitalism should work. Instead Comcast lied about throttling bandwidth and these companies' "unlimited" internet is not unlimited. Unfortunately, the limits are usually not made clear by the ISP.
Then you should be fighting for transparency not neutrality ;)

I believe unlimited is carry over from ISP age where you have maximum size limit not that you will have unlimited speed or else they won't have different tier speed plan

the NEt worked fine for 20+ years, there is no need for the feds to stick their nose in to micromanaging it.Why is that? The Feds created it, and now our economy depends upon it.

My problem with ISP lack of neutrality was their general lack of transparency. The same as in credit, housing, banking, energy, etc... The government should be working to ensure transparency.

If Comcast offered 6mbps except to Skype and Hulu for $30/month, but Verizon offered 6mbps everywhere for $35/mo I would choose Verizon, my parents would choose Comcast. That's how capitalism should work. Instead Comcast lied about throttling bandwidth and these companies' "unlimited" internet is not unlimited. Unfortunately, the limits are usually not made clear by the ISP.

The general lack of transparency is a direct result of the monopoly position of Comcast/Verizon. As I posted previously, Comcast is both the OWNER of the pipes and the SERVICE PROVIDER over those same pipes. It's kind of like NBC owning the pipes to your house and also providing the TV programming. NBC could send you all the HD shows from its programming while limiting you to just SD for all other channels/networks.

The general lack of transparency is a direct result of the monopoly position of Comcast/Verizon. As I posted previously, Comcast is both the OWNER of the pipes and the SERVICE PROVIDER over those same pipes. It's kind of like NBC owning the pipes to your house and also providing the TV programming. NBC could send you all the HD shows from its programming while limiting you to just SD for all other channels/networks.

Did you just happen to mention Comcast and NBC? Comcast bought NBC in December.

I've noticed issues with LOST (ABC) in HD on comcast, it's like it gets a weak signal and loses sound or picture for 1 second, rather annoying. I don't really watch much NBC, most recent thing I can think of was the Olympics and I don't recall it happening then.

Click on the link to read the whole article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f5d6128-4400-11df-9235-00144feab49a.html
Some of Europe’s leading telecoms groups are squaring up for a fight with Google over what they claim is the free ride enjoyed by the technology company’s YouTube video-sharing service.

Telefónica, France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom all said Google should start paying them for carrying bandwidth-hungry content such as YouTube video over their networks.

It underlines how Google’s relationship with leading telecoms groups is becoming increasingly fractious, partly because YouTube video is fuelling an explosion of data traffic on their networks.

Some European telecoms groups fear Google will reduce them to “dumb pipes” because the internet search and advertising company pays the network operators little or nothing for carrying its content.

Telecoms groups are spending billions of euros on fixed-line and mobile infrastructure to increase broadband download speeds and network capacity, but some fear they may struggle to secure a return on their investments.

<...snip...>.
Looks like Europe is in the same water

Telefónica, France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom all said Google should start paying them for carrying bandwidth-hungry content such as YouTube video over their networks.Shocking - the telcos want more money from someone else? For something that they're already charging Google and their customers for?

Google already pays for bandwidth for YouTube. I already pay for bandwidth for YouTube. Telefonica's customers already pay for bandwidth for YouTube.

Telefonica simply wants to rake in more revenue and they're going after the deepest pockets they can find. If they're really concerned with the amount of bandwidth that their customers are using (the people watching YouTube over their lines) then why don't they simply charge them more for the bandwidth?

I didn't sign a contract with my ISP to only use the bandwidth I'm allocated for certain sites that they "approve" of, so why should my ISP be able to have a valid complaint if I'm simply using the bandwidth they're contractually obligated to provide me?

Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Oops. :D

Oops. :D
:doh:

Click on the link to read the whole article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f5d6128-4400-11df-9235-00144feab49a.html

Looks like Europe is in the same water

What part of:
Google is ALREADY PAYING for the Internet access to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars a month for 100 Gbits to 1,000 Gbits per second fiber connectivity to their various server farms.
did you not understand?

I did, and it goes along with what you just said. Laws in general are designed to protect people. This includes trade laws. Since "people" is a very big group and since within that group there are conflicting parties, however, perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that the very purpose of laws is to facilitate fairness. Fairness with regard to what depends on the situation, but why is it that any of you suppose raping, sacking, pillaging, and burning are illegal? Because the Bible says so? The fact is every law in society has an impact on the marketplace. (That's true because the idea of a "marketplace" itself is a fabrication of delusion facilitated by security--that is security is a necessity for fair trade.) In a truly free marketplace, certain unscrupulous characters would never have to pay for anything. Of course, if someone did steal your stuff, he or she might have to worry about vengeance from you and/or your friends, who in turn would have to worry about retaliation from the sinister bandits who nabbed your goods, and it would be a generally unpleasant experience for lots of people. But the idea of government in the first place is rooted in social contract: we give Big Brother this power to find bandits and toss them in jail to discourage or prevent banditism (not a word--sue me) in the first place.

Ergo, in a truly free marketplace, there are no restrictions on individual parties violating the integrity of that marketplace. It sounds like a ridiculous notion, and I point it out for that reason: it's what your opposition is encouraging, though taken to its most pointed extreme.

In my opinion...most of those who say they want a "Free Market" don't really know what they are asking for....what they really should be asking for is a "Market that behaves as I want it to"

The feeling that “someone must protect me” is certainly a barrier to the free market. Yes, there are bandits…and if I expect someone else to deal with them, then I have to give up a portion of my freedom and subject myself to the same rules I want them held to. Ideally we would all just be good people, but greed alone dictates that that won’t happen. The alternative then is to establish a ruling body to enforce rules the community agrees to…”no stealing” would be the first to come to mind to combat the bandits, and it would be hard to argue that such a law is a bad idea…but fast forward a few hundred/thousand years and with the inception of more rules/restrictions you can see that the Free Market must suffer. “no stealing” quickly becomes an Anti-trust lawsuit where a software company is sued/fined for not installing another vendors product within their software suite. How much government intervention should there be? That question has no right answer…many on here would say “NONE” while at the same time being pissed at people who do things they think should be stopped.

I would compare it to censorship. Is censorship good or bad? The answer depends on who is doing the censoring. For a truly free market, censorship is bad. For a community, censorship can be good…and almost everyone agrees and thinks censorship is good until what THEY want to see/hear/read is being censored. I haven’t met anyone yet who thinks all forms of censorship are bad unilaterally.

Being bad for the Free Market, and being bad for the community are two different things. For a Free Market to be Free, it can’t have ANY intrusions by government or private individuals. It does matter if it is the Mob or the Government telling me I am not allowed to compete in the lawn care business…both hinder the Free Market.

As far as Net Neutrality…I can certainly see how it would be annoying if Comcast prevented me from going to Verizons website to view my options for other providers, but as a proponent of the Free Market I can’t argue that they shouldn’t have the ability to do so…the problem arose when limits were placed on who could be in the market to begin with, and Comcast pushed the smaller companies out of the market, or there were none to begin with. If the government stops people from being able to compete in any manner…say high cost of entry via regulatory charges that a small business can’t afford, then the Free Market is dead.

The answer to a truly Free Market problem is rarely “more restrictions and rules” and more often “let nature run it’s course”...but like censorship you have to be willing to see the bad to see the good.

For a Free Market to be Free, it can’t have ANY intrusions by government or private individuals.

:shake: That's not true.

:shake: That's not true.



So where is it false?

So where is it false?
Free Market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)
A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud.

Unless you are changing the very premise of a free market, there is indeed "intrusions" by government and/or private entities.

The feeling that “someone must protect me” is certainly a barrier to the free market.

Do you think fraud and theft are pivotal aspects of a free market?

Free Market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)

Unless you are changing the very premise of a free market, there is indeed "intrusions" by government and/or private entities.

Do you think fraud and theft are pivotal aspects of a free market?

Well said, it sways from amusing me to pissing me off, when detractors of "free markets" try to claim they are equivalent with anarcho-capitalism.

Free Market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market)


Unless you are changing the very premise of a free market, there is indeed "intrusions" by government and/or private entities.



Do you think fraud and theft are pivotal aspects of a free market?


I guess it depends on what you determine to be fraud and theft. If the government stops someone from selling something because it isn't advertised correctly, that is infringing on the Free Market...those who misrepresent what they are selling will eventually be dealt with by the market itself...Fraud blocking is requested by the consumer to protect them...they are giving up a portion of their rights to allow the government to determine what is or isn't fraudulent.

Theft has nothing to do with the Free Market....stealing from my shop or stealing from my home is the same thing...and whether or not the market is free has nothing to do with it. Stopping someone from copying my idea, while nice for me, still prevents the market from being free, I am being given a monopoly and others have a barrier to entry.

as a proponent of the Free Market I can’t argue that they shouldn’t have the ability to do so…

Do you believe that "natural monopolies" should be allowed to operate without any regulation in a free market?

I guess it depends on what you determine to be fraud and theft. If the government stops someone from selling something because it isn't advertised correctly
You mean fraud?

those who misrepresent what they are selling will eventually be dealt with by the market itself...
Sure, doesn't mean there can't protections against it as well.

Fraud blocking is requested by the consumer to protect them...they are giving up a portion of their rights to allow the government to determine what is or isn't fraudulent.
And what does that have to do with a free market?

Theft has nothing to do with the Free Market....stealing from my shop or stealing from my home is the same thing...and whether or not the market is free has nothing to do with it.
:huh: What are you talking about?

Stopping someone from copying my idea, while nice for me, still prevents the market from being free, I am being given a monopoly and others have a barrier to entry.
:huh: Again, what are you talking about?

You mean fraud?


Sure, doesn't mean there can't protections against it as well.


And what does that have to do with a free market?


:huh: What are you talking about?


:huh: Again, what are you talking about?


I thought we were talking about Theft...is that not the case? I fail to see how theft is related to a market, free or otherwise, unless you are talking about protection intellectual property that is inherent to doing business...patents etc.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a natural monopoly, nor should monopolies be protected against if the market is to be Free

I thought we were talking about Theft...is that not the case? I fail to see how theft is related to a market, free or otherwise, unless you are talking about protection intellectual property that is inherent to doing business...patents etc.
I'm talking about protecting ones property, for instance, in the case of a sale. If 2 people agree to participate in a trade, one party should not be allowed to keep both aspects of that trade.

I do not believe there is such a thing as a natural monopoly
A natural monopoly could just a case where competition hasn't formed yet.

nor should monopolies be protected against if the market is to be Free
Monopolies should be illegal if they become a monopoly by illicit means.

I'm talking about protecting ones property, for instance, in the case of a sale. If 2 people agree to participate in a trade, one party should not be allowed to keep both aspects of that trade.

Why would anyone regardless of Government intervention feel they had a right to both parts? Again this isn't really Free Market, and without government the transaction would resolve itself via other means.


A natural monopoly could just a case where competition hasn't formed yet.
Nothing wrong with that, it's the essence of a free market...see a need, fill a need...when others see the potential to also fill that need the monopoly is broken


Monopolies should be illegal if they become a monopoly by illicit means.
Not that they shouldn't be, but it doesn't necessitate government intervention to solve...stopping someone else from entering the market via illicit means is a break of the Free Market ideal anyway....which is why there are really no true Free Markets...just some that are more free than others.

Why would anyone regardless of Government intervention feel they had a right to both parts? Again this isn't really Free Market, and without government the transaction would resolve itself via other means.
:huh: Do you understand free market principles? How exactly would the transaction resolve itself without some outside "intrusion"?

Not that they shouldn't be, but it doesn't necessitate government intervention to solve...
Then what solves it?

stopping someone else from entering the market via illicit means is a break of the Free Market ideal anyway....
Hence the need for government or private entity intrusion. Hence why what you said was false.

Coming from the other side of the digital divide (utter torture on s-s-low dialup), where's the best place to post this question re: net neutrality vs. monopoly?

Q:

Basically the Big Three phone companies are benefitting by piggybacking on net neutrality laws which enable them to claim with impunity that Dry Loop service would not be efficiently receivable at any particular address, even while stating that DSL bundled with phone service is possible.

It allows them (I think) to bar independent techs from "auditing" their claims of Dry Loop service not being technically efficient by barring them (I think) from admission to their Central Offices, because the Net Neutrality laws work on their side insofar as neither FCC nor Justice Dept. requiring them to allow outside auditors to their HQ.

My question is: Can't the following solution work around this monopoly-boosting aspect of Net Neutrality Law as follows:

Just state that customer requires Dry Loop for primary reason of being able to use it as a VOIP phone line in case of emergencies, such as fire etc. and only secondarily for necessities such as referencing needed info.

And since phone service - regardless whether analog or digital - has a long history of FCC jurisdiction, the FCC should therefore require admission of independent auditors to the phone company HQs to determine whether (or why not) potential VOIP-over-DryLoop would be achievable.

I.E. the VOIP-ASPECT of DryLoop technology ought to be under FCC (or Justice Dept??) jurisdiction and rulings, whereas the internet aspect of Dry Loop can remain subject to net neutrality laws.

My major concern is semantics. I.E. how to word it so the phone companies and federal/local governments shouldn't use that as a reason to charge endless surcharges and taxes. Since the whole point of this is for people to have a crack at affordable internet by interpreting the legalities in a way that benefits those who need it, rather than the Big Three.

Net Neutrality laws could cost up to $62 Billion and 502,000 jobs in the next five years, according to a study by New York University Law School, corroborated by other studies.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100616_751009.htm

High-Speed Internet Rules Might Prove Costly
Giving the FCC the authority to impose net neutrality on broadband service could cost more than $62 billion if providers pull back, a study says

By Olga Kharif

Proposed regulation of high-speed Internet service providers by the U.S. government could cost the economy at least $62 billion annually over the next five years and eliminate 502,000 jobs, according to a study released by New York University Law School.

The report estimates that broadband providers and related industries may cut their investments by 10 percent to 30 percent from 2010 to 2015 in response to additional regulation. At 30 percent, the economy might sustain an $80 billion hit, according to Charles Davidson, director of the law school's Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, which released the report on June 16.

"There will be follow-on effects in the whole ecosystem," said Bret Swanson, president of technology researcher Entropy Economics in Zionsville, Ind., who co-authored the study with Davidson. "A diminution of investment by the big infrastructure companies will reduce network capacity, new services, and investment by all the ecosystem companies," such as application providers and device manufacturers, he said in an interview.

On June 17, the Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on taking public comment on Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal to give the agency greater authority over broadband service providers such as Comcast (CMCSA), Verizon Communications (VZ), and AT&T (T). The agency wants the power to impose so-called net neutrality rules that would require providers of traditional broadband and wireless services to allow all applications and devices onto their networks. In April, a court ruled that the FCC currently lacks the authority to impose such regulations.
Some House Democrats oppose FCC move

FCC commissioners may vote to grant themselves authority to regulate the Internet as early as this summer. "It's not a lengthy process," says Darrell West, a director at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "They'll make a decision in the next few months. But it could be years before the issue could get resolved." Lawsuits or Congressional actions challenging the FCC's authority are likely, he says.

On May 24, 74 House Democrats sent a letter to the FCC expressing "serious concerns" about the proposed regulation. "We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come with it," the letter said.

The FCC aims to allow companies such as Google (GOOG) and Skype to offer their services freely on the nation's wired and wireless broadband networks. Today service providers can ban or degrade the quality of certain services. "Google believes that forcing people and companies to get permission from—and pay special fees to—the phone and cable companies to connect with one another online is fundamentally counter to the freedom and innovation that have defined the Internet," the search giant wrote in a 2006 blog advocating net neutrality.

The FCC may also be striving to lower the price of high-speed Internet access for consumers. In a May 28 report, Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett pointed out that about one-third of Americans can't afford broadband access, which the new regulation could change. Still, his report begins with the sentence: "The road to Hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions."
a wave of negative reports

The study's authors believe regulation would reduce service providers' willingness to invest by shrinking their revenue opportunities. For example, they say service providers wouldn't be able to offer a hospital a higher-quality network service needed for telemedicine applications. "A lot of telemedicine services are real-time in nature," says Davidson. "If network owners are not allowed to manage their networks to allow for reliable delivery of those services, then we'll see those services not developing as they should."

The study is one of several in recent months to warn that net neutrality regulation may lead to lower investment and job losses in telecom and other industries. In May, consultant Frost & Sullivan released a study that said additional regulation would increase business risks for service providers, forcing them to pass certain costs on to consumers. "Net neutrality could, ironically, have the effect of actually reducing broadband penetration," cautioned Frost analyst Mike Jude.

In April, the Brattle Group released a report that said net neutrality regulation "could slow the growth of the broadband sector, potentially affecting as many as 1.5 million jobs." Broadband industry job losses could reach 14,217 in 2011, and 342,065 in 2020, according to that report, which was sponsored by Mobile Future, a coalition of companies that includes AT&T and T-Mobile. "The possibility that such losses would be offset by gains in other parts of the Internet economy is remote," according to the report.

Kharif is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek in Portland, Ore.

^This and the following will be bundled into the 'package':

Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (2 days ago)

A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.

Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".

Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.

Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector websites, broadband providers and other internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director". The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of non-compliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Via CNET

Net neutrality is a good thing. It allows phenomenal access to information (which can supplement our crippled school systems) and business growth opportunity.

It's important that it remains open and that the provisions noted giving government superpowers be struck out.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."
There is the other front of attack on our civil liberties: The Newspaper Bailout
The Newspaper Bailout

Posted By Dick Morris On June 17, 2010 @ 12:00 am In FrontPage

Jon Leibowitz, chairman of Barack Obama’s Federal Trade Commission, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media. In our book, “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan,” we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations. Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from anti-trust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce. A May 24 working paper on “reinventing” the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites, such as the Drudge Report, that link to news websites or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops and Kindles. Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes calling them “a terrible idea,” his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper. Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal — a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama M.O. should be clear to all. As he has done with the banks, AIG and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations. Should the government follow through on Leibowitz’ ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question — as the former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn did — whether or not FoxNews is a news organization or an “arm of the Republican Party”? We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.

Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it.

Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment — trial balloons that would obviously be shot down — very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal — the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine “whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model.” Among the steps under consideration are changing “the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from anti-trust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws.”

These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC. We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.

Net Neutrality laws could cost up to $62 Billion and 502,000 jobs in the next five years, according to a study by New York University Law School, corroborated by other studies.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2010/tc20100616_751009.htm

Wow... whole lot of BS in there..

Wow... whole lot of BS in there..

wow..thanks for that educational and instructive argument...in 7 words you have managed to turn me around from the results of several studies and analyses done by professionals and people who know their business, producing reports with reams of paper and sources...

well done!!! :thumbup:

wow..thanks for that educational and instructive argument...in 7 words you have managed to turn me around from the results of several studies and analyses done by professionals and people who know their business, producing reports with reams of paper and sources...

well done!!! :thumbup:

This thread is evidence that you'll not change your mind no matter what anyone says or how wrong you are. Hell, this entire Podium is evidence of that.

BTW, where's the study? They didn't link to it nor provide any insight as to how they arrived at those figures. You're just going to take their word for it?

OK Go on net neutrality: A lesson from the music industry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082702131.html)

On the Internet, when I send my ones and zeros somewhere, they shouldn't have to wait in line behind the ones and zeros of wealthier people or corporations. That's the way the Net was designed, and it's central to a concept called "net neutrality," which ensures that Internet service providers can't pick favorites.

Comcast, Level 3 Communications square off over video streaming, network neutrality principles (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/29/comcast-level-3-communications-square-off-over-video-streaming/)

According to networking company Level 3 Communications, Comcast just couldn't wait for its NBC deal to go through before getting all jerky with the access to online video, telling Level 3 on November 19th that it would need to pay a fee to deliver video to Comcast customers.

This is getting ridiculous. Comcast should not be able to attempt to extort money from a major Internet backbone (or anyone really) to do the job they've already been paid for.

The market will take care of QoS (net neutrality). I personally love QoS. My video conferencing, and gaming are more time sensitive and important than bittorrent and e-mail. I have QoS set up at home, and would happily choose a service provider that promised high QoS to gaming and Voice and low QoS to e-mail and bittorrent.

The market will take care of QoS (net neutrality). I personally love QoS. My video conferencing, and gaming are more time sensitive and important than bittorrent and e-mail. I have QoS set up at home, and would happily choose a service provider that promised high QoS to gaming and Voice and low QoS to e-mail and bittorrent.That's protocol level QoS. What would you think about the same ISP implementing QoS at the content level? Especially if it were content you might be interested in?

That's protocol level QoS. What would you think about the same ISP implementing QoS at the content level? Especially if it were content you might be interested in?

The market will not bear it. What if supermarkets didn't sell food people wanted to eat?

That's basically the question you are asking me.

The market will not bear it. What if supermarkets didn't sell food people wanted to eat?

That's basically the question you are asking me.

You might be surprised what the market will bear in this country, especially when a business has something damn near to a monopoly on the market and when the average consumer in that market doesn't actually know what he or she is buying or whether a better product is available. People who aren't tech savvy tend to just take what they are given.

The market will not bear it. What if supermarkets didn't sell food people wanted to eat?

That's basically the question you are asking me.It's not really a matter of deciding "not to sell" certain items, but rather of giving preference to certain items over others. But the practical effect to the consumer is the same. That user isn't paying for "access to X,Y, Z service" - they're paying for access to the internet as a whole. Dividing up the internet into classes of service that exist at the whim of the same people providing the pipe to get there defeats the very thing that made the internet as pervasive and profitable as it currently is.

What if Comcast decides that Fox News video will be given preference over, say the BBC? Or MSNBC gives Comcast a bunch of money to prioritize their traffic over Fox's? The reasoning that the ISPs will provide for doing so is that their total bandwidth is limited and therefore they want to prioritize some traffic at the expense of others (including the collection of "fees" from service providers who want to be included in the priority lists). However, this effectively allows them to block "unwanted" content on their networks (like say, the content of one of their competitors). They'd be able to claim that they're not "blocking" content, but of course the eventual effect isn't any different.

We don't let telcos discriminate as to which phone calls are allowed to and from certain numbers, so why should we allow ISPs the latitude the be able to discriminate internet traffic based upon content?

You might be surprised what the market will bear in this country, especially when a business has something damn near to a monopoly on the market and when the average consumer in that market doesn't actually know what he or she is buying or whether a better product is available. People who aren't tech savvy tend to just take what they are given.

I disagree with you. We can basically leave it at that. Also, read The Tipping Point. It doesn't take that many savvy people to influence the general public.

It's not really a matter of deciding "not to sell" certain items, but rather of giving preference to certain items over others. But the practical effect to the consumer is the same. That user isn't paying for "access to X,Y, Z service" - they're paying for access to the internet as a whole. Dividing up the internet into classes of service that exist at the whim of the same people providing the pipe to get there defeats the very thing that made the internet as pervasive and profitable as it currently is.

What if Comcast decides that Fox News video will be given preference over, say the BBC? Or MSNBC gives Comcast a bunch of money to prioritize their traffic over Fox's? The reasoning that the ISPs will provide for doing so is that their total bandwidth is limited and therefore they want to prioritize some traffic at the expense of others (including the collection of "fees" from service providers who want to be included in the priority lists). However, this effectively allows them to block "unwanted" content on their networks (like say, the content of one of their competitors). They'd be able to claim that they're not "blocking" content, but of course the eventual effect isn't any different.

We don't let telcos discriminate as to which phone calls are allowed to and from certain numbers, so why should we allow ISPs the latitude the be able to discriminate internet traffic based upon content?

What if JIF gives big kickbacks to supermarkets for only offering their penut butter? What if Honey Maid makes an exclusive contract to sell graham crackers? What if Hershey's offers a big bonus to only sell their chocolate? You are using what amounts to an anti-corporate conspiracy theory that simply will not come to bear.

As for blocking competition: you see direcTV, dish network, and comcast commercials on their competition's broadcasts. Why aren't these blocked?

What you have is a slippery slope. Why would Comcast give preference to one news agency over another? What if they just stopped showing MSNBC and CNN on cable television? Don't you see how unrealistic your argument is?

People will not stand for poor service.

I disagree with you. We can basically leave it at that. Also, read The Tipping Point. It doesn't take that many savvy people to influence the general public.



What if JIF gives big kickbacks to supermarkets for only offering their penut butter? What if Honey Maid makes an exclusive contract to sell graham crackers? What if Hershey's offers a big bonus to only sell their chocolate? You are using what amounts to an anti-corporate conspiracy theory that simply will not come to bear.

As for blocking competition: you see direcTV, dish network, and comcast commercials on their competition's broadcasts. Why aren't these blocked?

What you have is a slippery slope. Why would Comcast give preference to one news agency over another? What if they just stopped showing MSNBC and CNN on cable television? Don't you see how unrealistic your argument is?

People will not stand for poor service.

I think your argument is the more unrealistic one. Are you not aware of the merger between Comcast and NBC? It is not unfathomable that one day, Comcast may attempt to extort money from CNN and Fox to be carried on their cable and Internet networks. People will stand for this poor service because in many areas, it is the only option. This is not inconceivable given that they are currently trying to extort money from Level 3.

For example, I used to live in an area where Qwest was the only option. Now I live in an area where Cox is the only option (Qwest doesn't even provide Internet access here).

The free market cannot take care of this, because there is no free market in many areas, only monopolies and oligopolies.

And funny you should mention Hershey. Supermarkets are pissed about the collusion going on in the chocolate industry.

The market will not bear it. What if supermarkets didn't sell food people wanted to eat?

That's basically the question you are asking me.

Not exactly.

You mentioned games. What if Comcast gave better bandwith/latency for WoW but they purposely slow down when you play CoD because they didn't pay. Should they be allowed to do that?

Not exactly.

You mentioned games. What if Comcast gave better bandwith/latency for WoW but they purposely slow down when you play CoD because they didn't pay. Should they be allowed to do that?

The basic answer to that is yes. I don't think they would do it, but yes they ought to be allowed to do it.

Back to the monopoly/oligopoly point though. In the case where an ISP is granted a local monopoly, the local (not federal) regulatory authority should prevent service and price manipulation. This is a long standing problem of all local monopolies though, and should be treated in the same way. They should not necessarily be forced to provide a QoS-less or net neutral service.

What if JIF gives big kickbacks to supermarkets for only offering their penut butter? What if Honey Maid makes an exclusive contract to sell graham crackers? What if Hershey's offers a big bonus to only sell their chocolate? You are using what amounts to an anti-corporate conspiracy theory that simply will not come to bear. Anti-corporate conspiracy theory? No, more like principle of capitalism - make more money, establish more market control, make more money, up to (and often beyond) what the law allows. The idea that corporations are going to continually make alturistic decisions for any reasons other than profit ones is both counterintuitive and not supported by history (which isn't of course to say that they're all bad or anything; just that they don't have a built-in incentive to play nice.)

As to your examples, groceries stores are nothing like ISPs in one very important sense - there are many grocery stores and therefore much competition. How many choices for internet service does your average person have right now? 1? 2? That's not very competitive. Especially considering that the internet itself was federally funded, much of its backbone is to this day either subsidized or on federal land, and the one of the founding principles of the internet was its agnosticism in packet delivery. It's the very definition of common carrier.

As to examples of abuse happening, just look at the article above. Look at how Google went from garage to corporate giant and have changed their tune on the value of true net neutrality accordingly. Or listen to two of execs at ISPs in the UK (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/361501/talktalk-bt-wed-put-iplayer-in-the-slow-lane)about their willingness to prioritize service for additional fees. Given the extraordinary nature of the internet as an international marketplace of ideas, it's paramount that we keep the standards the way they are and enforce rules that will not let those that control the very pipes that make up the internet the ability to abuse such power in ways that only benefit themselves and/or their well-financed "friends.".

if you don't like the practices of one provider, you are free to switch to another one....Not true. These service providers operate local monopolies. That's like saying you have a choice of water or electricity providers; it's only true if you move.

This is not inconceivable given that they are currently trying to extort money from Level 3.

exactly... and no doubt it's pure coincidence that Level3 owns Vyvx for content delivery and just sign a deal with Netflix. :-/

Not true. These service providers operate local monopolies. That's like saying you have a choice of water or electricity providers; it's only true if you move.

then you can fault your local politicians....while water is provided by a local MUD, electricity is wide open in Texas, just like phone companies...as for ISP I have at least 5 options i can think of right off the top of my head without more research: cable, FIOS, and the two satellite providers (directtv and dishnetwork), and Clear.com Wimax / 4G..even cable is subcontracted to third parties...even though it is owned by comcast, i could sign up with aol, earthlink, etc who probably lease the lines from comcast....just because you live in a monopoly environment due to your own local politics, doesnt mean everyone else does.

EDIT to add: AT&T DSL, not to mention the dozens of dial-up services.

then you can fault your local politicians....while water is provided by a local MUD, electricity is wide open in Texas, just like phone companies...as for ISP I have at least 5 options i can think of right off the top of my head without more research: cable, FIOS, and the two satellite providers (directtv and dishnetwork), and Clear.com Wimax / 4G..even cable is subcontracted to third parties...even though it is owned by comcast, i could sign up with aol, earthlink, etc who probably lease the lines from comcast....just because you live in a monopoly environment due to your own local politics, doesnt mean everyone else does.

Do you live in Houston?

Comcast is now charging Netflix.

Do you live in Houston?

i'll just admit to being in Texas...there are too many lunes (not to mention ID thieves) on the interwebz to give out too much detailed personal information ;)

i'll just admit to being in Texas...there are too many lunes (not to mention ID thieves) on the interwebz to give out too much detailed personal information ;)

Houston it is. Your experience is unique. There are many areas, cities even (but especially rural America), that are limited in choice to one high-speed internet service provider. In many cases, these providers don't even provide high-speed service; rather, they provide a single high-speed line that an entire neighborhood shares. These services tend to charge exorbitant fees, like HughesNet. View their plan options here: http://consumer.hughesnet.com/plans.cfm.

In city areas, things usually look better, but not good. In Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, West Virginia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other eastern states with which I am familiar, each city is broken down geographically (or perhaps demographically) into regions, and the cable companies (in partnership with each other) each hold uncontested control over each region. Many of these areas are occupied entirely or mostly by rented housing, where satellites can't be mounted. For residential service in these areas, then, residents tend to have only one high speed option, which is that offered by COX, TWC, WOW, Comcast, or another local cable company--whichever has the rights to the lines in that area. Not that it matters anyway, since all these companies charge the same amount.

Things could look up if Google ever completes its ISP plans and if Verizon expands its FIOS service to more cities. Both companies, however, face major stumbling blocks put up by companies so huge their scales are difficult to imagine. Even if both companies begin offering their services in all cities across the US, rural customers will continue to get the shaft. There is absolutely nothing the public or the market can do to stop this kind of market stagnation or the collusion that is partly responsible for it, and the policies that make it all legally possible are backed by a volume of politics roughly equal to three hundred thousand times that of our sun. Count yourself lucky, but please be more careful when using your own situation as a basis for a generalization.

http://www.level3.com/index.cfm?pageID=687

interesting page from level3 on the comcast dispute