But as Ariana Huffington reminds us, they just ain’t that into us.
Henry Waxman announced that a bill to regulate how telecoms control the flow of traffic on the Internet, so-called “net neutrality”, is dead. He failed to garner Republican support, and did nothing deceitful or intimidating or clever to keep the bill alive. He proposed no deals, threatened nobody – he just meekly withdrew the bill.
Isn’t it interesting how flaccid, how timid, how weak these guys are even when they are in power.
Piece of Mindful 
And dead it should be.
The Internet does not need government; it needs NO government.
Again, like health care, you want something for nothing (or as close to it as you can force it).
You cannot get lots of bandwidth for no to little cost.
If you want Net Neutrality, you will get NO internet. Sorry, Mark, economic law.
If you want lots of Internet, you will have to pay for it. Sorry, Mark, economic law.
LikeLike
You obviously have no clue as to what net neutrality. It isn’t about “lots of bandwidth for no little cost,” that’s for sure.
Net neutrality is mostly how the internet has been run up to this point, and we sure have lots more than “no internet.”
Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with the quantity of internet (“lots of internet”???).
Net neutrality is all about how bandwidth providers can shape data transport to their benefit, and to the detriment of their competitors. INstead of all players on the internet abiding by a common set of rules, losing net neutrality allows service providers to inhibit the ability of their competitors to use common facilities.
Losing net neutrality would be analogous to Allied Trucking laying out nails on the interstate to slow down Jones Bros. Trucking. And then charging JOnes Bros. customers a tariff to so that they quit doing it.
Oh, and I’m not even going to argue with you about this one, your comments are so ignorant.
LikeLike
Except for the fact that government funded the initial research to set it up and that it was originally used to communicate between land grant public universities… Oh… and the military was also a major player in it’s development.
So no… the Internet doesn’t need government.
LikeLike
CFS,
No, the government had a project under DARPA that used internet technologies.
The internet you speak of did not exist when DARPA ended their project.
In 1975, there were no more than 10,000 Nodes.
Today, there are 100 billion.
Do not try to fantasize that government “did this”. The fact – when government stopped is when things took off.
LikeLike
JC,
As you’ve already in the past demonstrated your economic ignorance, attempting to explain price/value to you is probably futile.
The fact is: you do not own the cable nor the bandwidth nor anything on the “internet”.
They do. And as such, can do pretty much what they like with it.
They earn money buy supplying a service. If you do not want the service, do not buy it.
Your analogy is in error.
It is Allied Trucking doing a deal with Walmart to carry their good exclusively. You don’t like that because you shop at Sears. (shrug)
LikeLike
Systematic of the left, wouldn’t ya think BF?
Here’s this great sounding piece of legislation called “Net Neutrality” sounding all warm and fuzzy and most of all oozing fairness.
When really its a pandora’s box of rules and regulations for increasing control over it’s subjects lives.
LikeLike
You could not be more wrong. It is precisely opposite of what you say.
LikeLike
Ingemar has it exactly right.
Mark, the whole purpose and drive for government interference into any market place is to increase the barriers of entry and protect incumbent mercantilists
Your demand for more government must in fact reduce competition and raise prices.
LikeLike
As Mark says, you have it exactly opposite. It is the actions of “incumbent mercantilists” to “increase the barriers of entry”–not to mention stifle existing smaller players.
And it is the goal of the major players to “reduce competition and raise prices” that drives a need for legislation like the net neutrality bill,
But then I guess when you are ok with monopolistic behavior, and a predatory marketplace, then you will be happy when a handful of telecoms rule the internet.
LikeLike
JC,
Please provide your economic theory which will explain your belief that a free market increases barriers to entry.
While it maybe true that competitive actors work to reduce competition – it is the means by which they act that is the key
For JC and Mark, it is the means of the gun. Physical and violent suppression of competition by the use of law and regulation. Those with the guns chose the winners and losers – not by the goods and services they provide, but by the bribes.
For the free market, the means cannot be the use of guns. The free market exists on voluntary exchange – which by definition means “not coerced by threat or use of violence”.
Thus, in a free market, competition is reduce only when the incumbent solves the consumers problem in largely satisfactory way. In a free market, the consumer is King and always rules.
In JC and Mark’s world, the man with the gun is King and the consumer and the supplier must attempt to bribe such men to their personal advantage.
JC, monopolies cannot exist in a free market.
All monopolies exist by writ or grant of government.
A monopoly can only exist if the barriers of entry are maximized. This can only be done by violence.
I will be happy when the internet is wholly free of the disruption of government.
From DARPA, to today – 100 billion nodes difference….and that occurred because government abandoned it
Imagine how powerful and wonderful the world would be if government left completely.
LikeLike
Your theories are rife with inaccurate assumptions, incorrect facts, and have been shown to be contrary to actual events.
In short, you rant, with nothing but a soapbox to stand on for this topic.
LikeLike
JC,
Well, your argument here is indeed convincing … if the audience is a herd of cows.
LikeLike
…or Blackbirds….
LikeLike
I agree with JC here – you superimpose an unrealistic and unachievable system over the whole of human behavior, reducing us all to mere exchange for value. We are not like that. 96% of us.
When we move towards your ideals, we disintegrate in a hurry, reduced to the law of the jungle.
I like your vision, often cited by Budge and others: Any non-free market system is doomed and will fail soon, while your free markets will eventually succeed. Neither assumption has supporting evidence. Just your soapbox.
In the real world, markets have to be tempered. We need capitalism tempered buy socialism, and versa. It’s a gray world after all.
LikeLike
Mark,
First, I am not imposing any system.
Here is your common issue.
You wish to enact a certain political position that improves your personal situation at the loss of someone else’s.
This is aberrant, however, even to you.
Thus, you want to justify it on some bizarre understanding of economics, attempting to show how good it would be to others.
So you hump and haw at some irrational economic understanding believing you are succeeding in your demonstration.
Just to let you know, you can only fool blackbirds and cows with your theories.
My position, and I’ve told you this before, but because it unsettles you, you ignore it.
I don’t care about your politics one wit. I cannot prove what you want or don’t want is right or wrong – that is a subjective value to you.
However, if you claim your politics that you wish to impose upon me is for my economic benefit, then you have to prove that.
But you never can. It is never in my economic benefit (unless I become the same thief as you).
You say “this politics will improve competition and service”, and I prove with economic law you are wrong.
If your goal truly is to improve competition and service, then your means is horrifically contradictory to your goal. That is when you are wrong – you are trying to manifest a contradiction. This is against the Law of the Universe.
So you are stuck.
Either are truthful in your wish for betterment or you are lying.
Thus, if your are really truthful, it means you are merely a somewhat ignorant man in the Laws of economics. That’s forgivable. I can help you cure this.
Or you know you want all that stolen loot, and you’re willing to say whatever it takes to get your hands on it. I will not help you here.
LikeLike
Would you rather Google and Verizon control the rest of the free world’s access to and use of the internt?
Talk about Pandora’s box.
To continue with the interstate metaphor, what Google Trucking and Verizon Van Lines recently proposed would have amounted to a hostile takeover of the interstate system, by putting up speed limits for all but their customers. And toll booths at every on ramp. And a sales tax at every rest stop.
But I suppose you guys are down with an economic war fought over the public’s commons. To the victor shall come the spoils.
LikeLike
JC,
I would rather have the owners of the service determine that service then you and your government thugs – who do nothing to provide service – dictate such.
If Google or Verizon error in their business model, they die.
If government errors (which they always do), it never dies – it grows.
You wish to delegate the control of your service from the power of your purchase decision away from your own wallet and into the hands of care less men with guns.
You path leads to tyranny and economic destruction.
LikeLike
“you do not own the cable”
No–but in many cases those cables are subsidized by taxpayers.
And those cables and cellular transmissions occupy the public commons, and as such need to be regulated.
“as such, can do pretty much what they like with it.”
And the corollary to that is that the public can do pretty much what they want with the commons. Including regulating it.
You know BF, your ideology does not extend to the technology that propels today’s high tech internet industries, as it applies to transmission.
I’d call it an idiotology.
And as to my understanding of the economics of the internet, lets just that’s where I make my living. And I own a small business that provides internet services. And a few years back I successfully debated a Bresnan VP for an hour over net neutrality, and he came up to me afterwards and gave me his congratulations for having successfully parried his position in a public venue.
So just go crawl back in your free market cave and try to get a clue about what the internet is, and how it works.
LikeLike
JC,
All of the cable has been bought and paid for by the company.
You are in a mental tornado believe that the source of income of the companies matters on ownership.
It does not. Whether I get the dollar from you or Mark does not change the ownership of my car.
Your argument regarding commons is inapplicable.
Whether government regulates or not is irrelevant. The point of fact is government regulation increases barriers of entry and reduces competition. This always leads to fewer choices, increase in cartel associations, increase in prices and a reduction in quality and supply
The argument you present is political – you simply do not like these companies and the choices they are making so you want to interfere with them.
BUT the argument you are trying to use to defend your interference is economic because you know you will garner little support for your political agenda of “picking sides”.
BUT you are an economic illiterate person. So, you try to fall back on politics as if it was economics!
I’m glad you appeared successful in your arguments with another economic illiterate person. It must have been fun to watch two idiots debate nonsense!
Cheers!
LikeLike
“Your argument regarding commons is inapplicable.”
Oh, yeah. I forgot you free marketeers don’t believe in the commons. It is something to be exploited and despoiled.
Your problem BF, is that your ideology does not jibe with technology. Your utter lack of knowledge of the latter negates any conclusions you might draw about the matter from the former.
For example:
“All of the cable has been bought and paid for by the company.”
When you start with an incorrect assumption, you will arrive at an incorrect conclusion. Basic logic 101.
The federal government has $1.2 billion in grants (from the stimulus) to give out to telecoms to improve broadband coverage.
So no, the cable isn’t all bought and paid for by the company. It is, and to a large degree–historically–been subsidized by the taxpayer.
You can argue against the stimulus and that sort of grant money all you want, I don’t care. But then you must extend that argument to all of the great movements in modern history–the telephone, rural electrification, railroads, airports and airways, etc.
History is ripe with examples of how the federal government has assisted with the developemnt of great industries.
But I’m sure all of that is nonsense to you, and is an example of how the government got it wrong.
You’re a cave-dweller BF, living in a dank free market cave that doesn’t have ideas that work in the modern, technological world. You live in a fantasy world of theory and ideology that will never see the absolutist treatment you want it given. And it is built on false assumptions and ignorance about how the world works.
LikeLike
JC,
I don’t know if you are male or female, but you are quite an angry, emotional character that replaces your reasoning with ad homenin and pleas to irrationality.
(shrug)
In fact, it is called the Tragedy of the Commons for a reason, JC.
When no one has ownership, it is abused. There are no property rights to protect it, therefore it is exploited to the maximum degree. The logic is simple:
If I don’t take it, I have no means to stop you from taking it, so I must take as much as I can before you take as much as you can
It is the same disaster that is playing out in fishing. Without Property Rights, the fish stock is depleted – because if Japan doesn’t take it, China will.
JC, your understanding of technology is about as strong as your understanding of economics.
Your economic understanding is pitiful.
JC, I’ve been on the “internet” longer then you’ve been alive. I have created some of the largest networks on Earth, for you to use. I have laid tens of thousands miles of oceanic fiber optic; I built one of the first major data centers in Latin America.
In all my efforts of the last 40 years, it has been government that has been the single greatest threat to your internet.
You confuse source of income as a matter to determine ownership. You had this problem before, above.
It does not matter one wit whether I get the dollar from you, Mark, or anyone else.
The cable is mine.
The source of funds is irrelevant.
But to you, the dollar from Mark is less valuable then the dollar from you.
You are claiming YOUR dollar gives a right to my property, whereas Mark’s dollar does not.
However, there is no difference. Again, pound this into your head.
The source of funds does not determine ownership of goods
Bell held a government monopoly for 70 years – a patent. In that time, a few thousand phones were installed.
In dawn of the 20th century, his patent expired.
Within the year, more than 5,000 telephone companies can into existence, installing 100x more telephones in one year than the 70 years of Bell’s patents.
Bell was going bankrupt as it could not compete.
It joined forces with American Telegraph (makes AT&T) to convince the government to nationalize communications – and the FCC was born.
By 1919, there were 5 telephone companies left.
To you, indeed, this was a great thing.
The government railways all went broke.
We see the disasters of airports and the air industry – antiquated flight control systems that threaten the collapse of the whole industry – because that is the part run by government.
All your examples confirm my position.
If you want a disaster, ask government to do something.
Such as?
The truth is, none exist. In all matters, they have failed.
You most certainly can subsidize selling snow to Eskimos, and call such business a “success” because it exists.
But it is your measure that is terribly faulty and it is that faulty measure that continues to make you in dangerous error.
I’m still waiting for your economic theories and premise.
LikeLike
“When no one has ownership,”
I have no problem with collective ownership. It is you that believes otherwise.
“I’ve been on the “internet” longer then you’ve been alive.”
We’ve had this argument, BF. And i think i outed you as a salesman on the cayman islands or something. Not going to go tracing ip’s and emails again. But I could if you want to push the point.
And I’m much older than the internet, so don’t go blathering things you know nothing about… again.
“I’m still waiting for your economic theories and premise”
I offered you facts–the predatory, unregulated attempts of Google and Verizon–to control the internet, in the absence of regulation. And all you can talk about is theory? Pay attention to the facts, man, and get your head out of the clouds. Just because the facts don’t match up with your fantasy theoretical world doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Policy needs to be built on facts, and observable corporate behavior. Not on some predicted behavior if the world was constructed according to BF’s “economic laws.”
That’s all the net neutrality legislation would have done.
LikeLike
JC
It depends on the form of such ownership.
Government ownership is disastrous.
The persons in control do not own the property, nor do they benefit in the future from their control – that is, they cannot pass the asset to their children.
Thus, as mere temporary caretakers, they are only interested in the short term benefits of this assets to themselves.
Thus, they will submit to easy bribery to other forces to pervert these assets for temporary gain – because future gain does not exist.
Nope.
(shrug)
It appears vital to you for reasons I believe are bizarre.
But that is you!
You are so twisted mentally.
It was you who disparaged me, JC – and now you go all haughty when I confront it!
You need medication.
No, you have offered opinion
But I know you get confused between these things.
That is called an opinion, JC.
The fact:
– the communication systems of the USA are regulated by the FCC.
Thus, your claim that it is unregulated is a gross error.
– they do not control the internet. To do so would require them to own all systems, cables, and nodes. But they do not, nor could they own such.
Thus, your claim that they control the internet is a gross error
I am still waiting for you facts.
You are a man who demands he can step off a mountain cliff and fly.
My theory of Gravity says you will fail.
Your complaint: “All you do is talk theory!”.
Go ahead and jump, JC. You’ll find your fact at the bottom of the cliff.
Since you have no economic understanding to your demands, one cannot take any claim of your position to be serious or considered.
You wish to interfere into the affairs of people and companies that you have no right to do. You do not own these companies. You did not invest in them. You did not do their work. You do not own their assets.
But none of this matters to you, for you wish to bribe evil men with guns to work for you and steal what is not rightfully yours.
LikeLike
JC,
Oh yeah, another thing.
You have a theory too
You haven’t articulated it, nor have you been rigorous and thoughtful about it.
But you do have a theory.
Your theory holds that if you do this government action and regulation you will make the world a better place for you.
You have not tested this theory to see if it makes a better world for anyone else – though you claim it will.
Now, I know you haven’t been thoughtful about your theory, because you can’t articulate it yet, even though I’ve asked.
But you hold this theory nonetheless.
Your theory also includes an idea that if you are wrong, you can continue to use government force to correct the parts you got wrong. And if that still doesn’t help or it makes it worse, your theory states that even more government force is needed. If the whole system breaks, your theory says “Heck, it deserved to break then!”.
But you do have a theory.
LikeLike
“The fact:
– the communication systems of the USA are regulated by the FCC.”
Um, no, broadband and the internet is not regulated by the FCC. You need to get your facts straight. Unless you’re trying to make the claim that the internet is not “communication systems of the USA”.
The FCC may, and could, regulate Internet access, but they have no authority over the internet.
You need to take that degree in Wikipedia and the Googlizer, and enroll in a refresher course. 90% of the information you spout is either misquoted, misunderstood, improperly referenced, and/or incorrect.
So, I’ll call it a day here. You win the contest of sheer volume. But on the facts I have contested you on, you lose, no matter how voluminously and twistedly you try to spin your
idiotologyideology.LikeLike
JC,
Um. Yes it is regulated.
You cannot broadcast nor carry a signal for resale without a license.
Your ISP purchases his bandwidth from a licensed carrier.
No way around it, JC.
The FCC may not necessarily regulate the internet, other agencies do (anti-child porn, for example).
Volume is necessary to explain things. You have little volume, because irrationality needs no explaining.
LikeLike
Quote me the regulation whereby the FCC regulates broadband (not cellular broadcast).
Or stfu.
LikeLike
JC,
Do you have a reading problem or is it merely comprehension issues.
Your ISP purchases his bandwidth from a licensed carrier.
So its your turn to stfu.
LikeLike
Can’t do it, can you?
LikeLike
JC,
Are you daft?
LikeLike
JC,
Oh, yeah. I offered historical facts against your gross errors in understanding – ie: History of AT&T/Bell
Cheers!
LikeLike
The tragedy of the commons is bullshit. The commons, in real life, fare better in public hands than private. I grew up in Montana, and enjoyed wilderness and national forests all my life, well preserved.
There are also “BLM” lands, which are often in good shape too. But often BLM lands are those that were mistreated by private owners, and were no longer profitable. They became BLM “acquired” lands, which are lands that no one wants.
There is no tragedy of the commons. If indeed there is limited grazing area, then government steps in to regulate use. Works fine.
Nice theory you got there, though. Don’t ever let reality interfere with your thinking.
LikeLike
Mark,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Read, then come back and debate.
Oh?
So you believe you take worse care of your own home then would a bunch of strangers??
Please carry on.
Yep, and Yellowstone essentially burned to the ground…
LikeLike
If land is not owned by anybody, although legal formalism may call it public property, it is used without any regard to the disadvantages resulting.
Those who are in a position to appropriate to themselves the returns — lumber and game of the forests, fish of the water areas, and mineral deposits of the subsoil — do not bother about the later effects of their mode of exploitation.
For them, erosion of the soil, depletion of the exhaustible resources and other impairments of the future utilization are external costs not entering into their calculation of input and output.
They cut down trees without any regard for fresh shoots or reforestation.
In hunting and fishing, they do not shrink from methods preventing the repopulation of the hunting and fishing grounds
LikeLike
“Yellowstone essentially burned to the ground…”
Um, so off topic, but I can’t resist a stab. No, Yellowstone did not burn to the ground.
Natural processes (and a few human interferences over the last century) combined to burn forests that periodically burn in stand replacing events. Thereby releasing the seeds needed for regeneration.
Today, the areas of Yellowstone that burned in the fires of ’88 are vibrant, lush new forests.
So your degree in WikiGooglizing hasn’t offered you any knowledge about forest ecology. That’s for sure. But feel free to believe your fantasy about Yellowstone. I’m sure it feeds your mythology just fine.
LikeLike
JC,
First, the Yellowstone fire was not planned.
Second, it burned badly because of government planning (or lack of)
Thirdly, I agree, it is recovering, no thanks to government.
LikeLike
Sure it was planned. Just not be a human. The genetics that have evolved in, say lodgepole pines, have “planned” for fire. In fact they demand fire in order to succeed. Every lodgepole pine forest must burn. Or it stops being a lodgepole pine forest at some time.
And “burned badly?” How anthropocentric of you to attach a human emotion to a natural process wherein their is no concept of “badly” (or “goodly” for that matter).
And it is recovering precisely because the government in Yellowstone recognizes natural processes and doesn’t intervene.
LikeLike
JC,
Interesting, because it raises a question that I was pondering awhile ago.
This is not to open a debate on religion, but to fill in my survey.
Do you believe in God?
LikeLike
Black Flag
“I don’t know if you are male or female, but you are quite an angry, emotional character that replaces your reasoning with ad homenin and pleas to irrationality.”
Two posts prior
“It must have been fun to watch two idiots debate nonsense!”
Way to throw out a logical fallacy, and then accuse your opponent of doing the same.
LikeLike
Doughty,
First, my comment wasn’t an argument
Second, my comment wasn’t a plea
It was an observation fused with rhetoric.
I know these differences will be meaningless to you.
LikeLike
Black Flag
* Argumentum ad Hominem
Translation:
“Argument against the man” (Latin)
* The Fallacy of Personal Attack
1. appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason
2. attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.
Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent.
“It was an observation fused with rhetoric.”
To try and discredit your opponents argument by insulting his intelligence. His intelligence has nothing to do with the argument, therefore it was a Ad Hominem. I know this definition will be meaningless to you.
BTW I agree with you on net neutrality, but your debating tactics are a bit childish, I actually LOLed a couple times.
LikeLike
Doughty,
Thanks for reply
Please note:
I stopped right there.
Argument
As I said before, I did not provide the comment as an argument. Therefore, the rest of your complaint is not valid.
No, sir.
You are serious mistaken here.
It was he who pointed to some debate that may (or may not) have existed as proof of the truth of his position in THIS argument.
In the sincerest of honesty, that is my goal.
To cause “chuckles”.
It is through ridiculed that real non-violent change can occur. And ridicule always – always includes laughter.
LikeLike
PS… That last part was a Ad Hominem. 😉
LikeLike
PS:
No it wasn’t 😉
LikeLike
Yes it was. I was discrediting your argument by belittling your debating skills, therefore inflating my own.
LikeLike
I agree that the government does a far better job at protecting wildlife and the environment than the free market. My home state of Ohio was at one time completely covered in trees in the eastern third of the state. Now there are only three state parks and one national park, and the rest is corn and wheat. The free market cut down all the trees for farms and profit.
LikeLike
Doughty,
Yeah, darn people.
They need food.
LikeLike