Quote :

"Hey, it's a democracy, curbing freedom is what they do."

If only we could go back to the days of dictatorship, before democracy took all those freedoms away.

I'm trying to come up with the term for what we have. Someone will come along and say it's a republic, but it isn't even that now. It's sort of an incumbant plutocracy. An Oligocracy?

6/9/2006 8:18:16 PM

No, most people wish to return to the days of a Republican Style of Government.

You know, constitutional and all that, with clearly defined lines dictating what was the perview of the States and what was the perview of Congress. The 17th Amendment removed the last vestige of power held by the state governments, making America an odd shaped Democracy.

Senators no longer answered to the state governments, now everyone answers directly to the people, checks and balances be damned.

6/10/2006 12:09:55 AM

Quote :

"No, most people wish to return to the days of a Republican Style of Government. You know, constitutional and all that, with clearly defined lines dictating what was the perview of the States and what was the perview of Congress. The 17th Amendment removed the last vestige of power held by the state governments, making America an odd shaped Democracy. Senators no longer answered to the state governments, now everyone answers directly to the people, checks and balances be damned."

'Constitutional' is increasingly mistaken for 'universally correct'. The framers had to make compromises to allow the constitution to be drafted. It required every state's approval under the previous government, but states were not as virtuous back then as they might seem now.

We are a republic. Directly electing officials is a representative form of democracy, or a republic. State governments are susceptible to gerrymandering. Parties ensure that districts are drawn in a way that keeps a balance of power. Most districts are uncontested by one party or the other, and instead the two candidates running in these districts show different faces of the same party.

I would contend that our government is, now more than ever, unreceptive to the interests of the general public, and that is what makes our political climate dangerous.

It's beholden to lobbyists. Look at the Net Neutrality Act, which AT&T has spent decades lobbying against. The public, in general, would approve of the act, but the House of Representatives didn't. Look at the incumbancy rates. People don't vote for the best candidate, just the guy they know about.

We have a two-party system. Neither party shows a great deal of interest in civil liberties. And both have done a lot in the past few decades to continue increasing the size and power of the federal government. Some people love their platforms. Some, who are cornered without a representative party, don't like it at all. Our voting system creates a 'race to the middle', where every candidate tries to be as similar to all the other candidates combined as possible, in order to appeal to the most groups at one time. We don't have specialization in politics.

It gets better though. Congress has been losing power. Increasingly, important decisions are put up to completely unelected officials. We're now the proud owners of a vast, self-sustaining bureaucracy that Congress, the President, and the Courts have to answer to whenever enforcing legislation or appropriating funds. Failing that there's the military-industrial complex, which also has little measure of accountibility to elected officials, or the public.

When the public has greater control over the government, it is better prevented from becoming batshit crazy. We don't have that, and look at the batshit crazy government we've been gifted!

6/10/2006 8:59:03 PM

Quote :

"Directly electing officials is a representative form of democracy, or a republic"

Uh, no, that is a representative democracy, not a republic. A republic often involves the imposition of a separation of powers (semantics).

Quote :

"It's beholden to lobbyists."

When the constitution drafters were asked why senators were not directly elected they responded it was to curtail the rise of "special interests," what we call lobbyists. They failed, obviously, because the special interests managed to pass the 17th Amendment in 1913.

Quote :

"Look at the Net Neutrality Act,"

I, being a member of the general public, consider the Net Neutrality Act a stupid idea. We don't need the government to regulate the internet, especially to fix a problem that hasn't even materialized yet.

The U.S. political system used to be set up to create a "race to the local." The Senate was a major roadblock to nation-wide policy making, since it answered exclusively to state legislators. As such, most policy was local, and often different. States often competed for the most competent regulatory regimes, they had to, or citizens and businesses would relocate to other states. It bears mentioning, of course, excessive pollution and overly-lax regulatory environments would also drive citizens and businesses to other states, if only for health reasons.

[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/10/2006 10:43:14 PM

Quote :

"Uh, no, that is a representative democracy, not a republic. A republic often involves the imposition of a separation of powers (semantics)."

This is silly. The definition of republic is very clearly a form of representative democracy with a presidential system, as opposed to a parliament. We're simply arguing about how many levels of separation there should be between Senators and the general public.

Quote :

"When the constitution drafters were asked why senators were not directly elected they responded it was to curtail the rise of "special interests," what we call lobbyists. They failed, obviously, because the special interests managed to pass the 17th Amendment in 1913."

The mechanism of election has very little to do with the impact of lobbying on Congress's policy record. Soft-money contributions can help a candidate get reelected, but getting reelected isn't the only application for them.

The current system could be fixed by outlawing lobbying. It should be, for that matter.

Quote :

"The U.S. political system used to be set up to create a "race to the local." The Senate was a major roadblock to nation-wide policy making, since it answered exclusively to state legislators. As such, most policy was local, and often different. States often competed for the most competent regulatory regimes, they had to, or citizens and businesses would relocate to other states. It bears mentioning, of course, excessive pollution and overly-lax regulatory environments would also drive citizens and businesses to other states, if only for health reasons. "

You're imagining a type of system that never existed. The federal government was more state-centric back in the day, and states were corrupt. There was a lot of competition among political forces within states to nominate certain senators. Senators often existed merely to ensure the balance of power in those states. Lobbying was more potent on the State level. It created a stagnant political atmosphere, where two election cycles were needed to replace ineffective representatives. The amount of collusion between the state and federal governments caused Constitutional Amendments to be passed much more easily, since Congress was merely a duplicate of the votes in the states.

The good thing about the current system is that we have state governments that are often completely different from the federal government. This creates more gridlock. It prevents dangrous amendments from being passed, and it prevents living conditions in some states from falling too far behind the rest of the country.

Quote :

"I, being a member of the general public, consider the Net Neutrality Act a stupid idea. We don't need the government to regulate the internet, especially to fix a problem that hasn't even materialized yet."

It exists in pockets. It'll become more widespread eventually. Broadband access is practically a monopoly. Wherever you live, you have two options: the regional cable, or the regional DSL. Nobody will lay any more lines than that, because it's redundant and inefficient. The internet has already been regulated to some degree, because of previous flirtations with broadband discrimination.

Perhaps you value propery rights more than first amendment rights. You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but you'll be hard-pressed to come up with positive cultural impacts a tiered internet would have. Phone/Cable companies pay, literally, cents a year in the upkeep of their lines. The cost of installing them has been accounted for. They weren't losing profit under the neutral browsing system.

Neutrality is required to preserve free market competition of certain internet services. Without it, cable/phone companies will form vertical monopolies with certain types of service.

Suppose Google has a supurior search engine to Comcast, but Comcast wants you, their customer, to use their search engine. They can simply slow down network requests using Google, and give priority to Comcast searches. Earthlink, Mindspring, AOL/Time Warner could do the same. It isn't limited to search engines, but proxy networks, IM Clients, torrents, and other competitive mediums. The open source aspect of the internet would suffer tremendously.


[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2006 10:38:48 AM

Quote :

"The good thing about the current system is that we have state governments that are often completely different from the federal government. This creates more gridlock."

Uh, this statement is specious. The State governments possess no influence over the Federal Government beyond public opinion, what gridlock can there be since on any disagreement the state governments lose? Federal superceeds state law, Congress can do whatever the hell it wants, the only check is the Supreme Court. Constitutional Amendments are not necessary in this situation since the state governments have no means of influencing Congress to honor the constitution in the first place.

That said, more constitutional Amendments have been passed in the 20th century than in the 19th century. Your argument that it prevents "dangerous amendments" seems specious. How many "dangerous amendments" were passed before 1913? How many since? Of course, you may have a point, they did pass the 17th Amendment.

Quote :

"and it prevents living conditions in some states from falling too far behind the rest of the country"

I don't see how. Since all offices are directly elected all you need to corrupt is the election process, and nothing will do that more than large amounts of money flowing from rich states to influence elections in poor states. At least before you could count on local issues to dominate national ones, thus keeping this cross-state corruption in check.

And if "states were corrupt," which I guarantee they were, the sollution is to fight corruption, not eliminate the last check upon unfettered federal power.

Quote :

"Wherever you live, you have two options: the regional cable, or the regional DSL."

Not true. DirecWay is available nationally (satellite internet), don't forget G3 (wireless internet, carried through cell-phone towers), and regional cooperatives delivering fiberoptic, so prevalent in Asia. As soon as we free-up the frequencies currently used to broadcast standard television we're going to have more high-speed internet providers than we do cell-phone providers. Many are already predicting the death of Cable and DSL which must maintain wired infrastructure.

Also, the rewards don't match up. A search engine doesn't gain much by having a few thousand members of a captive audience, where-as an internet provider risks being killed if it develops a reputation for shenanigans. Or worse, develops a reputation for "being slow sometimes." People probably won't notice comcast.com is loading faster than google.com, just that google.com loads faster at their neighbors house with another provider.

6/11/2006 1:08:32 PM

Quote :

"Uh, this statement is specious. The State governments possess no influence over the Federal Government beyond public opinion, what gridlock can there be since on any disagreement the state governments lose? Federal superceeds state law, Congress can do whatever the hell it wants, the only check is the Supreme Court. Constitutional Amendments are not necessary in this situation since the state governments have no means of influencing Congress to honor the constitution in the first place."

There needs to be a federal-level legislative body independant of the state-level bodies. Congress should supercede state law. Don't fret about gridlock. The Senate and the House create gridlock, and several measures of accountibility to the states are still in place. And Senators ideally should be accountable to the populations they represent.

State legislatures can force a House vote on legislation through bicameral approval. They just never utilize it. Since the elected officials in Congress and the General Assemblies arrived through different elections, there are more checks an balances to passing Constitutional Amendments.

Now, in a completely separate matter, I think the Courts would be a better place for states to exercise power over the federal government. Rather than the president nominating justices, state supreme courts would nominate justices. If, for no other reason, than to make judicial nominations less political.

Our voting system should be different, but not in the mechanism you propose. If we're going to change it, there are much less circuitous ways of making government accountible. You simply avoid them because you've placed fairytales of easier times on a pedestal, and shifted your own priorities away from the flaws inherent in those systems.

Quote :

"That said, more constitutional Amendments have been passed in the 20th century than in the 19th century. Your argument that it prevents "dangerous amendments" seems specious. How many "dangerous amendments" were passed before 1913? How many since? Of course, you may have a point, they did pass the 17th Amendment."

This isn't relevant, since society changed a lot faster in the 20th century than the 19th. We wouldn't know what the old system would've passed, had it still been around.

Quote :

"And if "states were corrupt," which I guarantee they were, the sollution is to fight corruption, not eliminate the last check upon unfettered federal power."

Not unfettered. People from states still vote for Senators. I know we'll get into an argument about the 'inhumanity' of majority rule. We've been sliding in that direction since we started anyway.

Quote :

""Wherever you live, you have two options: the regional cable, or the regional DSL." Not true. DirecWay is available nationally (satellite internet), don't forget G3 (wireless internet, carried through cell-phone towers), and regional cooperatives delivering fiberoptic, so prevalent in Asia. As soon as we free-up the frequencies currently used to broadcast standard television we're going to have more high-speed internet providers than we do cell-phone providers. Many are already predicting the death of Cable and DSL which must maintain wired infrastructure. "

Wireless isn't cheap. It's still a work in progress. Predicting the death of Cable and DSL is premature; there are mechanical advantages to the transmission of a signal through a homogenous copper wire, or optical fibre, as opposed to air. And like the wired broadband systems that are more popular, wireless and satellite can be subject to corporate censorship without a legal precedent for network neutrality.

Quote :

"A search engine doesn't gain much by having a few thousand members of a captive audience, where-as an internet provider risks being killed if it develops a reputation for shenanigans. Or worse, develops a reputation for "being slow sometimes." People probably won't notice comcast.com is loading faster than google.com, just that google.com loads faster at their neighbors house with another provider."

Few million, not thousand. You're first making the assumtion that the market is competitive to any degree, and that competitors aren't colluding. The effects of prioritized networking would be very noticeable. Any time anything on a native pathway connects to a non-native pathway, the connection is slower, or sometimes even nonexistant. You might as well just divvy up the internet into "USA east" and "USA west," with no communication between the two.

Of course that's not the entire picture. You could pay a premium to see everything at high speeds. Well, not everything, but certainly more things. And people would, generally. It isn't a necessary price. It's just one the market generates thanks to low liquidity.

6/11/2006 2:39:56 PM

Quote :

"There needs to be a federal-level legislative body independant of the state-level bodies"

It's called the House of Representatives and it has always existed. And I wasn't fretting about gridlock but the lack of it. Since both houses of congress are appointed in exactly the same way they suffer from exactly the same special interest groups.

Quote :

"If we're going to change it, there are much less circuitous ways of making government accountible."

Such as?
And yes, I do have visions of "easier times" because the record speaks for itself: The Federal Government was much smaller back then. Better yet, it was "state centered" as you admitted earlier. Those results were not an accident, they were a direct result of the structures in place at the time.

Quote :

"People from states still vote for Senators."

And Representatives. The founding fathers never suggested the House of Representatives not be directly elected. But by making the Senate elected differently the two houses would approach problems with different motivations, thus only activity that was "in the public interest" would be a common ground between them.

Look, to win re-election to the House of Representatives I must be seen to be important to those that elect me. If it is the common man then I need the power to complete "good works," power which was largely reserved for state legislators. And since Congress superceedes state legislators there is no check on the growth of Federal Power. The more power congress takes the more "good" its members are seen doing the more elections they win.

By making the Senate directly accountable to state legislators this process is checked, as to win re-election I must now be seen to be defending the power of those that elect me. This "gridlock" between the two houses ensures that only legislation that is in the nation's best interest gets enacted because the two special interests (growing federal power vs. defending state power) cancel each other out.

Quote :

"You're first making the assumtion that the market is competitive to any degree"

Which it is. It is very competitive, whatever degree you want to use. And I don't care if they are colluding, let them collude themselves away. As long as the businesses at the top are getting paid by the bit it isn't in their best interest to make it difficult for people to send more bits. It's like building a toll road then closing some of the off-ramps. If your network doesn't go where people want to go then they'll find one that does, whatever it costs.

Quote :

"You might as well just divvy up the internet into "USA east" and "USA west," with no communication between the two. "

As long as the businesses at the top are getting paid by the bit it isn't in their best interest to make it difficult for people to send more bits. If your network doesn't go where people want to go then they'll find one that does, whatever it costs. It's like building a toll road then closing some of the off-ramps. Sure, the businesses at the ramps you keep open may prosper but your core business will wilt as your users find alternative roads; they may be bumpy but at least they get me there.

I imagine TV commercials: "Come to Sprint where we treat all our customers like kings!"

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/11/2006 3:45:37 PM

Quote :

"you know what? we need more gay people especially more gay dudes because, personally, i want the world to be more fabulous"

do your part and get a mac today

6/11/2006 7:10:12 PM

I'll address the Congress points later.

Quote :

"Which it is. It is very competitive, whatever degree you want to use. And I don't care if they are colluding, let them collude themselves away. As long as the businesses at the top are getting paid by the bit it isn't in their best interest to make it difficult for people to send more bits. It's like building a toll road then closing some of the off-ramps. If your network doesn't go where people want to go then they'll find one that does, whatever it costs."

Your argument made sense before this post. But we have diverged. Perhaps I'm interpreting it wrong.
-I take it that you're opposing network neutrality on principle. It is a government regulation, and therefore it is bad, according to your standpoint.
-I assume you think it would result in some unforseen horrible side-effect, leaving the market less comeptitive. There would be side-effects in fact, though nothing particularly relevant.
-It seems inconsistent to take issue with government cohersion, for creating a 'deadweight loss,' when corporate collusion does the same thing, only without any of the secondary social benefits.

I can offer plenty of reasons why the current broadband carriers would not want network neutrality, and many of them would result in less competition in other markets. You'll shrug it off probably, with the single assumption that they would not block users, because it hurts business.

It actually helps business to block users from certain access points, which is the main problem.

Since many people still don't get broadband coverage in areas, there are spaces left where new companies can set up networks, and begin competing with the established firms. These wouldn't have very many users, obviously. Without network neutrality, nothing is stopping the larger firms from tremendously slowing incoming service from these smaller networks, and choking them out. They would just be free-riding anyway, so a few cents here and there. It presents more opportunities to expand coverage over the smaller competitors domains.

In an industry that has been losing competitors and consolidating itself for decades, I don't like that. I oppose tiered internet for the aspects of free speech though. The concept that a company could put a website out of business with no retribution is scary. The concept that the market would always be competitive and responsible enough to prevent that from happening is naive. What if it were a complete monopoly for a certain period? We can't predict whether that would happen or not. I find it better to err on the side of caution, and ensure network neutrality, just in case.

Plenty other instances when that is a good idea.

6/12/2006 4:10:41 PM

Quote :

"The concept that a company could put a website out of business with no retribution is scary"

Again, here is where you are wrong. People are finicky. A company's worst nightmare is to have its own customers outside its offices protesting. Such events make headlines, scare investors, and embolden competitors. This is why businesses the world over fold at the mere possibility of pissing off their own customers. The few businesses that don't give-in get smeared on national television and their stock price collapses. It doesn't even matter if your customers are able to find competitors if the bad publicity scares away investors. Without investors you cannot grow your business; so even if your trick does increase profits per customer it will halt the growth of your customer base.

Quote :

"The concept that the market would always be competitive and responsible enough to prevent that from happening is naive"

I never said such problems would never occur. I guarantee at some point in the future a CEO is going to go berserk and shoot dead a few customers and employees. There is nothing in this world that is going to stop people, and businesses, from doing stupid things. We all make mistakes, CEOs are no exception. Some Internet provider somewhere installed the cheapest hubs, didn't run fiber, installed substandard cabling, etc., the service was crappy and competitors took advantage. We rely upon competition to stop businesses from offering crappy service, but evidently it is beyond comprehension that competition might stop businesses from limiting certain access points?

I just don't see the difference between a business installing crappy hardware that loses half of all network traffic, and a business installing great hardware that blocks half of all network traffic. As far as the customer is concerned it is the same problem: crappy service that only delivers half the data requested.

Quote :

"We can't predict whether that would happen or not. I find it better to err on the side of caution"

Again with this "better safe than sorry", which can go both ways. We don't know what we are giving up by passing such regulations. All we know is that such regulations will breed lawsuits, fines, criminal trials, confusion, and ultimately huge legal fees as the boundaries of this law are hammered out in Federal Court. All this money will come from somewhere, and I assure you it will not come out of corporate profits, which only leaves reduced investment and higher prices. Evidently you believe it is better for some-people to have no internet at all than suffer the threat of a non-neutral internet.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 12:27 AM. Reason : sp]

6/13/2006 12:27:07 AM

you know, i have a romanian friend who says the US republic and its values arent that far off from the structure and values of the USSR....


"work work work, then work some more, unless youre one of the special few. the same guys are in charge forever, and the common person has no chance to gain political power. you have to be in the "club""

i tend to agree.

6/14/2006 4:40:42 PM

Quote :

"Again, here is where you are wrong. People are finicky. A company's worst nightmare is to have its own customers outside its offices protesting. Such events make headlines, scare investors, and embolden competitors. This is why businesses the world over fold at the mere possibility of pissing off their own customers. The few businesses that don't give-in get smeared on national television and their stock price collapses. It doesn't even matter if your customers are able to find competitors if the bad publicity scares away investors. Without investors you cannot grow your business; so even if your trick does increase profits per customer it will halt the growth of your customer base."

Not at all. You're assuming people will apply logic and reason to the situation regardless of what ever happened in the past. Investors value stock price more than public relations. Monopolies are immune to public opinion. This is just happy-go-lucky optimism at whatever results the market produces. Are the means a justification to the ends?

There's a good chance your phone company would happily sell your call records to the Federal Government, yet you don't get a new carrier. Your clothes might've been made in sweatshops in other countries, or even domestically, but that's not a problem. Your automobile was made by a company that lobbied Congress into expanding the interstate highway system, while dissolving almost all of the FTA funding, creating a transportation monopoly with cars. You can sure do fucking lots about that. Your house could've been made as late as 1995, yet still have asbestos in it. You haven't moved though. Nobody else is protesting either. People are apathetic.

90% of the population probably doesn't even know what network neutrality is. They wouldn't give a flying fuck until you told them the situation.

And protestors aren't taken seriously, and can be removed from private property. It's their property rights, after all.

Basic Economics applies. Information Assymetries, Collusion, and Government Control interfere with the ideal 'free market' outcome. There is none in this situation.

Quote :

"I never said such problems would never occur. I guarantee at some point in the future a CEO is going to go berserk and shoot dead a few customers and employees. There is nothing in this world that is going to stop people, and businesses, from doing stupid things. We all make mistakes, CEOs are no exception. Some Internet provider somewhere installed the cheapest hubs, didn't run fiber, installed substandard cabling, etc., the service was crappy and competitors took advantage. We rely upon competition to stop businesses from offering crappy service, but evidently it is beyond comprehension that competition might stop businesses from limiting certain access points? I just don't see the difference between a business installing crappy hardware that loses half of all network traffic, and a business installing great hardware that blocks half of all network traffic. As far as the customer is concerned it is the same problem: crappy service that only delivers half the data requested."

One is random, while the other is planned. That's a difference, using your variables.

Quote :

"Again with this "better safe than sorry", which can go both ways. We don't know what we are giving up by passing such regulations. All we know is that such regulations will breed lawsuits, fines, criminal trials, confusion, and ultimately huge legal fees as the boundaries of this law are hammered out in Federal Court. All this money will come from somewhere, and I assure you it will not come out of corporate profits, which only leaves reduced investment and higher prices. Evidently you believe it is better for some-people to have no internet at all than suffer the threat of a non-neutral internet."

First you make excuses like "oh they would never do that. Competition would prevent them from doing that," to defend your side. Then, you try to come up with a situation where regulations for network neutrality go horribly awry, and all you can come up with is the assumption that they'll break the law and persue tiered services. I thought market forces would prevent them from doing that a few posts ago? You can't have it both ways.

We know exactly what we're giving up by passing the regulations, and by having no regulations whatsoever. We give up nothing by passing the regulations. Broadband is cheap to install. They're making a huge profit, and it's a lucrative business. Sharing services with everyone else IS the ideal outcome, because everyone designs the network with the knowledge that it will be used by customers on many other carriers. Your favorite companies are in no danger of bankrupcy.

We give up the guarantee of free speech on the internet if we don't pass this regulation. There's no medium it travels further in than the internet.

6/14/2006 9:20:19 PM

Quote :

"Investors value stock price more than public relations."

You have skipped a step. Investors make the stock price. If investors get skiddish due to bad publicity the stock price falls, making investors both skiddish and unhappy.

Quote :

"Monopolies are immune to public opinion."

I guess this explains why Progress Energy is contantly airing television commercials to convince people that they care...

Either way, you are begging the question. You have yet to demonstrate that my internet provider is a monopoly. Where I am sitting, a small town called Clayton, I can sign up for Road Runner, Sprint DSL, Sprint Mobile, DirecWay Satellite, Verizon Mobile, and maybe a few others, and this is only counting broadband services, dial-up tacs on another 10 or so potential providers. To even suggest that this is a monopoly is beyond rediculous.

Quote :

"One is random, while the other is planned."

We trust competition to prevent random stupidity, but trusting it to prevent planned stupidity is beyond reason?

And I don't think you followed my reasoning on the last part. You don't have to break a law to be killed by it. Any such law as "network neutrality" falls upon the courts to enforce it, which means lawsuits, even in cases that the law has not been violated. Even if you win the case you have still spent millions of dollars in litigation. Small companies cannot afford to have a team of lawyers on retainer. Not to mention, a small company will not be able to afford the same legal defense as a big company.

So, you say we know exactly what we are going to get by passing the regulations, and you're right we do. We'll get fewer small internet providers, ever larger big ones, huge litigation bills, higher prices, and fewer regional competitors.

6/15/2006 9:59:16 AM

Quote :

"You have skipped a step. Investors make the stock price. If investors get skiddish due to bad publicity the stock price falls, making investors both skiddish and unhappy."

I counted that step. You're just vastly overestimating its importance. If a company keeps its customers and turns a profit, does it really matter how they do it? Absolutely not. Would tiered service lose a company customers? Not enough to be noticeable.

Quote :

"I guess this explains why Progress Energy is contantly airing television commercials to convince people that they care... Either way, you are begging the question. You have yet to demonstrate that my internet provider is a monopoly. Where I am sitting, a small town called Clayton, I can sign up for Road Runner, Sprint DSL, Sprint Mobile, DirecWay Satellite, Verizon Mobile, and maybe a few others, and this is only counting broadband services, dial-up tacs on another 10 or so potential providers. To even suggest that this is a monopoly is beyond rediculous."

Progress Energy could start shitting on kittens and the public wouldn't care enough to move.

Clayton is part of the Triangle CSA, and receives Triangle service. True that's not a monopoly, but it's certainly not a 'free market' where just anyone can enter.

Quote :

"We trust competition to prevent random stupidity, but trusting it to prevent planned stupidity is beyond reason? And I don't think you followed my reasoning on the last part. You don't have to break a law to be killed by it. Any such law as "network neutrality" falls upon the courts to enforce it, which means lawsuits, even in cases that the law has not been violated. Even if you win the case you have still spent millions of dollars in litigation. Small companies cannot afford to have a team of lawyers on retainer. Not to mention, a small company will not be able to afford the same legal defense as a big company."

Prosecution has to pay litigation as well. Individuals will have a much harder time affording it than even the smallest of broadband carriers. The effect would be practically nothing. How did you miss that?

Quote :

"So, you say we know exactly what we are going to get by passing the regulations, and you're right we do. We'll get fewer small internet providers, ever larger big ones, huge litigation bills, higher prices, and fewer regional competitors."

This protects small internet providers, which I already explained. Litigation is the funniest economic factor I've ever heard of. Why don't you compare the amount of work accomplished on Wednesdays versus Tuesdays while you're at it.

6/15/2006 2:37:55 PM

Quote :

"Prosecution has to pay litigation as well. Individuals will have a much harder time affording it than even the smallest of broadband carriers. The effect would be practically nothing. How did you miss that?"

I didn't, I put it in there, you just didn't understand it. What happens when the big internet providers start filling frivalous lawsuits against their smaller rivals? So, yes, it is exactly as I said. The bigger the company is the more resources it can dedicate to a case, therefore small companies will find it to enforce the law against larger competitors while larger company will easily use the law to pester small companies into giving up and selling out.

And remember, we're not talking about the power grid. If you want to argue we suffer under a monopoly when it comes to electricity I'm there with you.

But, you have yet to demonstrate that my internet provider is a monopoly. Where I am sitting, a small town called Clayton, I can sign up for Road Runner, Sprint DSL, Sprint Mobile, DirecWay Satellite, Verizon Mobile, and maybe a few others, and this is only counting broadband services, dial-up tacs on another 10 or so potential providers. To even suggest that this is a monopoly is beyond rediculous. I have less choice when it comes to buying hamburgers.

6/15/2006 4:37:55 PM

Not to interupt Schuchula and LoneSnark's back and forth, but...

Quote :

"Litigation is the funniest economic factor I've ever heard of. "

Next time there's bad news about some pharmaceutical (bad, potentially litigous type of news), watch that company's stock. Litigation has an effect.

How about asbestos? Halliburton, Owens-Corning, Honeywell, etc are spending tens of billions of $texas (if not more) on asbestos litigation.

Remember the tobacoo lawsuits?

Litigation and the threat of litigation does have an impact on business.

Quote :

"Progress Energy could start shitting on kittens and the public wouldn't care enough to move."

I think that you're confusing your personal values with the market's collective values. The market acts rationally based on its values--which may or may not be your values. You consider the market apathetic because the majority values are not your own. And please keep in mind that the market is everyone, not just uber-rich, investment types. If you're a consumer, you are part of the market.

Quote :

"Your house could've been made as late as 1995, yet still have asbestos in it. You haven't moved though. Nobody else is protesting either."

Incidently, chronic airborne exposure to asbestos fibers is what's harmful. The fact that you have asbestos in your wall somewhere poses no hazard. It's not going to reach out and slip some mesothelioma into your drink one night.

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2006 9:00:32 PM

I can’t really decide how to go about this. I’m not going to keep typing long posts.

Quote :

"Next time there's bad news about some pharmaceutical (bad, potentially litigous type of news), watch that company's stock. Litigation has an effect."

Depends on the type of company and the type of litigation. Asbestos, which you mentioned, is under the weight of several major organizations intent on crushing the entire industry, so the effect of litigation it receives will be an outlier. Most industries coast by with no legal problems, and there are plenty nitpicky laws that could be used for settlement wars in all of them.

Some companies achieve name recognition from litigation, or controversy popularity, and actually increase stock.

Under net neutrality, there wouldn't be much precedent for legal pressure against ISPs, outside of antitrust threats they would run into anyway under certain conditions. Most industries have some prevalence of litigation, and they aren't going bankrupt, and they aren't pricing out consumers.

Quote :

"Remember the tobacoo lawsuits?"

Regulation and outsourcing are chipping away at tobacco, not litigation.

Quote :

"Litigation and the threat of litigation does have an impact on business."

The productivity difference on Tuesdays and Thursdays also has an impact. You might've noticed it during your stock escapades. New stuff generally comes out on certain days, because everyone works their business model around the 7-day week, Julian month. It's also pretty irrelevant.

Quote :

"I think that you're confusing your personal values with the market's collective values. The market acts rationally based on its values--which may or may not be your values. You consider the market apathetic because the majority values are not your own. And please keep in mind that the market is everyone, not just uber-rich, investment types. If you're a consumer, you are part of the market."

I think you're taking my argument very presumptuously based on my facebook profile, and not the argument itself. The 'free' market is very rational. A deregulated market is not necessarily a free one, or a fair one. I support the outcome that promotes the most social and economic growth, and I am aware of the complexities that arise when combining forms of government intervention with certain industries, and expecting other industries to go about their merry business. There are certain tendencies that politicians and internet posters pick up that they like, because they're pretty sensible at first glance and easy to articulate. The ideal design for a society is definitely not the simplest though, and the ideal answer to social problems or economic ones is generally not the simplest either.

There is no beautiful answer to determining how to approach network neutrality, because pure neutrality itself is not possible, and not efficient. Tiered internet has practical applications, and I'm in support of that. Certain types of tiering are dangerous for free speech and competition. There is a rational way to cut out the types we don't need and keep the types we do.

Operators should be able to determine the bandwidth allotment for certain types of telecommunications over others. File details, file sizes, and streaming loads have to be balanced in a certain way to make efficient use of a network connection. However, it is important not to bias certain types of communications based on who is communicating, and to ensure that if needed, every user has a way of connecting to every other user through the network, and on other networks.

Without the latter ensured, competition among service providers will skew competition in other industries.

There are legal principles behind this. Government relies heavily on fiber networks to allow it to operate. ISPs are required to maintain connections to everywhere they support. Even some cities are installing free wireless gateways, paid by tax dollars, because this carries benefits for businesses in them, and eliminates much of the free rider mayhem private companies would run into if they attempted it. This suggests that the Internet isn’t just a private domain, but a public utility, like roads, water, postal, and electricity. It should follow that ISPs have the responsibility to ensure unbiased connectivity.

Other countries are following with this. Japan, the country with the largest internet footprint in the world, is installing high capacity fiber cable over the entire country. The UK is pursuing a similar program. Our ISPs were paid a generous amount of tax dollars to upgrade their lines, and what we have is an internet they technically own, but the public technically has a vested interest in.

eh, here are a few articles about how.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=557330
http://www.comtechnews.net/telecom/the-future-of-net-neturality

Quote :

"Incidently, chronic airborne exposure to asbestos fibers is what's harmful. The fact that you have asbestos in your wall somewhere poses no hazard. It's not going to reach out and slip some mesothelioma into your drink one night."

It is if your house is on a faultline or a floodplain. The manufacture of asbestos is hazardous. I know you have some very insightful remarks to make about the validity of the lawsuits, and design of the court system. It's really not relevant. Don't be tempted. Shall we leave this alone and go back to something pertinent?

Quote :

"I didn't, I put it in there, you just didn't understand it. What happens when the big internet providers start filling frivalous lawsuits against their smaller rivals? So, yes, it is exactly as I said. The bigger the company is the more resources it can dedicate to a case, therefore small companies will find it to enforce the law against larger competitors while larger company will easily use the law to pester small companies into giving up and selling out."

This isn't practical or possible. It's a fake economic argument, implying that companies are rational, forward thinking competitors as long as the legislation suits your design, but the moment any deviation from your utopia occurs, they stop even bothering to adhere to economically sound profit models, and only then adopt destructive competition techniques. Does passing laws change the chemical contents of the water somehow?

Quote :

"And remember, we're not talking about the power grid. If you want to argue we suffer under a monopoly when it comes to electricity I'm there with you."

Electricity is a different type of service, and subject to different economic constraints.

Quote :

"But, you have yet to demonstrate that my internet provider is a monopoly. Where I am sitting, a small town called Clayton, I can sign up for Road Runner, Sprint DSL, Sprint Mobile, DirecWay Satellite, Verizon Mobile, and maybe a few others, and this is only counting broadband services, dial-up tacs on another 10 or so potential providers. To even suggest that this is a monopoly is beyond rediculous. I have less choice when it comes to buying hamburgers."

Well, alright. Let’s see if I can.

Wireless internet is a very different service from ethernet, obviously, so we can cut that out. Have fun trying to run WoW or torrent at ten times the latency.

Technically you have two high-speed ethernet providers, and you probably rely on one of those for all of your online heavy-lifting. Chances are only one of these services is competitive for your location. Cable is a vertical monopoly with video cable. If you don’t pay for video cable, internet cable is suddenly more expensive. If video cable is competitive with the Satellite TV system in your area, then Cable is competitive. Often, one of the services doesn’t support VPN. Whichever one that is is probably cheaper, but if you need VPN, you’re forced to go with the other one.

The actual running speed between Cable and DSL is a bit biased toward cable, but the factors that determine which one you use will be separate.

If you’re lucky enough to be one of the 2% of people with a really fast Fiber connection, you have one choice: Fiber. It replaces both cable AND DSL, under one service.

Ah, but it gets better, because a lot of services share an operator. There are around 20 wireless networks, but only 2 operators. You’re lucky to have one of each.

Look at the logo on your modem: that’s what most of your neighbors have. That’s, economically, the only choice in your area. Have fun trying to switch when it blocks lp-usa.org and torrentreactor.

And while I get your point about hamburgers, technically you have a lot more choice with those, becuase you aren't forced to get them in Clayton. You have the entire city of Raleigh next to you.

I'm not even arguing that a monopoly is relevant here. I'm arguing that it's possible for more vertical monopolies to form.

Where is this leading? We were talking about Congressional lobbying. Are you trying to use this to conclude that lobbying is good? It seems like that would be a much more efficient way to cut states out of the decision-making process than removing a step in the voting process. I'm interested to see where you take this. And yes, I have another long Congress post coming, eventually.

C-money jumping into the argument is just forcing me to make longer, more boring posts.



[Edited on June 19, 2006 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/19/2006 12:43:07 PM

Quote :

"Pentagon Document: Homosexuality A Mental Disorder POSTED: 8:55 pm EDT June 19, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon policy document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position. The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities.Homosexuality is listed alongside mental retardation and personality disorders. Critics said it underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays. They said it adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members. The document is being condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association. A Pentagon spokesman said the document is under review. The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members. But it requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay."

http://www.wral.com/news/9395026/detail.html

6/20/2006 2:23:34 AM

Quote :

"Older Brothers May Predict If Boy Will Be Gay POSTED: 12:15 pm EDT June 26, 2006 WASHINGTON -- A Canadian study found that having several older brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay. Researchers said the finding added weight to the idea that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation. The study involved four groups of Canadian men, 944 in all. Researchers analyzed the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted. They found that having several older brothers increased the chance of a man being gay, but only if they all had the same mother. It did not matter if they lived together. The author of the study said the findings point to "some sort of prenatal factor." He said one possibility is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. The phenomenon is known as the fraternal birth order effect, a news release said. The report appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

http://www.wral.com/family/9426194/detail.html

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 1:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2006 1:30:35 PM

^i think that just means canadians are more likely to be gay

6/26/2006 1:44:51 PM