NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

Discuss.

Eh, I doubt it'll happen. If it does, though, I'll have to shove a spoon up my ass.

"Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."

Heh heh, couldn't have said it better myself. :cool:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

Discuss.
Mmmm, link isn't working for me. How's that for discussion?

No way. They couldn't. It would never work.

No way. They couldn't. It would never work.
The career politicians in Washington would hand the internet over to the lobbyists faster than you could lose a needle in a haystack. Major corporations, Bellsouth, Verizon, etc, are already fighting tooth and nail in metropolitan areas to prevent any one from setting up public, broadband wireless networks.

The Internet is technically privately owned already. Ultimately, some kind of business has control over the content of the pages it hosts on the Internet; you have to pay someone, or someone has to pay for you to put information on the Internet unless you invest in the physical infrastructure and programs yourself.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with people profiting from it as long as it remains competitive; otherwise, there is little incentive for companies to make the investments necessary to bring new technology and more options to the consumer. As long as less regulation will increase competition, I'm for it.

Ironically enough, it was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that made the Internet what it is today; reducing government restrictions on it was one of the most successful deregulation programs to date.

Less regulation will increase competition like draining a lake will increase fish population.

Less regulation will increase competition like draining a lake will increase fish population.

It depends on how much you deregulate. Airlines and telecommunications were extremely deregulated, and it has been of considerable benefit to consumers in terms of cost as well as selection.

However, the California energy crisis is a prime example of failed deregulation; ultimately, the failiure to deregulate prices at the consumer and utility levels led to the massive scams committed by suppliers like Enron.

It depends on how much you deregulate. Airlines and telecommunications were extremely deregulated, and it has been of considerable benefit to consumers in terms of cost as well as selection.

However, the California energy crisis is a prime example of failed deregulation; ultimately, the failiure to deregulate prices at the consumer and utility levels led to the massive scams committed by suppliers like Enron.
Looking at all examples, large corporations need more restraints on them, not less. Their continued interference prevent the expansion of the internet and development of it.

Looking at all examples, large corporations need more restraints on them, not less. Their continued interference prevent the expansion of the internet and development of it.

We need to open up the market to more foreign corporations; at present, there are large amounts of discriminatory laws and taxes on the books (supplied by US corporations) that make it difficult for foreign companies to have a real stake in supplying telecom services to the US market. They can afford to build out the networks and facilities, but often can't.

An increase in competition will do more for the market than regulations will.

Simonist']Mmmm, link isn't working for me. How's that for discussion?

Clear cookies or something.

No way. They couldn't. It would never work.

They could, and they might. The ultimate goal of capitalism is to control as much of society as possible, while not controlling enough to make it so two or three other guys can't control almost as much as you.

Unless someone redefines capitalism for the world and introduces a large amount of socialism into the country, that will stay as the ultimate goal, and once it's reached, a new and more extreme goal will be invented, and ways to make such a goal possible will come about.

See what Capitalism will do. Free enterprise isn't FREE! It's unfair and costs money to the common man. The government must take control of the internet and let it be used by all, of all, for all. Workers of the World UNITE!

Hmm. Interesting.

From the perspective of non-media companies, I can't see why they would want to put up with additional costs for internet usage. The average user, would also ultimately pay more for regular access, which means that a lot of people who aren't online already (a surprising number) won't be bothered. This would ultimately mean less consumers for ISP's wouldn't it? Why not keep the general costs down so that advertisers can hit a larger audience?

As for the 'Capitalism, yum' comment, Capitalism is why the Internet exists in the first place. I can't envision the medium existing the way it is today without it.

They could, and they might. The ultimate goal of capitalism is to control as much of society as possible, while not controlling enough to make it so two or three other guys can't control almost as much as you.
No, the ultimate goal of capitalism is to use your resources (capital) independently to produce things, trade those things for other things, and repeat the process until you become insanely rich, and retire to a private island where you can live out the last couple decades of your life as a crazy naked person.

Anyway, the whole article looks ridiculously panicy and distopian. The worst case scenario never comes about.

See what Capitalism will do. Free enterprise isn't FREE! It's unfair and costs money to the common man. The government must take control of the internet and let it be used by all, of all, for all. Workers of the World UNITE!

Without the remarx (olol, pun.), essentially yeah. Energy (electricity, hydroelectricity, mostly) are pretty much forces of nature that people harness and charge admission for. I'm probably the most biased person in this subject (take a look at my NationState for further explanation as to why), and if you'd seen my first(ish) posts about capitalism and corporations with me ranting for... I dunno, maybe something like thirty pages (I really forget how long that thing got) then you know my general stance on government and conspiracy stuff, etc. Your average baby-eating liberal democrat hippie bastard, I suppose.

Regardless, and keeping in mind that I'm incredibly biased against corporations, I'm all for the complete redecoration of the US government economy and the way things are run and what is/isn't allowed/tolerated. It's issues like that article that just drive my belief even further into irritation and frustration with the world around me.

See what Capitalism will do. Free enterprise isn't FREE! It's unfair and costs money to the common man. The government must take control of the internet and let it be used by all, of all, for all. Workers of the World UNITE!

:p

And then people realize that either:

A.Communist countries cannot provide nor can their citizens afford computers or Internet access due to their failed economics.

B.Giving government control of information eventually leads to repression of information.

Wanna screw the world economy overnight? Tell millions of young hackers that the internet is gonna be a "pay to play" type service, thanks to big telecom corporations. Only question is which company gets its records erased first.

If anyone tried to get control of internet in this way, I'm sure it wouldn't take weeks before the young geeks of the world have tied their wireless LANs together to form a new entirely free network.

We need to open up the market to more foreign corporations; at present, there are large amounts of discriminatory laws and taxes on the books (supplied by US corporations) that make it difficult for foreign companies to have a real stake in supplying telecom services to the US market. They can afford to build out the networks and facilities, but often can't.
Which is a result of American groups lobbying to shut down any competition more than likely.

If anyone tried to get control of internet in this way, I'm sure it wouldn't take weeks before the young geeks of the world have tied their wireless LANs together to form a new entirely free network.
That is what Bellsotuh and Verizon are trying to make illegal in big cities in the Northeast.

Which is a result of American groups lobbying to shut down any competition more than likely.

Absolutely correct. Like any industry, the telecoms are often willing to stop measures to open up the markets to foreign competition even though doing so would lower prices, increase service and quality, and create thousands of jobs in the US to service the networks. And obviously Capitol Hill is the best place to do that.

That is what Bellsotuh and Verizon are trying to make illegal in big cities in the Northeast.

That is unacceptable if they succeed. If someone, or a group of people, are willing to commit the resources, equipment and technological expertise to creating a competitor to the telecoms' Internet service, then neither the telecoms nor anyone else has the right to stop them...it's basic free enterprise.

That is what Bellsotuh and Verizon are trying to make illegal in big cities in the Northeast.Wouldn't they have to make wireless modems illegal to achive that? That's ludicrous.

Absolutely correct. Like any industry, the telecoms are often willing to stop measures to open up the markets to foreign competition even though doing so would lower prices, increase service and quality, and create thousands of jobs in the US to service the networks. And obviously Capitol Hill is the best place to do that.



That is unacceptable if they succeed. If someone, or a group of people, are willing to commit the resources, equipment and technological expertise to creating a competitor to the telecoms' Internet service, then neither the telecoms nor anyone else has the right to stop them...it's basic free enterprise.
Which is why the government needs to write into law protections for the internet to prevent major corporations from fucking up the internet. If they get their way, everyone will have to move to Japan or South Korea for internet worth using.

"Price discrimination," noted PFF's resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based capitalist economy."

Heh heh, couldn't have said it better myself. :cool:
Wow, they actually got one thing right :p

Which is why the government needs to write into law protections for the internet to prevent major corporations from fucking up the internet. If they get their way, everyone will have to move to Japan or South Korea for internet worth using.

What we need is government opening up the market as much as possible to all competitors while simultaneously creating a clear framework that defines what is and what isn't permissible action by corporations. A strong anticompetitive monitoring agency is also needed, because the government needs the muscle to enforce the laws.

Wanna screw the world economy overnight? Tell millions of young hackers that the internet is gonna be a "pay to play" type service, thanks to big telecom corporations. Only question is which company gets its records erased first.

Oh it's tempting. Very tempting. Though I have no links to hacker organizations, and I'm not sure what the internet would be like after hackers take down most of the organizations that control and fund it.

What we need is government opening up the market as much as possible to all competitors while simultaneously creating a clear framework that defines what is and what isn't permissible action by corporations. A strong anticompetitive monitoring agency is also needed, because the government needs the muscle to enforce the laws.
Which will be corrupted by lobbying *cough FCC cough*. We need strict, indisputable laws laid out to protect the expansion of the internet. Namely, laws that define the internet as a public entity so as to prevent corporations from regulating who it can be distributed to and how it can be distributed in order to give themselves all the control.

Which will be corrupted by lobbying *cough FCC cough*. We need strict, indisputable laws laid out to protect the expansion of the internet. Namely, laws that define the internet as a public entity so as to prevent corporations from regulating who it can be distributed to and how it can be distributed in order to give themselves all the control.

I agree that strict laws are required, but public ownership could be dangerous as well. Giving the government control over the internet could be just as bad, especially if they decide to censor sites or restrict peoples' access based upon their presence on a government blacklist.

The present system seems to work fine; ICANN should probably retain its powers until some kind of new plan is developed.

I agree that strict laws are required, but public ownership could be dangerous as well. Giving the government control over the internet could be just as bad, especially if they decide to censor sites or restrict peoples' access based upon their presence on a government blacklist.

The present system seems to work fine; ICANN should probably retain its powers until some kind of new plan is developed.
I didn't say give the government control because, hello, lobbyists. I am saying it should be defined as a non-luxury and a public entity to prevent it from being shut down br greedy corporations. It also needs to be written into the laws limits to government interference.

I didn't say give the government control because, hello, lobbyists. I am saying it should be defined as a non-luxury and a public entity to prevent it from being shut down br greedy corporations. It also needs to be written into the laws limits to government interference.

I would support that, at least until the technology is advanced enough to ensure a truly competitive environment. Like any disruptive technology, it needs to be carefully managed in its early period to ensure its maximum development.

Oh it's tempting. Very tempting. Though I have no links to hacker organizations, and I'm not sure what the internet would be like after hackers take down most of the organizations that control and fund it.

Oh please. Try learning about hacking and computer security before making these statements.

Hackers don't go head to head with giant telecomms like in the movies. They fly under the radar and use backdoors.

If they could take down the telecoms (which they can't), they'd be shutting down the whole damn internet.

Which will be corrupted by lobbying *cough FCC cough*. We need strict, indisputable laws laid out to protect the expansion of the internet. Namely, laws that define the internet as a public entity so as to prevent corporations from regulating who it can be distributed to and how it can be distributed in order to give themselves all the control.


Who is passing these laws? The American government? The EU? The UN?

Ironically enough, it was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that made the Internet what it is today; reducing government restrictions on it was one of the most successful deregulation programs to date.
Silly me there I was thinking that HTML and HTTP had something to do with it.

Oh please. Try learning about hacking and computer security before making these statements.

Hackers don't go head to head with giant telecomms like in the movies. They fly under the radar and use backdoors.

If they could take down the telecoms (which they can't), they'd be shutting down the whole damn internet.

True. But a concerted effort to dismantle the mechanisms that would be set up for these new proposals could certainly succeed. Blocking the telecoms from blocking users is something that could assuredly happen.

At any rate, I care not. I access my internet through my company, and something tells me we'll get platinum access.

This is just more evidence that the revolution needsto begin now. Otherwise we'll all be mind-controled an it will be too late.

This is just more evidence that the revolution needsto begin now. Otherwise we'll all be mind-controled an it will be too late.


Luckily for you, you'll be too underequipped for it to be successful.

True. But a concerted effort to dismantle the mechanisms that would be set up for these new proposals could certainly succeed. Blocking the telecoms from blocking users is something that could assuredly happen.




No, they can keep themselves unblocked. A widespread attack like that is too complicated.

No, they can keep themselves unblocked. A widespread attack like that is too complicated.

Well, then, I suppose we ought to resign ourselves to our fate.

The part I am confused about is who these rules would apply to. Since the internet spans globaly, would these American companies dominate the global market? How would they do this with internet data banks in other countries as well.

However, the California energy crisis is a prime example of failed deregulation;

That is a MASSIVE oversimplification!

Less regulation will increase competition like draining a lake will increase fish population.

That may be the worst analogy ever.

The part I am confused about is who these rules would apply to. Since the internet spans globaly, would these American companies dominate the global market? How would they do this with internet data banks in other countries as well.
Anyone using internet services provided by any companies that take up the tactic (in the US) and anyone (anywhere) trying to access pages on those companies servers or via the connections/distribution networks controlled by the companies concerned.

The practise could also spread to companies/service providers in other locations (non US) if they are not prohibited (by local law) from jumping on the bandwagon.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

Discuss.
I doubt their ideas will become implemented, unless everybody doesn't care about them.

Think of it like this: The companies do their thing, tack on prices, etc. If people are dissatisfied, there is an opportunity here. Suppose one company decides not to tack on these new things. If people don't like what's going on, they'll want to sign up with the company that doesn't do that, won't they? And that company will get huge profits by stealing the dissatisfied customers from the other companies, allowing it to continue on with offering things the way people want them.

Is that implausible?

Silly me there I was thinking that HTML and HTTP had something to do with it.

Technology is great, but you need someone to put the infrastructure in place. The Telecom Act brought about the wave of Internet innovation and technological outlays that built Berners-Lee's invention from just an invention to one of the dominant methods of communication in the US.

That is a MASSIVE oversimplification!

Yes, it is. Ultimately, however, the environment created by the partial deregulation led to the manipulation of the markets and the energy crisis.

Technology is great, but you need someone to put the infrastructure in place.
Not if you dont have the technology that renders a particular infrastructure useful.

The Telecom Act brought about the wave of Internet innovation and technological outlays that built Berners-Lee's invention from just an invention to one of the dominant methods of communication in the US.
None of innovations would have a foundation on which to be built, so they wouldnt have been built and neither would the infrastructure. Without the open access of the internet, the wave of innovation wouldnt have been more than a ripple - it is the open access of the internet that makes such innovation profitable.

The described practises are unethical and contrary to fair practise.

Not if you dont have the technology that renders a particular infrastructure useful.

Yes, that is true. The Internet required HTML before people could build the "web".

None of innovations would have a foundation on which to be built, so they wouldnt have been built and neither would the infrastructure. Without the open access of the internet, the wave of innovation wouldnt have been more than a ripple - it is the open access of the internet that makes such innovation profitable. The described practises are unethical and contrary to fair practise.

Pretty much. Most of the practices described would decrease rather than increase competition on the Internet; the present model works, so there is little need to change it and particularly not in a way that could have serious negative consequences.

Well, then, I suppose we ought to resign ourselves to our fate.


I didn't say that. However, this notion that the mythical figure of the hacker( I don't think the vast majority of people here have any clue what its really about) is capable of doing anything real about it is laughable.

And even if they could, do you really want to put your fate in their hands? What exactly makes them better than the corporations?

I doubt their ideas will become implemented, unless everybody doesn't care about them.

Think of it like this: The companies do their thing, tack on prices, etc. If people are dissatisfied, there is an opportunity here. Suppose one company decides not to tack on these new things. If people don't like what's going on, they'll want to sign up with the company that doesn't do that, won't they? And that company will get huge profits by stealing the dissatisfied customers from the other companies, allowing it to continue on with offering things the way people want them.

Is that implausible?
Yes, under the circumstances these companies are apparently trying to bring about it is implausible.

Yes, under the circumstances these companies are apparently trying to bring about it is implausible.
Seeing as my whole post was about why those circumstances are unlikely to happen, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I doubt their ideas will become implemented, unless everybody doesn't care about them.

Think of it like this: The companies do their thing, tack on prices, etc. If people are dissatisfied, there is an opportunity here. Suppose one company decides not to tack on these new things. If people don't like what's going on, they'll want to sign up with the company that doesn't do that, won't they? And that company will get huge profits by stealing the dissatisfied customers from the other companies, allowing it to continue on with offering things the way people want them.

Is that implausible?

Yes it is implausible. What is more plausible is that service providers who are trying to maximize profit will do exactly what phone companies did in the wake of the AT&T breakup, or what railroads in the Industrial Revolution did: monopolize a geographic region and jack your prices up by agreement to parcel out specific zones of control.

Apparently people are forgetting that in the quest to maximize self-interest, people may not use market mechanisms, because market mechanisms are 1) uncertain, and 2) not necessarily what yields maximum self-interest. It is much more efficiently profitable and infinitely less risky to monopolize your town and allow another company to monopolize the next town than it is to compete over both. Therefore, people who are trying to be efficiently profitable and risk averse break the market system very, very quickly.

Seeing as my whole post was about why those circumstances are unlikely to happen, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Nothing in your post suggests the circumstances are unlikely to happen. In fact it explicitly states that the companies concerned 'do their thing'. Their thing isnt just a matter of 'tacking things on' to the internet, but rather restricting access to it. The 'opportunity' you refer to wouldnt exist in such a scenario.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

Discuss.

If it happens, then we're living in the golden age.

Nothing in your post suggests the circumstances are unlikely to happen. In fact it explicitly states that the companies concerned 'do their thing'.
Okay, yeah, ignore my last post. That was a really stupid reply I made.
What I mean to say is this:
I don't think it's likely that the conditions would hold.
Their thing isnt just a matter of 'tacking things on' to the internet, but rather restricting access to it.
I don't see where it says access would be restricted, I just see it saying charges would be added for everything. In any case, the same thing applies though.
The 'opportunity' you refer to wouldnt exist in such a scenario.
I don't see why not. If any one of the companies which added charges, or limited access, or whatever you want to call it, dropped the cost, or allowed more free access, they would receive more business if people truly disliked the system. It would be financially beneficial for them to do things the way people wanted.

What I mean to say is this:
I don't think it's likely that the conditions would hold.

I don't see where it says access would be restricted, I just see it saying charges would be added for everything. In any case, the same thing applies though.
The ability to charge for things relies on restricting access to those not paying the charges in order to motivate people to pay.

I don't see why not. If any one of the companies which added charges, or limited access, or whatever you want to call it, dropped the cost, or allowed more free access, they would receive more business if people truly disliked the system.
Any one company couldnt do that.

It would be financially beneficial for them to do things the way people wanted.
It wouldnt be possible, that's the whole point!

The ability to charge for things relies on restricting access to those not paying the charges in order to motivate people to pay.

Not really. If I make a product or provide a service, not giving it to you doesn't mean I'm restricting it. It just means I'm not well....giving it to you. They are different things. If you can get it and I stop you somehow, that is restricting it.


Any one company couldnt do that.

Sure they can. If they find it cost beneficial to provide greater access for less money, they would deffinatly do it.


It wouldnt be possible, that's the whole point!

Hell, lots of things are possible.

Not really. If I make a product or provide a service, not giving it to you doesn't mean I'm restricting it. It just means I'm not well....giving it to you. They are different things. If you can get it and I stop you somehow, that is restricting it.
Aha but what is being proposed is the latter not the earlier. The premise is that access to servers and the 'routes' that connect them would be restricted.

Sure they can. If they find it cost beneficial to provide greater access for less money, they would deffinatly do it.
You might find it cost effective to rent my privately owned computer or house out, but without my permission your chances of actually being able to do so are slim.

Hell, lots of things are possible.
Including preventing other competitors from being able to offer the alternative access Swalllow your Poison is positing.