NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10net.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I think that net neutrality is a good thing, and anyone who doesn't want it is either a corporate shill, misinformed, or simply stupid.

Right, I'm not American so I've not been looking at this at all, but to see if I understand:
This "net neutrality" thing prevents, for instance, AOL holding, say, Amazon for ransom, on the grounds that if Amazon don't cough up the readies then none of AOL's customers are able to access Amazon?

Right, I'm not American so I've not been looking at this at all, but to see if I understand:
This "net neutrality" thing prevents, for instance, AOL holding, say, Amazon for ransom, on the grounds that if Amazon don't cough up the readies then none of AOL's customers are able to access Amazon?

Basically. The example I usually use when describing it is that Comcast could force large companies to pay for high-speed access, so that if, say, Yahoo payed more than Google, then Comcast would artificially slow people's access to Google and thus deprive them of business. It's like digital extortion.

Basically. The example I usually use when describing it is that Comcast could force large companies to pay for high-speed access, so that if, say, Yahoo payed more than Google, then Comcast would artificially slow people's access to Google and thus deprive them of business. It's like digital extortion.

But they won't call it that - they'll say that Yahoo is getting a faster service. This can't be passed fast enough.

This is one of the few times where I think more regulation is better.

So, I'm in support.

I don't understand this issue and every attempt to explain it has made me stupider overall.

Fuck the corporate pig dogs, all hail net neutrality.

I don't understand this issue and every attempt to explain it has made me stupider overall.

I will try.


Basically the ISPs missed out on the WEB revolution.

So what they are arguing is that it costs money to provide services and that people like amazon, etc should pay more because they take up most of the line.

I have seen more then a few analogies involving water pipes. Only so much water can go through a pipe for example.

However, what they don't tell you is that they are always upgrading network gear and it doesn't take much to add more capacity. As compared to running more pipes for water for example.

So what they hope is to have a two tiered payment system so they can basically charge much more and yet provide the same level of service.

Oh bugger, mis-clicked.

-1 to the ‘No’ votes.

Net neutrality FTW.

I'm against it. It really is like telling AT&T and those other companies that they don't have the right to charge what they want for people to use what they created and own. If AT&T has the right to charge whatever they can get for their faster services.

I give this a better chance of passing than I did two months ago, but make no mistake--the telecoms have a lot of money to spend to defeat this, and they don't mind spending it. If you've contacted your Reps and Senators, do it again. If you haven't, no time like the present.

I will try.


Basically the ISPs missed out on the WEB revolution.

So what they are arguing is that it costs money to provide services and that people like amazon, etc should pay more because they take up most of the line.

I have seen more then a few analogies involving water pipes. Only so much water can go through a pipe for example.

However, what they don't tell you is that they are always upgrading network gear and it doesn't take much to add more capacity. As compared to running more pipes for water for example.

So what they hope is to have a two tiered payment system so they can basically charge much more and yet provide the same level of service.

See, nope, I'm still lost.

Here's how I'm lost:
I pay for my internets. The websites pay for their internets and their hosting, and if they're big pages they pay for their big server and the server pays for all that bandwidth, so we're all paying and we're already paying more if we use a lot, what's left to charge for? I just don't get it and I don't know that I will...

See, nope, I'm still lost.

Here's how I'm lost:
I pay for my internets. The websites pay for their internets and their hosting, and if they're big pages they pay for their big server and the server pays for all that bandwidth, so we're all paying and we're already paying more if we use a lot, what's left to charge for? I just don't get it and I don't know that I will...

Basically, the tube owners will shaft the site owners unless the site owners make with the greens. The tube owners can do this by slowing the site owners stuff down and calling it a 'standard service'. Everyone who coughs up gets the 'deluxe service' ie no shafting.

See, nope, I'm still lost.

Here's how I'm lost:
I pay for my internets. The websites pay for their internets and their hosting, and if they're big pages they pay for their big server and the server pays for all that bandwidth, so we're all paying and we're already paying more if we use a lot, what's left to charge for? I just don't get it and I don't know that I will...

It's the rate for bandwidth, as I understand it. Right now, everyone pretty much pays the same rate, whether you're Google or you're Joe's Fish Grotto. Changing the law would make it so that companies could charge different rates for different users. There's two major dangers.

The danger for big internet companies is that they could be raped by carriers, extorted for something they're already paying for (and for which telecoms are already raking in major profits), because the telecoms could hold their businesses hostage.

The danger for free speech activists is that a carrier who didn't like what you're saying online could price you off the internet. You want that anti-Bush website? It's gonna cost you ten times what the pro-Bush one does. Or pick some other scenario. It's potentially corporate censorship. The telecoms say they'd never do such a thing, but I sure don't trust them to stand by that.

It's the rate for bandwidth, as I understand it. Right now, everyone pretty much pays the same rate, whether you're Google or you're Joe's Fish Grotto. Changing the law would make it so that companies could charge different rates for different users. There's two major dangers.

The danger for big internet companies is that they could be raped by carriers, extorted for something they're already paying for (and for which telecoms are already raking in major profits), because the telecoms could hold their businesses hostage.

The danger for free speech activists is that a carrier who didn't like what you're saying online could price you off the internet. You want that anti-Bush website? It's gonna cost you ten times what the pro-Bush one does. Or pick some other scenario. It's potentially corporate censorship. The telecoms say they'd never do such a thing, but I sure don't trust them to stand by that.
But don't we already pay by bandwidth? Isn't that why websites hate hotlinking and Max had to move the forums here, because the bandwidth cost was crushing him? Isn't that why 'unlimited' internet phones aren't really 'unlimited?'

But don't we already pay by bandwidth? Isn't that why websites hate hotlinking and Max had to move the forums here, because the bandwidth cost was crushing him? Isn't that why 'unlimited' internet phones aren't really 'unlimited?'

We do. But everyone pays the same rate for bandwidth. Google pays what we do individually--they just use a fuckload of it. Think of bandwidth like water--your water bill in your apartment is a fraction of what a brewery uses to make beer, so their total bill is higher. But we pay the same per gallon used. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge different people different amounts per "gallon" of bandwidth.

We do. But everyone pays the same rate for bandwidth. Google pays what we do individually--they just use a fuckload of it. Think of bandwidth like water--your water bill in your apartment is a fraction of what a brewery uses to make beer, so their total bill is higher. But we pay the same per gallon used. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge different people different amounts per "gallon" of bandwidth.

Finally I get it!

If that is accurate then I am all for Net Neutrality.

I wholeheartedly support NN, even though it would cause myself financial harm.

I wholeheartedly support NN, even though it would cause myself financial harm.

you run an ISP?

We do. But everyone pays the same rate for bandwidth. Google pays what we do individually--they just use a fuckload of it. Think of bandwidth like water--your water bill in your apartment is a fraction of what a brewery uses to make beer, so their total bill is higher. But we pay the same per gallon used. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge different people different amounts per "gallon" of bandwidth.

The problem I have is that telecoms own the "gallons" of bandwith, and based on that should be able to charge certain people more then others. Weather based on who can pay more (by charging big companies a lot more than others), political opinions (charging democrats 10 times as much as republicans), or letting one company pay to have another gouged, or even terminated, they are providing a service. That service is their's to charge whatever they want, similar or non-similar prices. It is not censorship if you refuse to provide your service to one group but not the other. Censorship would imply using force to keep something from being publishable on the internet. The force in this case, however, is the government requiring telecoms to sell their service, their "gallons" of bandwidth, at the same price to everyone.

The problem I have is that telecoms own the "gallons" of bandwith, and based on that should be able to charge certain people more then others. Weather based on who can pay more (by charging big companies a lot more than others), political opinions (charging democrats 10 times as much as republicans), or letting one company pay to have another gouged, or even terminated, they are providing a service. That service is their's to charge whatever they want, similar or non-similar prices. It is not censorship if you refuse to provide your service to one group but not the other. Censorship would imply using force to keep something from being publishable on the internet. The force in this case, however, is the government requiring telecoms to sell their service, their "gallons" of bandwidth, at the same price to everyone.

The way I see it, bandwidth is a public utility, just like electricity and water, and is therefore subject to rate regulation. A company doesn't get charged more for electricity by Florida Power and Light just because it can afford it--the rates are the same for everyone. That's the way bandwidth is right now--and should stay, as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: and it is censorship. It's just not government censorship, and is therefore not covered by the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections.

w00t! NOw Jolt isn't slower than it already is! I don't know wy anyone would support net neutrality if they weren't getting free airplanes from lobbyists.

Good, then they can't purposely slow down sites that don't pay them the big bucks.

Net Neutrality for the win! The internet is free. Let's keep it that way. Sure, it's hardly perfect. It's got your wars between websites--YTMND vs eBaum's World, anyone?--and it's got your horrible dens of evil--just go to any Nazi site--and it can be full of idiots, but it's free. It's a truly free ground, like that which has never been seen before, not to this extent. And we need to keep it this way.

you run an ISP?
Not quite. My father's a telecom salesman, and this is naturally profitable for the entire bussiness.

We do. But everyone pays the same rate for bandwidth. Google pays what we do individually--they just use a fuckload of it. Think of bandwidth like water--your water bill in your apartment is a fraction of what a brewery uses to make beer, so their total bill is higher. But we pay the same per gallon used. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge different people different amounts per "gallon" of bandwidth.

OMG, I get it now too! thanks. I was way confused before.

*calls her people in Washington*

I'm all for Net Neutrality.

Extortion by any means is grounds for an extended middle finger, though mine is pretty sore and stretched out, as I've had it extended at telecomms for quite some time now.

No, no, net neutrality is not about bandwidth, you all got it backwards. Bandwidth is already charged accordingly to who uses more. Net neutrality is about how fast the information packets going through the intertubes are processed.

Net neutrality states that all packets are given the same priority, regardless of content. So whether it's an email, videostream, voip call, or bittorrent, all packets are handled on a first-come first-served basis.

What big data carriers propose is to be able to handle certain time-sensitive content, like videostreams, before other kind of traffic, like email. This has been described as a "fast-lane" which is an analogy as wrong as the tubes one.

The rationale behind it is that no one cares if their email gets three seconds later to its destination, but they would care if a movie stops in the middle of an action sequence because some old geezer is clogging the intertube downloading a bittorrent of Perry Cuomo Greatest Hits. And as that kind of services become more available there's more of a chance that this would happen.

They argue that since the biggest beneficiaries of such a scheme would be the Youtubes and others like it, they should pay the cost of the improved service. The consumer most likely wouldn't be charged, at least not directly.

Data carriers have never suggested that they would deny access to anyone, but certainly those businesses that rely heavily on time-sensitive content and can't afford to pay the extra-fast delivery charge will be at a disadvantage.

Not quite. My father's a telecom salesman, and this is naturally profitable for the entire bussiness.

In the same way that the abolishment of Child Labor Laws would be naturally profitable for business.

And as that kind of services become more available there's more of a chance that this would happen.
The problem is that that is a text book example of shyster bullshit.

The problem is that that is a text book example of shyster bullshit.

And that's an example of talking out of one's ass. Unless you care to explain.

Data carriers have never suggested that they would deny access to anyone, but certainly those businesses that rely heavily on time-sensitive content and can't afford to pay the extra-fast delivery charge will be at a disadvantage.

Which is why I support Net Neutrality. The 'extra-fast' delivery charge can take a hike.

I think that net neutrality is a good thing, and anyone who doesn't want it is either a corporate shill, misinformed, or simply stupid.

Net neutrality is good. Also open file formats and interoperability are.
As such, they're seen as a major fuss by most big corps. Sadly, due to lobbying, laws enforcing such things are very unlikely to be approved or abided.

Sigh.

I can't believe that it is three pages in and no-one has pointed out yet that the internet is a series of tubes.

I can't believe that it is three pages in and no-one has pointed out yet that the internet is a series of tubes.

tubes which are in vital need of better protection from kitten-based blockages (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/298994824_ccdb4133da.jpg?v=0)

There are too many reasons why this is a GOOD thing.

I think that net neutrality is a good thing, and anyone who doesn't want it is either a corporate shill, misinformed, or simply stupid.

So... why should I bother debating someone who thinks I'm 'either a corporate shill, misinformed, or simply stupid'?

And isn't this, kind of, flamebait?

Senator Stevens is Not As Dumb as He Sounds

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Posted on 7/18/2006
[Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.]

Well, aren't we all having lots of fun heaping scorn and derisive laughter on Senator Ted Stevens for his hilariously uninformed commentary on how the internet works? The audio is all over the web, and doesn't he just sound ridiculous?

Actually, I'm not sure that a single elected official in this country, at any level of government, could speak about internet technology for longer than a few minutes without making a flub. The gap between what the private sector knows and what the government knows about technology has never been wider.

And yet, it takes some reading between the lines and a sympathetic ear, but the truth is that what he says is not entirely ridiculous. What is ridiculous is the expectation that anyone in government could be smart enough or wise enough or well informed enough to be put in charge of managing anything at all.

First let's grant the essential case of those who heap scorn on Stevens. Here is the guy who is in charge of the Senate committee that regulates communications and is charged with dealing with the problem of "net neutrality" — the burning question of how much pricing discretion service providers should have in dealing with content providers.

Stevens announced: "The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes" — a phrase that now has its own Wikipedia entry. But had he substituted the word "pipes" he would have been right with the current jargon, so what's the big deal?

He continued: "And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."

That sounds generally correct and he put his finger on an important problem.

He offered an anecdote of his own. "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."

Of course he meant email, not internet. Now, many of us have had emails delayed or bounced or culled by spamfilters or otherwise lost in the shuffle of life. We must all find the workaround for this problem, which exists precisely because there is no rationing in the technology that delivers emails.

Now, the proponents of net neutrality have effectively turned the Senator's gaffes into one nice point: how can the government be charged with regulating the internet when the decision makers themselves know next to nothing about the topic?

Of course this has been true for decades. It's been a very long time since the "best and brightest" were seen anywhere near the halls of government. Especially in the area of technology, the brains are in the private sector, and the government gets the people interested in power and manipulation of the public mind, which is to say, it gets the dregs.

Most people regret this trend. But in fact, it has its advantages. Why would we want a person with genuine talent to squander his or her abilities in the service of an unworkable system like government management? In the private sector, their brains serve the public; in the so-called public sector, their brains serve the state.

So there is no reason for regret when we find that a regulator knows less about the internet than the average MySpace maven. We ought not to regret that someone with talent stays in the productive private sector and out of the Senate. What we ought to regret is that the dregs who are on top presume to have power over us. Government is always and everywhere all thumbs. That's one reason its responsibilities ought to be as few as possible.

The irony of Stevens' comments are that they aren't as stupid as they first appear. He was drawing attention to the great failing of the internet, which is that there is no rational means of allocating the limited space that the internet provides for information flow.

What started this whole debate, to which his comments were addressed, was a few subtle hints from large communications companies that they might start charging companies like Yahoo and Google for access. Of course the content providers oppose this and are looking for a way to guarantee prime access at zero price (net neutrality).

Why are there such structural problems with the internet? Because it was designed by the government in the first place. Peter Klein explains that the problems have roots in history. So it is true that if we care about property rights and rational allocation of resources, the government should not interfere with the right of ATT and others to charge.

At the same time, Tim Swanson notes that the communications companies who are seeking to charge for access are themselves beneficiaries of monopolistic subsidies. BK Marcus explains that further complications are added by the overcrowding of the limited space on the spectrum of which the government owns all the beach-front property.


The only answer is a full-scale deregulation and privatization of the entire internet and all related services. But of course there are many interest groups that are devoted to preventing this from happening. And so long as that is true, government will continue to have its hands involved in regulating the net. And that means the likes of Stevens will have a hand in dictating its future.

So be on guard, advocates of net neutrality: your scheme guarantees a future where government will continue to police private firms, impose price controls, and impose an iron-hand on the desire of market participants to work out a rational system of exchange.

I don't know the details of what Stevens favors, but I'm sure of two things: his solution is imperfect and his proposal to keep the government out of pricing decisions doesn't go nearly far enough. Nonetheless, he is right to be suspicious of people who want something for nothing.

There is no such thing as perfect neutrality in the world of economics. Information flows must be rationed somehow. Do we want it rationed by the market price system, or the likes of the US Senate? That is what the future of this technical debate is all about

From the OP, it seems some companies are trying to avoid being competed against (such as Yahoo). Convenient. Larger corporations which want to be sheltered from having to be productive are going to take advantage of this. I agree with Rockwell's analysis too.

Nonetheless, he is right to be suspicious of people who want something for nothing.

Good odds are, this writer isn't paying anybody for breathing air. Besides, he also demonstrates an utter lack of knowledge regarding bandwith pricing.

But let's take a look at this shall we? Say, water useage. Take your average householder and a silicon wafer manufacturing plant. Both use water. The only difference is the volume used.

Assuming they both live in the same water supply area, they both draw from one source. In the event of a drought, it would be the factory that consumes more water, thereby exacerbating the water shortage. But does it pay more for the water it uses than the householder per liter? Of course not. That would be unfair and discriminatory. Or to put it succinctly, vampiristic.

Both use the same resource, but one uses more than the other. The rates however, are the same. Should it be otherwise simply because the one who uses more has a bigger wallet? Only if you're an unscrupulous, opportunistic, self serving and morally bankrupt.

Likewise, should the water company be allowed to deliberately lower the water pressure supply to the householder simply because he cannot pay these unfair corporate rates? Imagine turning on the tap and only getting 3 milliliter's of water an hour because you pay normal rates instead of "special" rates that are three times the normal rate.

Or maybe because you've said unflattering things about the company, they decide to utterly cut you off from your water supply even though you've already paid up your bills.

That's what the Telco's want to be able to do.

As for unregulated corporate practices, you would have to be extremely naive to believe that they would work for your benefit. People complain endlessly about Microsoft's practices, yet antitrust lawsuits are at least some measure of defense against it. Imagine what it would be like without government controls.

Pure, unregulated corporate practices. You'd be lucky to have a shirt to call your own by the end of the week instead of renting it off the corporations.

Likewise, should the water company be allowed to deliberately lower the water pressure supply to the householder simply because he cannot pay these unfair corporate rates?

The problem with this analogy is that water infrastructure is hellishly expensive. This makes water supply a monopolistic practice due to high market-entry costs.
It takes literally millions of dollars to set up a supply network - so you see very little competition indeed. More often, cities simply allow only a single company to operate, or nationalise the system altogether.

Further, down where I live, there indeed *are* separate rates for residential, industrial, and agricultural consumers.

But this is all different for Telcos. Why?

Because it's really cheap to enter the internet providing market, even if you figure in the cost of inane regulations. There can be dozens of companies in the same area providing bandwidth. A company does something lame? You change companies.

Further, what you should be able to do is specify in the contract that you, for example, will not be banned access from any site - and sue the company for contract violation if they ban access from a site.

Additionally, there are consumers that want to use non-neutral networks.

The big example is Religious Orthodox Jews in Israel, who demand - and receive - service from providers that ban porn sites at the server level.

As for anti-trust lawsuits?

Anti-trust laws, shockingly, have been invented by big corporations, to create more regulation and raise market-entry cost.

The big example is the regulation of railroads in America, paid for and passed on behalf of the railroad bigshots - to eliminate small railroads and destroy competition.

In a similar way, in Israel, Bezeq has used anti-trust regulations to try and prohibit cellphone companies from branchingo ut into landline-based telecoms.

You want a world without government regulations?

Try a world where America actually has private, cheap transcontinental railroads.

Try a world where an average home in America is 12% cheaper then it is now.

Try a world where Americans can use medicine that's legal to use in Europe (no, you don't have to abolish the FDA. Just pass a law that says that a medicine that passes tests in the EU can be used in America. Reciprocity for the win).

Try a world where the FCC cannot fine you for saying f**k on TV.

Now that's my world!

P.S. Speak of Microsoft: Note how the people funding Net 'Neutrality' are Microsoft, Yahoo, and other such corporation.

Yes. Microsoft caring for the little guy.

RIIIIIGHT.

Try a world where an average home in America is 12% cheaper then it is now.


I'm thinking Q3 2007 for that one.

Good odds are, this writer isn't paying anybody for breathing air.
Air is superabundant. Don't introduce strawmen ad hoc.

But let's take a look at this shall we? Say, water useage. Take your average householder and a silicon wafer manufacturing plant. Both use water. The only difference is the volume used.

Assuming they both live in the same water supply area, they both draw from one source. In the event of a drought, it would be the factory that consumes more water, thereby exacerbating the water shortage. But does it pay more for the water it uses than the householder per liter? Of course not. That would be unfair and discriminatory. Or to put it succinctly, vampiristic.

Both use the same resource, but one uses more than the other. The rates however, are the same. Should it be otherwise simply because the one who uses more has a bigger wallet? Only if you're an unscrupulous, opportunistic, self serving and morally bankrupt.
Another strawman, but I'll tackle this one. I'd call the company that didn't price-discriminate and charge the heavy water-user a higher fee an idiot. That is what. Already, it's common for companies and governments to price goods at a higher level once you've exceeded a certain usage of the good. Whilst this is consumer-neutral prima facie, it naturally discriminates against those who use the most water. Which is good. When demand is too high for supply to meet it, it must be curbed, else the resource will suffer depletion. Provided one understands how goods derive value, and how demand and supply work, the moral judgements devolve into silly non-sequiturs.

Likewise, should the water company be allowed to deliberately lower the water pressure supply to the householder simply because he cannot pay these unfair corporate rates? Imagine turning on the tap and only getting 3 milliliter's of water an hour because you pay normal rates instead of "special" rates that are three times the normal rate.
A firm's profits are typically maximised where it can capture the highest amount of consumers possible, usually via price-discrimination (which would lead to the contrary of what you suggested - a firm devoted to an equal price policy on the other hand might be forced to raise price for all consumers). A firm that did what you said would be damaging, not aiding, itself. And regarding water shortages, I am all too familiar with them, because I have lived in a mediterranean country where water is a government monopoly. The result? The government does not reinvest in its infrastructure, and come drought season no one has water for days to come!


Or maybe because you've said unflattering things about the company, they decide to utterly cut you off from your water supply even though you've already paid up your bills.

This is idiotic. Companies care about profits, not petty insults. Even if it were to do so though, that is a violation of contract, and a court could force the firm to do good on its promise to deliver a service. On the other hand, consider which agency does actually penalise you for negative commentary made about it.

Both goods you mentioned have nothing to do with the market structure of the internet - the one good is not even scarce, the other is (for the time being) a relatively natural monopoly.

Pure, unregulated corporate practices. You'd be lucky to have a shirt to call your own by the end of the week instead of renting it off the corporations.
Take a look who exactly is lobbying for this measure. It's not just consumers. It is certain corporations. Ask yourself why. Hint: competition is costly.

Allanea, I am surprised I have never seen you on before, in spite of your high post count.

Because it's really cheap to enter the internet providing market, even if you figure in the cost of inane regulations. There can be dozens of companies in the same area providing bandwidth. A company does something lame? You change companies.

Normally, contracts with telcos prohibit changes within a certain time period and will continue to bill you if you break it until contract expiry.


Further, what you should be able to do is specify in the contract that you, for example, will not be banned access from any site - and sue the company for contract violation if they ban access from a site.

Not just a stipulation of non-restrictions to any site, but also a stipulation to prevent deliberate throttling of bandwidth beyond what package you signed onto I should imagine. The question is whether it would be in the interests of the telcos to include such a stipulation. I do not see any incentive for them to do so.


Additionally, there are consumers that want to use non-neutral networks.

And for those that do?


Anti-trust laws, shockingly, have been invented by big corporations, to create more regulation and raise market-entry cost.

Although a subversion of public intent of laws, it does however, prove my point to a certain extent. Corporations will do what it takes to squeeze out the competition and money from their consumers, regardless of the legality.


You want a world without government regulations?

Try a world where America actually has private, cheap transcontinental railroads.

Unlikely. Even without regulations, it is likely that the corporations will have found another way of crushing the competition.


Try a world where an average home in America is 12% cheaper then it is now.


Gray area. I am not sufficiently familiar with housing and construction regulations to comment.


Now that's my world!


A kleptocracy or corporate bordello?


Yes. Microsoft caring for the little guy.

RIIIIIGHT.

I will give you that, but at the same time, I must ask you where exactly you stand on this measure by the telcos to have variable charge rates, despite offering the exact same service, speed, etc, etc.



Air is superabundant. Don't introduce strawmen ad hoc.


Sarcasm at it's finest really. Besides, it's the logical extreme of his opinion.


Take a look who exactly is lobbying for this measure. It's not just consumers. It is certain corporations. Ask yourself why. Hint: competition is costly.

I'll boil down your argument to this. I apologize, but Allanea already seems to have covered most of your points. As with Allanea, I would have to ask you this then. The net neutrality motion was put forward after Telco's lobbied to have sliding scale rates based on content. i.e. if you were a web streaming site, not only do you pay for the line and bandwidth, but you pay for the priority tag for your traffic.

Where do you stand on that?

Where do you stand on that?
Deregulation. In the end, this is yet another sham for certain nonproductive corporations to secure their hold against competition. They may dress it up however they please, but that is what it boils down to. It is usually good indication of a regulatory measure's true purposes if you find corporate support behind it.

Yes, this may prohibit some newcomers if they are not efficient enough to compete. It will also provide disincentives for comfortable corporations to make any effort to compete, it will discourage companies from finding alternative methods to provide online services (for instance, notice how some companies have switched from traditional networks to satellites ; this is just what is needed) and in the end I doubt this will be efficient in terms of pricing (notice how even with roads, it has been suggested that at congested hours that higher fees be levied to discourage overusage ; it is funny that people do not realise the internet is provided via scarce means).

The problem with this analogy is that water infrastructure is hellishly expensive.

There isn't a damn thing wrong with his analogy. Analogies are not meant to make sense on their usage but for what they are being compared to, besides you arn't even in the US, stfu.

There isn't a damn thing wrong with his analogy. Analogies are not meant to make sense on their usage but for what they are being compared to, besides you arn't even in the US, stfu.


An analogy is completely wrong when it demonstrates a completely different set of circumstances that is not in fact analogous.

An analogy is completely wrong when it demonstrates a completely different set of circumstances that is not in fact analogous.
No surprise that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, probably because you are pretending to be an expert on US systems while NOT BEING IN THE US.

PS.
P.S. Speak of Microsoft: Note how the people funding Net 'Neutrality' are Microsoft, Yahoo, and other such corporation.
Let me help you out, genius, THOSE ARE NOT TELECOMS. Those are the people the telecoms would be able to extort if net neutrality is let go.

PPS. Telecoms are AT&T, BellSouth, MCI, etc.

Unlikely. Even without regulations, it is likely that the corporations will have found another way of crushing the competition.

They tried. They actually tried repeatedly and failed, that was why they decided to come out in support of the regulators originally.

Let me help you out, moron, THOSE ARE NOT TELECOMS. Those are the people the telecoms would be able to extort if net neutrality is let go.

You know, I'm going to pretend you did not insult me.

I'm going to just point out I never STATED those were telecoms. Those are immense corporations which are unlikely to 'care for the little guy'.

Normally, contracts with telcos prohibit changes within a certain time period and will continue to bill you if you break it until contract expiry.

And? You just don't SIGN the contract in the first place unless it has a 'neutral communications' clause. Or some other clause like this.

And frankly, you will find that telco's LOSE customers when they piss the customer's off. Guess why that happens? Because people don't renew contracts, or don't sign for them because they know their cousin or friend or whoever got a raw deal.

People are not as stupid as commonly believed - there's a level of how much they can be fucked with.

I'm going to just point out I never STATED those were telecoms. Those are immense corporations which are unlikely to 'care for the little guy'.
Entirely irrelevant to the argument of net neutrality because they arn't telecoms. If you don't know anything about the US, stay the fuck out of the argument.

Entirely irrelevant to the argument of net neutrality because they arn't telecoms. If you don't know anything about the US, stay the fuck out of the argument.

Clearly, if they're spending millions of dollars on it, they are relevant.

Clearly, if they're spending millions of dollars on it, they are relevant.

Because they would like the telecoms to not start legally extorting them.
They still have nothing to do with the fact of the matter.

Because they would like the telecoms to not start legally extorting them.
They still have nothing to do with the fact of the matter.

They CLAIM this is what is going to happen.

Which, interestingly, is not in any way necessarily true.

There isn't a damn thing wrong with his analogy. Analogies are not meant to make sense on their usage but for what they are being compared to, besides you arn't even in the US, stfu.
An analogy's worth is based on how relevant it is. You lose.

And also, what is it with this "you're not from my country - don't judge us" mentality?

People are not as stupid as commonly believed - there's a level of how much they can be fucked with.
It's funny, you'd think that given the common view of mankind that people would need the government to breathe for them.

They CLAIM this is what is going to happen.

Which, interestingly, is not in any way necessarily true.
Oh yes, not true at all, it's just what they have threatened to do if they can pass their own legislation through if this fails.

An analogy's worth is based on how relevant it is. You lose.

And also, what is it with this "you're not from my country - don't judge us" mentality?

He doesn't know what he is talking about. I would have no problem if he knew even the slightest fact about the case. he is trying to judge from an outside view from a nation with an entirely different telecom history, without knowing the history and moves of the US telecoms without actually knowing what net neutrality even is. It is equivalent to telling creationists to shut the fuck up in an evolution debate.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. I would have no problem if he knew even the slightest fact about the case. he is trying to judge from an outside view from a nation with an entirely different telecom history, without knowing the history and moves of the US telecoms without actually knowing what net neutrality even is. It is equivalent to telling creationists to shut the fuck up in an evolution debate.
And rational argumentation is beyond your means, is it? Instead, insulting and denigrating is on par with how one should debate here? If he is wrong, then provide some factual evidence as to why he is wrong. Usually when debating privatisation/regulation other countries are evoked as examples simply for the fact that it provides a good indicator of how things might move. Indeed, this is not perfect, but it's a start.

EM, but of course. America is unique, and no person can actually KNOW the full evil of American corporation if he has never been there.

*dripping sarcasm*

EM, but of course. America is unique, and no person can actually KNOW the full evil of American corporation if he has never been there.

You obviously are comparing the US telecom situation with your own country's and working from that comparison, despite the fact that it is inherently flawed. Therefore, you don't know what you are talking about.

America is not your country, the situation is not your situation, regardless of the fact you are pretending it is. Maybe if you exhibited some sort of knowledge on the matter, I would concede you wern't spouting bullshit.

Here's my one objection to this furor over Net Neutrality:

Other countries have no such legal protection, and yet their internet seems to work pretty well.

So why do you think the US will devolve into greed-induced chaos when that hasn't happened elsewhere?

Here's my one objection to this furor over Net Neutrality:

Other countries have no such legal protection, and yet their internet seems to work pretty well.

So why do you think the US will devolve into greed-induced chaos when that hasn't happened elsewhere?

I don't know for a certainty that the rest of the world is as open a market as you claim, so I can't speak to that side of it. All I know is that when we've had the opportunity for this kind of problem here in the past, it has devolved into greed-induced chaos. Why should telecommunications be any different, especially when there's such potential for information control at stake?

Here's my one objection to this furor over Net Neutrality:

Other countries have no such legal protection, and yet their internet seems to work pretty well.

Name em.

You obviously are comparing the US telecom situation with your own country's and working from that comparison, despite the fact that it is inherently flawed. Therefore, you don't know what you are talking about.

America is not your country, the situation is not your situation, regardless of the fact you are pretending it is. Maybe if you exhibited some sort of knowledge on the matter, I would concede you wern't spouting bullshit.

Dude, as someone who is actually trying to grasp the situation and is therefore reading both sides of this argument in the hopes of coming to an understanding of it and reaching an informed conclusion, I can say that your posts and arguments have so far been nothing but a distraction. Seriously, take a few steps back, breath deep, calm down and maybe bring something to the table? If nothing else it would make this thread easier for me to read and the issue easier for me to digest.

Okay, here's the deal:

1. Find out how many and what sort of ISPs there are.

2. Find out how they make their contracts, what their terms are.

3. Once you have some idea of the market, figure out how easy it is for a company like Amazon to switch providers.

4. Once you know that, you can figure out whether or not it is in fact extortion and these contracts are signed due to economic duress (which I presume is illegal in the States as well).

5. Furthermore, you can do an econometric analysis of the market and see which way would ultimately be better for the target group in question (in this case, the voters).

Chances are all these things have been done already. Chances are these reports were written by a few economists and are sitting on the desks of the legislators. Chances are also that those legislators read the Executive Summary and left it at that, preferring to go with media coverage and public opinion.

Fact of the matter is that neither side in this argument is doing anything but pursuing their own self-interest. No side is morally better than the other one.

No matter which choice you make, you're going to be hurting people. Choose Net Neutrality, and you're telling ISPs what they can charge for stuff that they built and that they rightfully own. Choose against it, and you're running the risk of too much monopoly power being used for economic duress, either hurting companies we want and whose services we enjoy (eg Amazon) or eventually hurting us.

So I for one am going to take a centrist line and say that without more evidence I'm neutral on net neutrality. You're either hurting A to help B, or hurting B to help A. That's all we know.

If I understand things, we’ve not had "net neutrality" for a few months now, right? I don’t see any difference. Am I mistaken?

They tried. They actually tried repeatedly and failed, that was why they decided to come out in support of the regulators originally.

Hah! It was regulations that got child laborers out of coal mines. It was regulations that stopped corporations from doing things like putting "500g net weight" on goods that didn't even weigh 100g. You want a world without corporate regulations? Think of a world run by unlimited greed.

You think it'd be paradise? It'd be even more of a dog eat dog world, and the only people at the top of the heap would be corporations. On the backs of the consumer. Naive, naive, naive.

Either that, or you're a corporate shill.


I'm going to just point out I never STATED those were telecoms. Those are immense corporations which are unlikely to 'care for the little guy'.


And somehow, the telecoms 'care for the little guy'? Grow up. They don't give a rats arse about the consumer. All they care about is how much they can squeeze out of your pocket.


And? You just don't SIGN the contract in the first place unless it has a 'neutral communications' clause. Or some other clause like this.


And what would be the incentive for ANY telco to put that in their contracts hmmm? Who in their right minds would give up a chokehold like that over the consumers when they can keep it legally.


And frankly, you will find that telco's LOSE customers when they piss the customer's off. Guess why that happens? Because people don't renew contracts, or don't sign for them because they know their cousin or friend or whoever got a raw deal.

And when ALL telco's screw you over? Sure, one might screw you a little less, but there's no reason to think they won't screw you at all.

"We're not charging you $500 monthly for broadband services. That'd be cutthroat. We'll only charge you $400."


People are not as stupid as commonly believed - there's a level of how much they can be fucked with.

Wrong! People ARE stupid. And not just stupid, pig ignorant and egoistic, combinations that are self reinforcing. Look, I've studied how they work. Special discounts of 20%, but not before they raised the prices by 50%. Lifetime discount packages, at premium membership rates that exceed the discounts. And they eat it up. You think you won't be suckered into this? Think again.

Wrong! People ARE stupid. And not just stupid, pig ignorant and egoistic, combinations that are self reinforcing.
Man is doomed eh? Perhaps Brave New World is the way to go. Transform the stupid into servile, obedient slaves - for their own sake of course.

I say, speak for yourself. A man is as stupid as he allows himself to be.

That's absolutely true!


Unfortunately, most people choose to be very, very dumb.

Other countries have no such legal protection, and yet their internet seems to work pretty well.

I've been to countries where there weren't legal protections and the ISPs were few. Consumers got shafted on everything from rates to customer service.

Man is doomed eh? Perhaps Brave New World is the way to go. Transform the stupid into servile, obedient slaves - for their own sake of course.

I say, speak for yourself. A man is as stupid as he allows himself to be.

Let me put it this way. The one's who aren't dumb are the ones sitting at the top of the heap pulling everyone else's strings. Not 'evil conspiracy' style string pulling, but "you'll like it cause we say it's good" style.

Lots of sheep. Very few shepherds.

As for stupid as they allow themselves to be, take a good hard look at the population in general, and how they act. Yes, generalizing, but it proves my point in majority examples. Many people simply believe or want things because they've been told to.

Let me put it this way. The one's who aren't dumb are the ones sitting at the top of the heap pulling everyone else's strings. Not 'evil conspiracy' style string pulling, but "you'll like it cause we say it's good" style.

Lots of sheep. Very few shepherds.

As for stupid as they allow themselves to be, take a good hard look at the population in general, and how they act. Yes, generalizing, but it proves my point in majority examples. Many people simply believe or want things because they've been told to.
Assuming this were true, I'd say screw the sheep. I would not want to live in a society of the sort they lived in. Hopefully others would be of like mind, and we could distance ourselves from those inclined to follow the bellwether wherever it takes them. Otherwise, I'd rather be the lion ruling the sheep.

That said, I honestly don't think people are stupid. Deprived of the opportunity to think freely via generations of inculcation and statism, perhaps.

Assuming this were true, I'd say screw the sheep. I would not want to live in a society of the sort they lived in.

Unfortunately, you do. Deal with it. Either that, or you'll have to change the fundamental underpinnings of society and group think.


Hopefully others would be of like mind, and we could distance ourselves from those inclined to follow the bellwether wherever it takes them.

Here's where the problem starts. People of like minds. Eventually, either there will be a schism, and everyone goes their own way, or they'll be a person with a strong enough personality to start dictating what "everyone else thinks" either with force or manipulation.


Otherwise, I'd rather be the lion ruling the sheep.


Possible, but that requires acknowledging you live in such a society.


That said, I honestly don't think people are stupid. Deprived of the opportunity to think freely via generations of inculcation and statism, perhaps.

And how do you think such a thing occured hmmm? Because they wanted it. Or at least, somebody told them they wanted it.

Unfortunately, you do. Deal with it. Either that, or you'll have to change the fundamental underpinnings of society and group think.
That, or secession.

Here's where the problem starts. People of like minds. Eventually, either there will be a schism, and everyone goes their own way, or they'll be a person with a strong enough personality to start dictating what "everyone else thinks" either with force or manipulation.
I'd like to test it out before condemning it, thanks.

Possible, but that requires acknowledging you live in such a society.
If I reach such a conclusion, then I'll make the necessary acknowledgements.

See, nope, I'm still lost.

Here's how I'm lost:
I pay for my internets. The websites pay for their internets and their hosting, and if they're big pages they pay for their big server and the server pays for all that bandwidth, so we're all paying and we're already paying more if we use a lot, what's left to charge for? I just don't get it and I don't know that I will...

Basically the ISPs are presenting a lie about usage percentage. They just want to change the rules so they could charge more for offering nothing.

I'm against it. It really is like telling AT&T and those other companies that they don't have the right to charge what they want for people to use what they created and own. If AT&T has the right to charge whatever they can get for their faster services.

That's the problem. They are not going to offer faster services. You will pay more for nothing.

It's the rate for bandwidth, as I understand it. Right now, everyone pretty much pays the same rate, whether you're Google or you're Joe's Fish Grotto. Changing the law would make it so that companies could charge different rates for different users. There's two major dangers.

The danger for big internet companies is that they could be raped by carriers, extorted for something they're already paying for (and for which telecoms are already raking in major profits), because the telecoms could hold their businesses hostage.

The danger for free speech activists is that a carrier who didn't like what you're saying online could price you off the internet. You want that anti-Bush website? It's gonna cost you ten times what the pro-Bush one does. Or pick some other scenario. It's potentially corporate censorship. The telecoms say they'd never do such a thing, but I sure don't trust them to stand by that.

Many things are weighed on the costs. You can pay for line speeds (DSL, T1, T3, Fractional etc).

You can also pay for guaranteed bandwidth. A MINOR point the ISPs forget to mention.

But don't we already pay by bandwidth? Isn't that why websites hate hotlinking and Max had to move the forums here, because the bandwidth cost was crushing him? Isn't that why 'unlimited' internet phones aren't really 'unlimited?'

No you pay for a connection with a speed. You don't have a dedicated line as you share it with others.

For high speeds, you pay more.

We do. But everyone pays the same rate for bandwidth. Google pays what we do individually--they just use a fuckload of it. Think of bandwidth like water--your water bill in your apartment is a fraction of what a brewery uses to make beer, so their total bill is higher. But we pay the same per gallon used. What the telecoms want is to be able to charge different people different amounts per "gallon" of bandwidth.

Be careful with that analogy.

The ISPs use it to argue the infrastructure as being super expensive to increase. For example, adding more pipes to your house so you can have more. The "common" man then imagines the work and cost to add them to your house and thinks ahh then the ISPs should have the right to charge more since they have to cover their costs.

The problem I have is that telecoms own the "gallons" of bandwith, and based on that should be able to charge certain people more then others. Weather based on who can pay more (by charging big companies a lot more than others), political opinions (charging democrats 10 times as much as republicans), or letting one company pay to have another gouged, or even terminated, they are providing a service. That service is their's to charge whatever they want, similar or non-similar prices. It is not censorship if you refuse to provide your service to one group but not the other. Censorship would imply using force to keep something from being publishable on the internet. The force in this case, however, is the government requiring telecoms to sell their service, their "gallons" of bandwidth, at the same price to everyone.

So we should abandon the price scheme for water then? What about trash pickup? After all they should charge whatever they want too.....

No, no, net neutrality is not about bandwidth, you all got it backwards. Bandwidth is already charged accordingly to who uses more.


Talking about bandwith goes with talking about network speeds.

Net neutrality is about how fast the information packets going through the intertubes are processed.

Net neutrality states that all packets are given the same priority, regardless of content. So whether it's an email, videostream, voip call, or bittorrent, all packets are handled on a first-come first-served basis.


Yes. That is how it works now. Yet, you can pay more for guaranteed levels of speed.


What big data carriers propose is to be able to handle certain time-sensitive content, like videostreams, before other kind of traffic, like email. This has been described as a "fast-lane" which is an analogy as wrong as the tubes one.


It's already covered since those companies tend to have T-3 speeds are better.

The rationale behind it is that no one cares if their email gets three seconds later to its destination, but they would care if a movie stops in the middle of an action sequence because some old geezer is clogging the intertube downloading a bittorrent of Perry Cuomo Greatest Hits. And as that kind of services become more available there's more of a chance that this would happen.

A "geezer" on a DSL line or less will not clog up a T-3 access of the bittorrent provider.

They argue that since the biggest beneficiaries of such a scheme would be the Youtubes and others like it, they should pay the cost of the improved service. The consumer most likely wouldn't be charged, at least not directly.

The consumer will be charged. The providers will shift the costs to the consumers.

Data carriers have never suggested that they would deny access to anyone, but certainly those businesses that rely heavily on time-sensitive content and can't afford to pay the extra-fast delivery charge will be at a disadvantage.

Of course not. They can't without a very good reason(ie we don't have any wire or equipment in that area).

You assume there were be this gigantic leap in net speeds for the "fastlane" There is no new fastlane. They already have such stuff in place. Quality of Service handles that. The extra cost for bigger pipes handle that.

The ISPs are simply scheming to charge much more for the same level of services.

I'm glad some other people around here know what is going on and know the facts of the case.

Ahh a libert.

You guys just love this guy.

Let's have a look. I will snip the non-esential banter aand stay to the Networking aspects.


That sounds generally correct and he put his finger on an important problem.

He offered an anecdote of his own. "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."

Of course he meant email, not internet. Now, many of us have had emails delayed or bounced or culled by spamfilters or otherwise lost in the shuffle of life. We must all find the workaround for this problem, which exists precisely because there is no rationing in the technology that delivers emails.


Ok Lew forgot to admit he only understands the Net a little more then the Senators.

Email delay is caused by a multitude of problems that don't center around Net speed and access. For example, a core router dies, somebody screws up a DNS entry, a company gets blacklisted for spam, a mail-server dies, a mail-server is misconfigured, destroys overloads a mail server with a screwed up Perl script, etc. etc. etc.

Let's not forget it could have been that his people forgot to send it, entered the address wrong, etc.....

"Rationing" would not solve the problems Lew just mentioned.

Now, the proponents of net neutrality have effectively turned the Senator's gaffes into one nice point: how can the government be charged with regulating the internet when the decision makers themselves know next to nothing about the topic?


I have met a few business executives in ISPs that don't understand the Internet. There are many brilliant execs that can chat with the wan engineers but many understand the process of making money more then the services and the equipment needed to provide them.

Lew is rather dishonest because the Congressmen do the exact same thing the businessmen do. They hire technoids to handle it. They listen to the technoids for what is needed.


Of course this has been true for decades. It's been a very long time since the "best and brightest" were seen anywhere near the halls of government.


Hmm the NSA or the DOD don't have anybody that could answer questions?


Especially in the area of technology, the brains are in the private sector,

Public sector has some powerhouses of their own (again NSA and DOD).

and the government gets the people interested in power and manipulation of the public mind, which is to say, it gets the dregs.

[quote]Most people regret this trend. But in fact, it has its advantages. Why would we want a person with genuine talent to squander his or her abilities in the service of an unworkable system like government management? In the private sector, their brains serve the public; in the so-called public sector, their brains serve the state.


I guess he has never heard of the NSA?

So there is no reason for regret when we find that a regulator knows less about the internet than the average MySpace maven. We ought not to regret that someone with talent stays in the productive private sector and out of the Senate. What we ought to regret is that the dregs who are on top presume to have power over us. Government is always and everywhere all thumbs. That's one reason its responsibilities ought to be as few as possible.

The irony of Stevens' comments are that they aren't as stupid as they first appear. He was drawing attention to the great failing of the internet, which is that there is no rational means of allocating the limited space that the internet provides for information flow.


Ok Lew, you really don't know the Net much better. Resources and information flow is rationed all the time. Traffic is controlled. Etc....

What started this whole debate, to which his comments were addressed, was a few subtle hints from large communications companies that they might start charging companies like Yahoo and Google for access. Of course the content providers oppose this and are looking for a way to guarantee prime access at zero price (net neutrality).


Now you are being dishonest Lew. Google, Yahoo, etc. But T3's, ATM, etc. Little companies and homes don't.

Why are there such structural problems with the internet? Because it was designed by the government in the first place. Peter Klein explains that the problems have roots in history. So it is true that if we care about property rights and rational allocation of resources, the government should not interfere with the right of ATT and others to charge.


Actually I remember the Net back in the ARPA days. It ran well. Business is what caused this "shortage"


*snip*

The only answer is a full-scale deregulation and privatization of the entire internet and all related services. But of course there are many interest groups that are devoted to preventing this from happening. And so long as that is true, government will continue to have its hands involved in regulating the net. And that means the likes of Stevens will have a hand in dictating its future.


That would be the WORST thing imaginable. If it was privatized, there were have been a war over IP addresses long before IP6 was layed out.

You want knowledge? You would have to pay for it.

You want to visit websites in other countries, we have a plan for you.

Speaking of plans, we know have a tiered charge system for access during the day. You want to use the net during busness hours, you pay more!

Sorry Lew, it works fine just as it is. Why change it.

So be on guard, advocates of net neutrality: your scheme guarantees a future where government will continue to police private firms, impose price controls, and impose an iron-hand on the desire of market participants to work out a rational system of exchange.


:rolleyes: Big brother anybody?


There is no such thing as perfect neutrality in the world of economics. Information flows must be rationed somehow. Do we want it rationed by the market price system, or the likes of the US Senate? That is what the future of this technical debate is all about

Sorry Lew, you didn't explain why it has to be rationed.

Deregulation. In the end, this is yet another sham for certain nonproductive corporations to secure their hold against competition. They may dress it up however they please, but that is what it boils down to. It is usually good indication of a regulatory measure's true purposes if you find corporate support behind it.


Degregulation will not work here. The problem is the delivery mechonism. Guess who owns a chunk of the fiber and wire in the country. ATT.

EM, but of course. America is unique, and no person can actually KNOW the full evil of American corporation if he has never been there.

*dripping sarcasm*

Actually I think Japan execs out shine ours on "evil"

The way I see it, bandwidth is a public utility, just like electricity and water, and is therefore subject to rate regulation. A company doesn't get charged more for electricity by Florida Power and Light just because it can afford it--the rates are the same for everyone. That's the way bandwidth is right now--and should stay, as far as I'm concerned.
really? In the States, utilities are charged the same across the board? back in NZ, afaik, bigger companies can make a deal to pay less if they use more. The Comalco aluminium smelter in NZ's South island uses 10% of the entire nation's electricity output and they pay a helluva lot less for their power than anyone else. They also have priority, so if and when there's a power outage the public get cut first.

Talking about bandwith goes with talking about network speeds.

But it's not the only consideration that goes into network speeds. It's a system, you know?

Yes. That is how it works now. Yet, you can pay more for guaranteed levels of speed.
And that's what net neutrality advocates want to take away. Net neutrality advocates argue that small companies won't be able to pay for that guaranteed level of speed, so big companies will hold an advantage over them, not realizing that net neutrality doesn't really exist right now.

It's already covered since those companies tend to have T-3 speeds are better.
As I said, it's a system. Unless you have T-3 all the way from the provider to the consumer then that would apply.

A "geezer" on a DSL line or less will not clog up a T-3 access of the bittorrent provider.
No, but it's not the provider that's the weak link in the system, it's the DSL line that may be used by more than one person in that household. If your movie starts stuttering do you blame the movie service or your internet provider? Unless people manage their expectations of internet service, but will they?

The consumer will be charged. The providers will shift the costs to the consumers.
You saw the "not directly" in that sentence, right?

You assume there were be this gigantic leap in net speeds for the "fastlane" There is no new fastlane. They already have such stuff in place. Quality of Service handles that. The extra cost for bigger pipes handle that.
No, I'm not assuming that, remember that I said that "fast lane" was as wrong as the tubes analogy? People are assuming a massive drop of speed, which won't happen either. It will remain pretty much the same, except that bottlenecks will (theoretically) affect less those high-bandwidth services I may be paying extra for and therefore I want working as good as possible.

If the geezer upstairs starts a bittorrent and there comes a time when the router has to choose between my paid movie and his free bittorrent, I want the router to choose my movie.

The ISPs are simply scheming to charge much more for the same level of services.
Yup, but realize that as demand for more bandwidth and expectations of quality of service grow the more strain is put on the ISP to upgrade their networks, invest in infrastructure just to keep things running smoothly. And I'm not talking about the dark cable lying around unused, but the last-mile, the part that has always been the problem.

I don't know about you, but I don't use the internet the same way I did in 1994, and I wouldn't expect to be able to get the same use from a 28.8k modem over the good-ol' phone line. And new applications are coming which will require faster last-mile connections and routing, and as final user I'd love to be the only one to pay for those upgrades... er, or maybe the companies that are charging me for those services can contribute a bit too, even if they don't benefit directly from last-mile upgrades since they already have T-3 lines.

Worry not, though. Even if net neutrality passes, the ISPs will find a way to get their piece, and charging for increased levels of service may not be the worst alternative...

The issue is a bit more complex than the evil corporations want to screw us, you know?

The problem with this analogy is that water infrastructure is hellishly expensive. This makes water supply a monopolistic practice due to high market-entry costs.
It takes literally millions of dollars to set up a supply network - so you see very little competition indeed. More often, cities simply allow only a single company to operate, or nationalise the system altogether..
You're ignoring the point that it's not internet companies that are against net Neutrality but the Telcos.
To set up a Telco infrastructure, like setting up a water company, is hellishly expensive. You can't install new wiring into everyone's homes. You have to use what's already there - much like a new water company has to use the existing pipes.

You should be comparing the water company in the earlier analogy to the Telco, not the internet provider. Both are the ones who let the stuff into your home. You can't deal with the original supplier directly - you HAVE to deal through the middleman (be it water, electricity, telcommunications or internet).


The analogy was that if the water supplier cut your supply unless you paid them more, there's nothing you can do. You can't install pipes directly from the resevoir straight to your house now, can you?
Similarly, if the Telco decides to cut the service to a particular internet provider unless you pay them extra (or the provider pays more), you can't do much about it. Regardless of how big the sites servers are, if the Telco will only allow a low set amount of traffic to/from their site you're screwed. You can't wire your house straight to that site's server now, can you?

Information flows must be rationed somehow. Do we want it rationed by the market price system, or the likes of the US Senate?
Why must it be rationed somehow? Could someone explain that to me?

That, or secession.

Secession doesn't work. Ultimately, it fails to achieve the change you're talking about.


I'd like to test it out before condemning it, thanks.


Case in point. See previous independence movements. Every single one of them eventually became what they fought against. That of control by the minority over the majority. See my thread "Democracy, an Ideal doomed to failure?" for an argument why that form of governance doesn't really give any sort of decision making power to the masses.

But it's not the only consideration that goes into network speeds. It's a system, you know?

As the wan engineer of a multinational; I think I do.


No, but it's not the provider that's the weak link in the system, it's the DSL line that may be used by more than one person in that household. If your movie starts stuttering do you blame the movie service or your internet provider? Unless people manage their expectations of internet service, but will they?

It could be the DSL line, It could be the provider who oversubscribes his capacity.

No, I'm not assuming that, remember that I said that "fast lane" was as wrong as the tubes analogy? People are assuming a massive drop of speed, which won't happen either. It will remain pretty much the same, except that bottlenecks will (theoretically) affect less those high-bandwidth services I may be paying extra for and therefore I want working as good as possible.

That's the problem, they are working and will work just fine. Right now I am preparing to set up a 6509-5. It has 720 gig backplane! Just a few years ago, you could only get 32 gig.

The problem may be the DSL, but running fiber, etc is rather easy. Well unless you have to core a new path of course.

If the geezer upstairs starts a bittorrent and there comes a time when the router has to choose between my paid movie and his free bittorrent, I want the router to choose my movie.

Your movie router probably wouldn't have bittorrent traffic on it.

Yup, but realize that as demand for more bandwidth and expectations of quality of service grow the more strain is put on the ISP to upgrade their networks, invest in infrastructure just to keep things running smoothly. And I'm not talking about the dark cable lying around unused, but the last-mile, the part that has always been the problem.


Upgrades are a fact of life. Always has and always will be.

I don't know about you, but I don't use the internet the same way I did in 1994, and I wouldn't expect to be able to get the same use from a 28.8k modem over the good-ol' phone line.


You are a youngster. I used 300 baud modems once. ;)


And new applications are coming which will require faster last-mile connections and routing, and as final user I'd love to be the only one to pay for those upgrades... er, or maybe the companies that are charging me for those services can contribute a bit too, even if they don't benefit directly from last-mile upgrades since they already have T-3 lines.

Worry not, though. Even if net neutrality passes, the ISPs will find a way to get their piece, and charging for increased levels of service may not be the worst alternative...

The issue is a bit more complex than the evil corporations want to screw us, you know?

It's about profit pure and simple. The ISPs aren't going out of business because of bandwidth issues. For example, AOL oversubscribed all the time.

Why should companies pay for bad management of the ISP?

Secession doesn't work. Ultimately, it fails to achieve the change you're talking about.
Worked quite well when the US broke away from Britain, didn't it? It's working in Europe too. And anyway, how can you make such an absolute judgement? You're not omniscient.

Case in point. See previous independence movements. Every single one of them eventually became what they fought against. That of control by the minority over the majority. See my thread "Democracy, an Ideal doomed to failure?" for an argument why that form of governance doesn't really give any sort of decision making power to the masses.
Yes, I saw it. I'm not a fan of democracy either, and have criticised it many times. I simply do not think people are so stupid as to not be able to exist in a market anarchist society. Where do you stand politically then?

Degregulation will not work here. The problem is the delivery mechonism. Guess who owns a chunk of the fiber and wire in the country. ATT.
Until the questions Leonstein posed are answered, I am withholding further judgement. In principle I am always for maximal deregulation - but for this to happen, government must first clean up its own mess.

Worked quite well when the US broke away from Britain, didn't it? It's working in Europe too. And anyway, how can you make such an absolute judgement? You're not omniscient.

What was the purpose of the original independence movement? Freedom from tyranny, the right to self rule, no taxes, freedom to have their own religion, that sort of thing. Look at what's happening. I said democracy is an ideal doomed to failure and here we are, seeing it unfold right before our eyes.

As for such an absolute judgment, I can make it because humans by their very nature, are imperfect, (although one can argue that perfection as an abstract idea is impossible to achieve), and by being imperfect, will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

Despite some differences, human societies all center around core standards to which deviancy must either fall within a specified area or be ostracized. True equality does not exist. And because it does not exist, there will be those who seek to sway the society to wherever they want to steer it. Even if it did exist, it would be undermined by those who wanted more than equality.

And eventually, many of that society would give up their equality. Why? Three reasons. Groupthink, emotive decision making and song and dance routines (advertising/persuading). Those with sufficient critical thinking not to be suckered in would be too small a minority to make any real changes. And as a result of being a minority with opposing viewpoints, they become ostracized.

Until humans make a fundamental shift in society or their way of thinking, that will just keep on going on and on and on.


Yes, I saw it. I'm not a fan of democracy either, and have criticised it many times. I simply do not think people are so stupid as to not be able to exist in a market anarchist society. Where do you stand politically then?


A market anarchist society cannot exist. The fundamental underpinnings of human behavior and society would make any such experiment stillborn. Even with an utterly clean slate in a closed environment (an island with a bunch of babies raised by robots) there would be those who seek to have greater control over one particular resource or society, or both. It's a natural instinct to get to the top of the heap that in some, will make them dictators or what have you.

Observe for example, real world anarchy. In such situations, there often arises gangs, tribes, boy scout groups, whatever. The thing is, these groups will enforce their own law over whatever territory they control and have little reason not to be particularly heavy handed, or unjust to the inhabitants of their territory. The only benchmark of mistreatment for a popular uprising would be if it was several magnitudes worse than treatment by neighboring gangs.

Now translate that to corporate market practices. What that means is that consumers will stay, even though they know their being shafted, if there is no seemingly better alternative. And since in market anarchy's, the power of corporations are not limited, any better alternative simply wouldn't last long enough to make a dent.

Now for regulation vs deregulation.

Your argument against regulation is that it causes stagnation.

However, the argument for regulation is that companies have little interest to regulate themselves (Enron, Bhopal, Shell ((see fire incidents at Shell refineries)) etc). If the choice is between maximizing profits and self regulation, the decision would be for the former. Governments are argued for regulation simply because they aren't supposed to benefit from it.

After all, if you were in a dispute with a company, you wouldn't want the judge to be said company's CEO now would you?

Lastly, where I stand politically. Exactly where I am now. Labels of political leanings are generally meaningless when you hold my viewpoints

Until humans make a fundamental shift in society or their way of thinking, that will just keep on going on and on and on.
Leaving aside that the abovementioned are all assumptions and may be proven false, I would take it that the logical consequence of what you say is that tyrannical social structures are inevitable.

A market anarchist society cannot exist.
I disagree.

The fundamental underpinnings of human behavior and society would make any such experiment stillborn. Even with an utterly clean slate in a closed environment (an island with a bunch of babies raised by robots) there would be those who seek to have greater control over one particular resource or society, or both. It's a natural instinct to get to the top of the heap that in some, will make them dictators or what have you.

If this is the result, then so be it.

Now translate that to corporate market practices. What that means is that consumers will stay, even though they know their being shafted, if there is no seemingly better alternative. And since in market anarchy's, the power of corporations are not limited, any better alternative simply wouldn't last long enough to make a dent.
They are actually more limited than under a State. Why? Because they can use the State apparatus to their advantage. Some corporations can profit at the expense of others. In a market anarchy, there would be no such aid, and no reason to assume that firms would be anywhere as near as large as today's. They are completely reliant on their profits, and subject to vicious competition (inefficient corporations - even monopolies - do poorly on capital markets, and thus attract hostile takeovers and such). You keep on saying in some cases the consumers would have no choice; now, leaving economics and practicalities aside, let's assume this were true. Do they have much choice with a government either? Or is it simply one pressure group warring with another to see who will have more clout with the state monopoly?

However, the argument for regulation is that companies have little interest to regulate themselves (Enron, Bhopal, Shell ((see fire incidents at Shell refineries)) etc). If the choice is between maximizing profits and self regulation, the decision would be for the former. Governments are argued for regulation simply because they aren't supposed to benefit from it.
Except we know that this is untrue. If we are to assume individuals behind corporations are self-interested, we will assume the same for government officials. They simply side with whichever faction secures them an advantage.


After all, if you were in a dispute with a company, you wouldn't want the judge to be said company's CEO now would you?
Erm, as if that isn't possible now (judges can be bought)? I am hardly convinced that justice as a concept can exist, because it is always humans who do the judging, and someone will always have them in their pocket. I'd prefer competing courts though to a monopoly system.

Lastly, where I stand politically. Exactly where I am now. Labels of political leanings are generally meaningless when you hold my viewpoints
That is why I am asking you to expound your ideas. I can surmise you believe both freedom and equality are impossible as concepts with humans as they are.

The thing about a government however is that it can be over-thrown. I haven't heard of any rebellion over-throwing corporations recently (ever). Governments, for all their self interest, must be liable to the population (even in dictatorships we see this is true, vis-a-vis coups, assassinations, insurgencies etc.)

Corporations on the other hand, in the absence of government regulation, are liable only to the bottom line, they have no responsibility to anything but their cash flow.
Now I'm pretty libertarian elsewhere and favor reductions in many of the regulations now placed on the market place, but we still need government controls in some areas (such as net-neutrality) in order to ensure that corporations retain some liability to the customer.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
-Adam Smith, never truer words were spoken.

The thing about a government however is that it can be over-thrown. I haven't heard of any rebellion over-throwing corporations recently (ever). Governments, for all their self interest, must be liable to the population (even in dictatorships we see this is true, vis-a-vis coups, assassinations, insurgencies etc.)
More appositely, liable to the ruling pressure groups. By the way, when has a corporation ever established rule by force (without the State aiding it)? Never? Perhaps that is why you haven't heard of such a concept then. Even the corporate charter is State-granted.

Corporations on the other hand, in the absence of government regulation, are liable only to the bottom line, they have no responsibility to anything but their cash flow.
Which will always be threatened by disgruntled consumers and ruthless competitors. Capital markets, as I stated, are one area in which no firm is immune to predators. Even an all-powerful monopoly can be crushed by another firm by way of takeover bids and such. If one firm pisses off its consumers, and thereby becomes inefficient, another will seize the opportunity to take it over. Firms with low profit time-preferences are ultimately outstripped by ones with high time-preference.

To what extent, now, is the US government this afraid of its citizens or its rival states?

Which will always be threatened by disgruntled consumers and ruthless competitors. Capital markets, as I stated, are one area in which no firm is immune to predators. Even an all-powerful monopoly can be crushed by another firm by way of takeover bids and such. If one firm pisses off its consumers, and thereby becomes inefficient, another will seize the opportunity to take it over. Firms with low profit time-preferences are ultimately outstripped by ones with high time-preference.


Nah. Hostile takovers are much harder these days because of poison pills.

Anyway, the whole corporate form is a government regulated fiction. I would hope that market anarchy would eliminate it.

Leaving aside that the abovementioned are all assumptions and may be proven false, I would take it that the logical consequence of what you say is that tyrannical social structures are inevitable.
I can’t speak for him, but this is correct and I agree.

Nah. Hostile takovers are much harder these days because of poison pills.
Care to explain?

Anyway, the whole corporate form is a government regulated fiction. I would hope that market anarchy would eliminate it.
So would I. Even if it didn't though, I'd prefer the resultant private law society over anything we have today.

Corporations daily establish rule by force. Check the telecom industry, before it was forced into submission by the Government, Ma Bell owned, out right fraking OWNED practically every telephone wire in the country, if you wanted to make a call AT&T had to approve on some level or it just wouldn't go through.
Now-a-days the same thing is happening with internet service providers, while not nearly on the same scale, there are only two broadband suppliers per community, one for Cable and one for DSL, and if you really need the extra mb/s of cable then you have only one company to talk to. If you get shoddy service, or are getting price gouged then you can't turn to another company to provide the same service, you have to go to the government for regulation.

And you ask to what extent is the U.S. government as afraid of its competitors? Well enough afraid that they maintain the worlds strongest naval capabilities, Afraid enough to have built untold mega-tons of nuclear weapons. Afraid enough that it is now unconstitutional to secede from the union.

Corporations daily establish rule by force.
What you described is not ownership by force. It purchased or created the utilities (unless I have misunderstood). Did the government provide it any special privileges, such as de jure monopoly power? Did it sell it the utilities? Also, prove that by going to the government for regulation that another company wasn't prevented from ousting the dominant corporation.

And you ask to what extent is the U.S. government as afraid of its competitors? Well enough afraid that they maintain the worlds strongest naval capabilities, Afraid enough to have built untold mega-tons of nuclear weapons. Afraid enough that it is now unconstitutional to secede from the union.
These are offensive capabilities for the most part. The US does a lot of intervening around the world. It has many enemies. That is its own fault. Assume that it didn't do so though. Whom would it have to fear to the extent a corporation fears hostile corporations and angry consumers?

Care to explain?


You know, provisions that allow the company to issue ten times the amount of current stock to holders other than the entity acquiring the stock at next to nothing prices once the acquiring entities stake has reached a certain level. Thus diluting the voting value of the aquirers stake to virtually nothing.

Or provisions that allow a huge number of convertible bonds to be issued as a dividend under the same conditions.

Of course the board of directors has to put this into play, so it doesn't always protect the average holder. (Like who votes or goes to meetings?). But the days of LBO piracy are long over.

You know, provisions that allow the company to issue ten times the amount of current stock to holders other than the entity acquiring the stock at next to nothing prices once the acquiring entities stake has reached a certain level. Thus diluting the voting value of the aquirers stake to virtually nothing.
How exactly was this brought about? In Europe corporations are still pretty wary of the stock market, given how competitive it is.

So would I. Even if it didn't though, I'd prefer the resultant private law society over anything we have today.

IMO, the current system has too much liability insulation for those who control a company (directors and executives) from those who own it. Also, I would like to see some modification of the way limited liability operates for those who both own and control. Passive uninvolved owners should still recieve liability protection however.


I like the distributed ownership model however. I would keep that.

How exactly was this brought about? In Europe corporations are still pretty wary of the stock market, given how competitive it is.

(This is funny, because I hold a bit of stock in europe and I assumed it was the same there. LOL. (It's really a currency hedge so I'm not that bothered)).

US corporations are chartered under state law. My understanding is that in the 1980s owing to the explosion in the junk bond market it became profitable to engage in LBO of pretty much anything on the pretext of breaking it up and making it more efficient because so much money could be made from underwriting the bonds that funded the LBO in the first place. Whether or not the actual aquisition and restructuring made sense came to have little to do with why a corporation would face a hostile takeover. (Then interest rates went up, and the party ended, but that's a different story I think).

Basically in reaction to a lot of botched breakups, the resultant job losses and economic dislocations, many states - including delaware where most US companies incorporate - changed their laws to allow corporate charters to provide for poison pills to prevent ill concieved hostile takovers.

You can argue either way if it was a good thing or a bad thing. P

(This is funny, because I hold a bit of stock in europe and I assumed it was the same there. LOL. (It's really a currency hedge so I'm not that bothered)).
I am assuming something akin to this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456272,00.html) occured.

Basically in reaction to a lot of botched breakups, the resultant job losses and economic dislocations, many states - including delaware where most US companies incorporate - changed their laws to allow corporate charters to provide for poison pills to prevent ill concieved hostile takovers.

You can argue either way if it was a good thing or a bad thing. P
Perhaps it was an indication that the firm's governance model was not working? The link I provided above would indicate to me that private shareholding is going to make a return. Why? Wide share distribution allows for low time-preference profit-orientation to take place. On the other hand, if a firm enjoys closed shareholding, usually such as family firms do, it will have a high time-preference profit-orientation. Two types of individual have a long-term interest in the firm's survival: its proprietors and its employees. Hopefully, future firm models will reflect this. Cushioning them from making this necessary change might be a negative.

Leaving aside that the abovementioned are all assumptions and may be proven false, I would take it that the logical consequence of what you say is that tyrannical social structures are inevitable.

Yes, inevitable. Unless there is that fundamental change that I mentioned. Something that relegates value systems entirely moot.


I disagree.


That's your choice. I still say it's impossible.



They are actually more limited than under a State. Why? Because they can use the State apparatus to their advantage. Some corporations can profit at the expense of others.

This does not really help your point. Yes, perversion of state law for the profit of the corporation is as old as the concept of a bribe. But at the same time, remove governmental regulation, and what happens? What is to keep corporations from establishing their own laws? Specifically for their benefit.


In a market anarchy, there would be no such aid, and no reason to assume that firms would be anywhere as near as large as today's.

I counter this with the argument that in a pure market anarchy, firms would be even larger. In fact, firms could possibly BE the government. It's a fact that corporations with their immense resources have significant influential ties to the government. Remove the government factor, and those resources, now free from the remaining regulatory practices, could be put to use to create and enforce their own law.

In an anarchy, power structures form around leaders who eventually create their own laws which are enforced by might of arms. In a market anarchy, it would be the same story. Different people, maybe different weapons, same result.


They are completely reliant on their profits, and subject to vicious competition (inefficient corporations - even monopolies - do poorly on capital markets, and thus attract hostile takeovers and such).

Observe Afghanistan, a prime example of anarchy. The various warlords are completely reliant on their support base, typically their soldiers and weapons, and subject to vicious competition by rival warlords. However, this does not stop them from oppressing their subjects.

Likewise, I do not see your proposed market anarchy being of any benefit, rather, the opposite, for the consumer.


You keep on saying in some cases the consumers would have no choice; now, leaving economics and practicalities aside, let's assume this were true. Do they have much choice with a government either? Or is it simply one pressure group warring with another to see who will have more clout with the state monopoly?

With the government, the issue is not choice. The issue, at least openly, is to keep the consumer from being screwed over.


Except we know that this is untrue. If we are to assume individuals behind corporations are self-interested, we will assume the same for government officials. They simply side with whichever faction secures them an advantage.


Of course. But a leaky boat is usually better than no boat. At least with government regulations, you are provided with some means of redress.


Erm, as if that isn't possible now (judges can be bought)? I am hardly convinced that justice as a concept can exist, because it is always humans who do the judging, and someone will always have them in their pocket. I'd prefer competing courts though to a monopoly system.


Your statement does not make any logical sense. A monopoly indicates that there is no competition, or so insignificant as makes no difference, and yet competing courts?


That is why I am asking you to expound your ideas. I can surmise you believe both freedom and equality are impossible as concepts with humans as they are.

Ideas on what exactly? As to freedom and equality as impossible concepts, yes, they are impossible. Both as it is understood and due to human nature.

Consider this. What is freedom to you? Freedom to choose? Freedom to do what you want? Freedom from consequence?

To many, freedom is self determination, in that you can make your own decisions. Religion, speech, political party affiliations, this all falls under that. But the thing is, merely by existing within society, you lose these freedoms. If your decisions are different from societal norms, you are pressured to change or become an outcast. If you maintain your choice, you face discrimination and possible obstruction.

This in itself lends credence to the postulation that freedom and society simply cannot co exist. Mind you, this is not merely a human conceit. Observe pack animals, socially similar to humans. Wolves, monkeys, dogs, lions, all them have rules within their particular pack/troupe/pride/etc from mating rights to who gets first dibs on dinner. Those who break the rules are chastised or driven out.

Humans are animals as well, and like the social animals we are, we tend towards order so that our particular society may continue. Order that of course, seeks to minimize freedom.

Now onto equality. Equality in what sense? Material possessions? Opportunity? Again, many believe in the latter. But that does not work out now does it? People aren't born equal. We're not machines in an assembly line. Some will have defects. Some will have greater capacity for some aspect of life. Some won't. Some are born in rich families, some won't. Everyone is unique in some aspect or another.

How can there be equality when there are differences? And as a consequence of there being differences, some will seek to redress the balance. Others will merely wish to push it further to their benefit. The latter usually win. Why? Because those are usually the ones that adapt better to their environment. It is easier to tilt a balance than to balance it.

To be truly free, all must live alone.

To be truly equal, all must not be unique.

Neither are achievable.

Name em.
Canada.

I am assuming something akin to this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456272,00.html) occured.

It's similar, except the 80s mania in the US was financed through junk paper instead of private equity.

Perhaps it was an indication that the firm's governance model was not working? The link I provided above would indicate to me that private shareholding is going to make a return. Why? Wide share distribution allows for low time-preference profit-orientation to take place. On the other hand, if a firm enjoys closed shareholding, usually such as family firms do, it will have a high time-preference profit-orientation. Two types of individual have a long-term interest in the firm's survival: its proprietors and its employees. Hopefully, future firm models will reflect this. Cushioning them from making this necessary change might be a negative.

If I understand you, it was more than just a poor governance model. Initially, when junk bond financing of LBOs started it made a lot of sense. A small firm could raise a lot of capital at a high premium with junk paper and use that to acquire larger firms which had a great deal of underlying potential but misallocated assets and poor management. The acquiring firm could then restructure its purchase and realize huge gains, this of course would convert the junk paper to high quality bonds and everyone was happy: The buyers of the junk bonds, because they were getting a fantastic return on a solid bond they could now resell for a lot more money than they paid, the underwriters who got their cut, and the shareholders who saw the value of their stock rise. (Well, I guess the people who lost thier jobs weren't happy).

After a while however, junk bonds became extremely popular, and the people who structured these deals realized a lot of the new money entering the junk market was not terribly sophisticated. This allowed them to put together LBOs that didn't make any sense whatsoever. Of course they didn't care because their money came from structuring the transaction (and great pots of money it was too). Basically you ended up with idiot small investors buying loads of junk - that would ultimately become distressed and default - and the proceeds were used to purchase companies at far too high a price just for the sake of it .

So it became not just a question of having an improper governance model, but rather companies saddled with so much debt* they ultimately would be bankrupted, or at least shitted up to the max. In that situation no-one was happy. Not the shareholders, who saw their stock collapse in price, and not the bond holders who ended up with pennies on the dollar, and not the people who lost their jobs. (Well, I guess the people who put the deals together were happy). And it got so bad there was dodgy accounting and analysis to float the bonds in the first place.

In that sense, I think it is different to the private equity model. There at least you are dealing with sophisticated investors (or at least that's the idea, some of these hedge funds baffle me but that's another thread) who should enter the game with open eyes. And while they might expect unrealistic returns, the people running these deals at least experience downside risk, which does instill at least some discipline about how these things are approached. In theory. (Absent the 2-3% annual management fee).

*Though at the time there was the usual assortment of clowns who tried to explain why, unlike all of history before, this normally negative attribute was now a good thing.

Okay, here's the deal:

1. Find out how many and what sort of ISPs there are.


I am happy you mentioned "sort" as there are many ISPs but they very and size and many could not handle the traffic of something like Google.

You want an ISP that has an International capability so that reduces the number quick.

Not really an exact answer.

2. Find out how they make their contracts, what their terms are.

They very and they are pretty standard(speaking in the US). When you get international that changes quick. But you give great consideration for an ISP that has stuff in place.

3. Once you have some idea of the market, figure out how easy it is for a company like Amazon to switch providers.

For a company like mine, switching providers takes about three weeks. It's nothing as its basically changing the address of the border routers, NAT etc.

The problem of somebody like Amazon, is the amount a traffic. Only the big ISPs can handle that work load.

Most likely an ISP would try everything they can to keep amazon simply because of the amount of money it generates.

4. Once you know that, you can figure out whether or not it is in fact extortion and these contracts are signed due to economic duress (which I presume is illegal in the States as well).


At the moment no it's not really. We have a few giant ISPs that can handle the work loads.

However, if they all (and they would) jump on the proposals that prompted Network Neutrality. Not much you can do.

5. Furthermore, you can do an econometric analysis of the market and see which way would ultimately be better for the target group in question (in this case, the voters).

Chances are all these things have been done already. Chances are these reports were written by a few economists and are sitting on the desks of the legislators. Chances are also that those legislators read the Executive Summary and left it at that, preferring to go with media coverage and public opinion.

Fact of the matter is that neither side in this argument is doing anything but pursuing their own self-interest. No side is morally better than the other one.


No doubt. When money is involved "morality" is not a factor.

My involvement in this is the misrepresentation that the Net is this limited consumable that people like Lew suggest it is.....

No matter which choice you make, you're going to be hurting people. Choose Net Neutrality, and you're telling ISPs what they can charge for stuff that they built and that they rightfully own.


Yes and no. Many of the ISPs don't own the wire in the ground. They don't own the Internic. In some areas you have limited choices of Net access. Att owns the cable company(speaking of cable modems) and they own the wire (speaking for DSL) so how are they loosing money?


Choose against it, and you're running the risk of too much monopoly power being used for economic duress, either hurting companies we want and whose services we enjoy (eg Amazon) or eventually hurting us.

So I for one am going to take a centrist line and say that without more evidence I'm neutral on net neutrality. You're either hurting A to help B, or hurting B to help A. That's all we know.

You already have monopoly's in aspects of networking. It doesn't make sense to have every ISP running their own wire. It doesn't make sense to mulitple Internics(top level domain registration. IE .com).

Network Neutrality might visit Australia depending on the outcome here.

This does not really help your point. Yes, perversion of state law for the profit of the corporation is as old as the concept of a bribe. But at the same time, remove governmental regulation, and what happens? What is to keep corporations from establishing their own laws? Specifically for their benefit.
Who would subscribe to a court skewered against them? If one court sees an opportunity to maximise profits by promising consumers "fair law", it would enjoy a massive advantage against its competitors (as I have outlined, profits are only maximised via price-discrimination in such an industry). Some courts will favour their richer clients, others will favour the bulk of their clientele (the lion's share of profits lie here), the fairest ones will favour neither (in which case profit is maximised) ; a balance will be reached between the courts. Also read below.


I counter this with the argument that in a pure market anarchy, firms would be even larger. In fact, firms could possibly BE the government. It's a fact that corporations with their immense resources have significant influential ties to the government. Remove the government factor, and those resources, now free from the remaining regulatory practices, could be put to use to create and enforce their own law.
Which is why some anarchocapitalists argue firms that have made their wealth via government aid (harking back to the feudal ages in some cases - this could include most natural monopolies, which are the type of firm you mention), and not in accordance to the homesteading principle, should not have their property fully recognised by the newly-formed private courts (which, if they gained much popular support, as well as the support of legitimate firms, would enjoy a huge profit base), much like would happen to state-owned property. The opponent firms could form their own courts, but no one would be forced to recognise them as legal (unlike with the State ; the new courts could argue that any court not applying the homesteading principle is illegitimate in an anarchocapitalist society). This would leave them highly vulnerable to individuals protected by other courts homesteading their property (perhaps in favour of instating firms based on joint-ownership models, which would thus favour consumers). They'd either have to strike a deal with the new courts and compromise, or risk losing (without tax-expropriated funds, this would be highly costly).

In an anarchy, power structures form around leaders who eventually create their own laws which are enforced by might of arms. In a market anarchy, it would be the same story. Different people, maybe different weapons, same result.
I take this as a general criticism against anarchism. It might be true, but testing is required to prove it.

Observe Afghanistan, a prime example of anarchy. The various warlords are completely reliant on their support base, typically their soldiers and weapons, and subject to vicious competition by rival warlords. However, this does not stop them from oppressing their subjects.
Anarchy =/= political anarchism.

Likewise, I do not see your proposed market anarchy being of any benefit, rather, the opposite, for the consumer.
I will disagree.

With the government, the issue is not choice. The issue, at least openly, is to keep the consumer from being screwed over.

Of course. But a leaky boat is usually better than no boat. At least with government regulations, you are provided with some means of redress.
From the situations it itself makes possible.


Your statement does not make any logical sense. A monopoly indicates that there is no competition, or so insignificant as makes no difference, and yet competing courts?
Read it properly.

To be truly free, all must live alone.

To be truly equal, all must not be unique.

Neither are achievable.
Yes, I've come to these conclusions myself. I am asking what form of societal organisation you prefer. It is patently obvious you see little hope in democracy, do not believe in any form of anarchism, given how you state they are untenable, and do not believe equality can be achieved, at any desirable cost anyway.

What you described is not ownership by force. It purchased or created the utilities (unless I have misunderstood). Did the government provide it any special privileges, such as de jure monopoly power? Did it sell it the utilities? Also, prove that by going to the government for regulation that another company wasn't prevented from ousting the dominant corporation.


These are offensive capabilities for the most part. The US does a lot of intervening around the world. It has many enemies. That is its own fault. Assume that it didn't do so though. Whom would it have to fear to the extent a corporation fears hostile corporations and angry consumers?

Bleh, power dying, quick post, more later.

defense against outside take-over? in the 60's military forces were used internally to enforce government will, has been done pretty frequently since the creation of U.S.

also, don't forget states can no longer constitutionally secede post Civil war.

even now protesters being relegated to 'free speech' zones etc.
If you live in a U.S. not afraid of being overthrown, then we live in different United States.

Who would subscribe to a court skewered against them? If one court sees an opportunity to maximise profits by promising consumers "fair law", it would enjoy a massive advantage against its competitors (as I have outlined, profits are only maximised via price-discrimination in such an industry). Some courts will favour their richer clients, others will favour the bulk of their clientele (the lion's share of profits lie here), the fairest ones will favour neither (in which case profit is maximised) ; a balance will be reached between the courts. Also read below.


This does not work. It essentially translates into justice of the rich. A government court is not supposed to be open to such perversions. In your idea, no unified justice system could ever work. Kangaroo courts everywhere.

You are essentially saying that just because you cannot get all the pests in the house, they should now have free reign. It would make things worse.


Which is why some anarchocapitalists argue firms that have made their wealth via government aid (harking back to the feudal ages in some cases - this could include most natural monopolies, which are the type of firm you mention), and not in accordance to the homesteading principle, should not have their property fully recognised by the newly-formed private courts

You have broken your own argument here. Courts that give judgment based on how much profit can be made off them would mean those with significant resource bases would be able to have their properties recognized simply by buying them off.


(which, if they gained much popular support, as well as the support of legitimate firms, would enjoy a huge profit base), much like would happen to state-owned property. The opponent firms could form their own courts, but no one would be forced to recognise them as legal (unlike with the State ; the new courts could argue that any court not applying the homesteading principle is illegitimate in an anarchocapitalist society). This would leave them highly vulnerable to individuals protected by other courts homesteading their property (perhaps in favour of instating firms based on joint-ownership models, which would thus favour consumers). They'd either have to strike a deal with the new courts and compromise, or risk losing (without tax-expropriated funds, this would be highly costly).

Law by how big your bank account is? And a corporate court arguing that others not within their context are illegal? That is too hypocritical even for the government to ignore. Besides, by giving corporate courts legality in any sense, you entirely throw out all semblance of adherence to law as a government concept.

The government writes, enforces and prosecutes the laws of the land. Corporate courts undermines that concept and replaces it with laws of the rich. Meaning if you're sufficiently rich, you right your own law.


I take this as a general criticism against anarchism. It might be true, but testing is required to prove it.


Sufficient examples exist throughout history to disprove the tenability of anarchy. Chaos tends to order and order tends to chaos. Neither last.


Anarchy =/= political anarchism.


Perhaps not in form, but in spirit, it does.


I will disagree.


You are free to.


From the situations it itself makes possible.


Only by the fact that it allows corporations to exist. Beyond that, the perversions of law and regulations are actions of the corporations and the corporations alone. Blame for that lies solely on them. To say otherwise is simply disingenuous.


Read it properly.


It still makes no logical sense.


Yes, I've come to these conclusions myself. I am asking what form of societal organisation you prefer. It is patently obvious you see little hope in democracy, do not believe in any form of anarchism, given how you state they are untenable, and do not believe equality can be achieved, at any desirable cost anyway.

What type of societal organization I prefer? As it stands, any could work, but would require a fundamental shift in human thinking.

As it is, I do not see any societal organization working according to the framework it starts with short of some sort of benevolent dictatorship administered by incorruptible AI systems, enforced by a robot army. Although ideally, it would control merely by making people do what they want to do and factoring in the more extreme elements.

Yes, I am very pessimistic about the human race. Why? Because they always fulfill my expectations. If they put a finger in something, no matter how perfect it is, they'll corrupt it.

This does not work. It essentially translates into justice of the rich. A government court is not supposed to be open to such perversions. In your idea, no unified justice system could ever work. Kangaroo courts everywhere.
Yet we seem to have no problem with multiple governments imposing their own laws. You cannot prove that it does not work because it has never been attempted (although pre-conquest Ireland had an analogous system). A unified system should only come about via bilateral agreements between courts, not via imposition.

You have broken your own argument here. Courts that give judgment based on how much profit can be made off them would mean those with significant resource bases would be able to have their properties recognized simply by buying them off.
And I have explained how price-discrimination works. It is not my fault if you do not know how firms profit-maximise. You also constantly seem to assume the rich have a common interest - they don't, they're in competition ; it's often a criticism of capitalism that the system is so ruthless, not the opposite. The new courts will have the bulk of the consumers and those rich whose property was legitimately acquired ; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by allowing their clients to homestead this illegitimate property.


Law by how big your bank account is? And a corporate court arguing that others not within their context are illegal? That is too hypocritical even for the government to ignore.
Actually, they do it anyway, with each other. One government denouncing another as illegal? How hypocritical. Later they may come to mutual understandings for practical reasons.

Besides, by giving corporate courts legality in any sense, you entirely throw out all semblance of adherence to law as a government concept.
Whoever said it wasn't one? State =/= government. Anarchism is primarily against the State (which is what the "archi" bit refers to), not the idea of law.


Sufficient examples exist throughout history to disprove the tenability of anarchy. Chaos tends to order and order tends to chaos. Neither last.

When history stops in motion, then I might agree with you.

Only by the fact that it allows corporations to exist. Beyond that, the perversions of law and regulations are actions of the corporations and the corporations alone. Blame for that lies solely on them. To say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Research the origin of many modern corporations. You'll see some of them extend back into the feudal ages - at least the money by which they were created. Guess who granted them their titles to (conquered) property and so on (hint: conquering warlords, who later became kings), and who has been favouring them ever since (when the nobility realised what a threat the upcoming bourgeoisie really posed to it, and it could not be beaten, it reinvented itself as the new industrialists of the "capitalist" class). Also, if government makes stupid regulations better that they are broken.

And it is not its role to tell firms whether or not they may exist, anymore than it is its role to tell me whether I may live or not.

It still makes no logical sense.
Then I question your powers of apprehension. I stated a preference to monopoly. Read it again.

Yes, I am very pessimistic about the human race. Why? Because they always fulfill my expectations. If they put a finger in something, no matter how perfect it is, they'll corrupt it.
If I were as pessimistic as you, I'd argue terminating the human race, not wasting more effort on it.

Canada.
Canadian Telecommunications Act. Section 27(1)(2).
I'm sure there are more sections supporting me as well, but you get the point.
Try again.


PS. Go jibber somewhere else, this is about Net Neutrality and what is related to it, not the technical aspects of a stupid political philosophy.

Yet we seem to have no problem with multiple governments imposing their own laws.

That is a flawed reasoning. Multiple governments have their own laws because they each administer their own territory. Corporate courts do not operate in their own territory, but rather, in the territory of the government, in which the administration of law should fall to.


You cannot prove that it does not work because it has never been attempted (although pre-conquest Ireland had an analogous system). A unified system should only come about via bilateral agreements between courts, not via imposition.

The closest example would be feudal lords and the imposition of their laws in their territory. We all know how well that worked out.


And I have explained how price-discrimination works. It is not my fault if you do not know how firms profit-maximise. You also constantly seem to assume the rich have a common interest - they don't, they're in competition ; it's often a criticism of capitalism that the system is so ruthless, not the opposite. The new courts will have the bulk of the consumers and those rich whose property was legitimately acquired ; they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by allowing their clients to homestead this illegitimate property.

I won't say the rich here, because that implies individuals. I will say corporations instead. Corporations have a common interest. And that is the bottom line. As for these new courts you speak off, who exactly runs them? Corporations? And the consumer is to go to them for judicial matters?

That is like expecting environmental studies done by oil cartels to be accurate and truthful.


Actually, they do it anyway, with each other. One government denouncing another as illegal? How hypocritical. Later they may come to mutual understandings for practical reasons.

The difference is that these courts would be operating within the territory of said government.

Again, the enforcement and arbitration of law falls within the jurisdiction of the government. By commercializing such an enterprise, it would completely undermine the powers of the government. In fact, they might as well auction off their constitution.

I do not see any government ever agreeing to the idea of corporate courts.


Whoever said it wasn't one? State =/= government. Anarchism is primarily against the State (which is what the "archi" bit refers to), not the idea of law.

Thereby, you argue against the ideas of government, and instead replace it with corporate governance. Which eventually evolves into government anyway.


When history stops in motion, then I might agree with you.


History repeats itself.


Research the origin of many modern corporations. You'll see some of them extend back into the feudal ages - at least the money by which they were created.

Guess who granted them their titles to (conquered) property and so on (hint: conquering warlords, who later became kings), and who has been favouring them ever since

The originators (in feudal AKA futile times no less) of corporations have no bearing on the judgment of their current behavior.


(when the nobility realised what a threat the upcoming bourgeoisie really posed to it, and it could not be beaten, it reinvented itself as the new industrialists of the "capitalist" class).

And your proof of this is?


Also, if government makes stupid regulations better that they are broken.

Instead, you argue for corporations making their own regulations and enforcing them. Since you argue that corporations lobby for these regulations to begin with, why would they not merely create and enforce their own if the government does not?


And it is not its role to tell firms whether or not they may exist, anymore than it is its role to tell me whether I may live or not.

And like the government you castigate for doing so, they do it anyway.



Then I question your powers of apprehension. I stated a preference to monopoly. Read it again.

I would question your judgment at choosing the right words though.

apprehension: fearful expectation or anticipation

comprehension:an ability to understand the meaning or importance of something

Your choice of words and desired meaning have parted ways. I suspect this was true earlier as well.


If I were as pessimistic as you, I'd argue terminating the human race, not wasting more effort on it.

Perhaps, but there is a conflict of interest here. Primarily being that of self preservation set against possible need. Perhaps the conditions I mentioned will come to pass. Perhaps some fundamental shift of human society will occur.

Or maybe a passing meteor will do the trick.

Make no mistake, if there is an opportunity to improve one's lot, no matter how much suffering it may cause others, someone will seize it.

It is the clever, cunning and ruthless that thrive in this world.

I won't say the rich here, because that implies individuals. I will say corporations instead. Corporations have a common interest. And that is the bottom line.
The "bottom line" of one corporation is usually achieved by competing heavily against another firm, so again no common interest exists.

As for these new courts you speak off, who exactly runs them? Corporations? And the consumer is to go to them for judicial matters?
Firms, most likely, although other forms of organisation are possible too. The corporation would no longer exist as an entity. And yes, the consumer would go to them, just as the taxpayer goes to the government ; specific firms would arise to handle security (or likely evolve from existing ones, such as insurance agencies). Consumers could also well set up joint-ownership firms to serve their needs.

That is like expecting environmental studies done by oil cartels to be accurate and truthful.
No, it isn't. Many firms would exist to provide law and order, competing with one another - cases may even involve two separate courts.

The difference is that these courts would be operating within the territory of said government.
Erm, no they wouldn't. No State exists, hence the term market anarchism.

Again, the enforcement and arbitration of law falls within the jurisdiction of the government. By commercializing such an enterprise, it would completely undermine the powers of the government. In fact, they might as well auction off their constitution.
That is the point.

I do not see any government ever agreeing to the idea of corporate courts.
Their problem.


And your proof of this is?

Read "Old Regime France" by Doyle (Oxford) for one the most representative examples of how the nobility reacted to the rise of the rising bourgeoisie.

Instead, you argue for corporations making their own regulations and enforcing them. Since you argue that corporations lobby for these regulations to begin with, why would they not merely create and enforce their own if the government does not?
How?

Your choice of words and desired meaning have parted ways. I suspect this was true earlier as well.
Show me where.

It is the clever, cunning and ruthless that thrive in this world.
I am well aware.

This net neutrality legislation is reassuring. Reassuring in that it demonstrates that the powers that be do still have some vague semblance of loyalty to freedom and equality over money and corporate pressure.

However, it is entirely ineffectual and redundant.

The internet is a decentralised network. AT&T simply cannot enforce universal priority access without first buying all of the telecom cable and net servers in the world. If they did, then people would ditch them and go to a provider which did not charge for priority access. As long as we have a freemarket and a decentralised internet, there will be no perversion of net neutrality.

Furthermore, the internet extends beyond USA. US legislation does not. Yet, the world has not collapsed in on itself. Again touching upon the decentralised nature of the internet, in relation to the global decentralised internet, it is purile for a company to even assume they can pinch it under control.

Just to reiterate. If any provider provides some kind of unfair access to the internet, then consumers (big and small) will leave them for a provider who is happy to take their money in return for unskewed access.

Remember, the providers can only control how you access the internet, not how it works. It is beyond them to set up an 'overnet'. All they can do is set up toll-gates on a salt lake. Nothing stops anyone from simply driving around them (Except perhaps a government enforced monopoly, which I doubt the pro-economy government is interested in).

I laugh at AT&T and their grand ambitions.

The "bottom line" of one corporation is usually achieved by competing heavily against another firm, so again no common interest exists.

And cartels are figments of my imagination I suppose?


Firms, most likely, although other forms of organisation are possible too. The corporation would no longer exist as an entity. And yes, the consumer would go to them, just as the taxpayer goes to the government ; specific firms would arise to handle security (or likely evolve from existing ones, such as insurance agencies). Consumers could also well set up joint-ownership firms to serve their needs.

All of this boils down again to just exactly how much resources one controls. Just like you do not expect your local grocer to compete against K-mart, ground level courts set up by consumers cannot hope to countermand corporate courts, which being set up by the corporations, would rule in the favor of their patrons.


No, it isn't. Many firms would exist to provide law and order, competing with one another - cases may even involve two separate courts.


Firms do NOT exist to provide law and order. Unless they're a security firm, but I don't think that's what you meant. They exist to provide a service or good, in exchange for money. There's no money to be made in dispensing rulings that another court could just as easily strike down.

As for two separate courts, what happens if they both issue contrary rulings mmm? Obviously, the one with more money will have a ruling in his/her favor.


Erm, no they wouldn't. No State exists, hence the term market anarchism.


Which requires the dissolution of the state first. A requirement you did not mention earlier. Besides, dissolution of the state has always led to violent anarchy(Somalia) or plain collapse (former USSR) and subsequent plummeting of currency values, which lead to massive spikes in prices.

Your proposed plan fails on the basis that some sort of utopia anarchy would arise. But it won't.


That is the point.


Which in turn leads to government by corporation. Why? Because corporations are the ones with sufficient resources and singularity of purpose to create all the branches necessary to. Why should they? Because order is better for profitability as opposed to anarchy.


Their problem.


No, it is also your problem. Any overt moves like that would be interpreted to be rebellion, and no rebellion movement I've ever seen has failed to draw an armed and violent response. And who do you think it going to suffer? The common citizen.


How?


By using their own private security force. There are after all, private security firms that are more accurately called private armies not just because of their manpower, but weaponry and training which include military assault vehicles.

Furthermore, giving carte blanche to corporations over a nation? Does Haliburton sound familiar to you? Imagine that, except that instead of government troops, they use their own. And rather than having to pay attention to the occasional scandal, they don't.


Show me where.


You said this.

"I'd prefer competing courts though to a monopoly system."

Monopoly, indicating one primary holder/provider. And yet, competing courts. A monopoly of what?


I am well aware.

And are you aware that the clever, cunning and ruthless rarely have the interests of the average person in their intentions.



Furthermore, the internet extends beyond USA. US legislation does not. Yet, the world has not collapsed in on itself. Again touching upon the decentralised nature of the internet, in relation to the global decentralised internet, it is purile for a company to even assume they can pinch it under control.

The network nodes that control the internet are located in the US I believe. Until a new set of nodes are constructed elsewhere, the US unfortunately has the keys to the Internet.

The internet is a decentralised network. AT&T simply cannot enforce universal priority access without first buying all of the telecom cable and net servers in the world. If they did, then people would ditch them and go to a provider which did not charge for priority access. As long as we have a freemarket and a decentralised internet, there will be no perversion of net neutrality.
That would work if the telecoms that have owned everything for years didn't know they were becoming old and decrepit. They are banding together to screw people over and take out new competition and threats.

Remember, the providers can only control how you access the internet, not how it works
How do you think it works?

I laugh at AT&T and their grand ambitions.
You think AT&T is the only one in on this? I laugh at your absurd presumptions.

The "bottom line" of one corporation is usually achieved by competing heavily against another firm, so again no common interest exists.

Competition does not serve the bottom line, it serves the citizenry (the Rabble, what have you) left alone, providers of the same services would tend to merge into cartels/monopolies in order to conserve the bottom line.


Firms, most likely, although other forms of organisation are possible too. The corporation would no longer exist as an entity. And yes, the consumer would go to them, just as the taxpayer goes to the government ; specific firms would arise to handle security (or likely evolve from existing ones, such as insurance agencies). Consumers could also well set up joint-ownership firms to serve their needs.


Why would the corporation no longer exist as an entity? what insanity are you babbling? also, in an anarchic state, what incentive does any one have to establish a court system? Those that are being wronged obviously don't have the power to stop those doing the wronging or they wouldn't need a court system, and since setting up a court is contrary to the interests of those doing the wrong they would stop it.
Adam Smith slaps you for a fool.


No, it isn't. Many firms would exist to provide law and order, competing with one another - cases may even involve two separate courts.

what? this doesn't even make sense, courts involving to separate courts?
At best I suppose two courts might compete over jurisdiction, but then wouldn't it be up to the consumer to choose which court to go to under your theory? to courts seeing one case simultaneously just makes no sense.


Erm, no they wouldn't. No State exists, hence the term market anarchism.

no courts exist if no state exists (as previously explained) What you're talking about is more of a government by corporations, a terrible idea if I ever heard one.


Their problem.


no, it's your problem, If the government exists, then it won't allow corporate courts, if it doesn't exist then no courts will exist
have you ever read 'The Wealth of Nations"
you should do so immediately before you think you have any idea what human nature is like and how it applies to economics.


Read "Old Regime France" by Doyle (Oxford) for one the most representative examples of how the nobility reacted to the rise of the rising bourgeoisie.

first off: 'rise of the rising bourgeoisie' what are you? the Association of American Redundancy Association of America?
and to your actual point: It did no such thing, some European nobles did find places in the capitalist system but for the most part they felt secure in their family fortunes and were left behind, there are people with a direct claim to the throne that live in attractive upper-middle class homes and work for a living because their ancestors never saw what hit them. If Doyle says different you either didn't understand his words or he didn't know what he was talking about.


How?


by self regulation duh! why do you think your TV will work with cable from Cox, Time Warner and who-ever else, because the government set a standard? Hell no, it's because the television manufacturers and cable providers got together and set a standard themselves, same thing that's going on now with HDTV. if a regulation is beneficial to the corporations, int he absence of government they will apply it without the customers approval.


I am well aware.


then why do act as if, in the absence of a governing body, those strong and cunning will continue to act in ways beneficial to the general populace? even governments barely contain them

And cartels are figments of my imagination I suppose?
Cartels are government-sponsored forms of collusion, such as OPEC. What you mean is collusion, which for the mere fact that firms do not trust each other tends not to work well.

All of this boils down again to just exactly how much resources one controls. Just like you do not expect your local grocer to compete against K-mart, ground level courts set up by consumers cannot hope to countermand corporate courts, which being set up by the corporations, would rule in the favor of their patrons.
Erm, no. The largest firms profit-maximise by targetting as many consumers as possible. Try again.

Firms do NOT exist to provide law and order. Unless they're a security firm, but I don't think that's what you meant. They exist to provide a service or good, in exchange for money. There's no money to be made in dispensing rulings that another court could just as easily strike down.
Law, order and security is a service. Read below too.

As for two separate courts, what happens if they both issue contrary rulings mmm? Obviously, the one with more money will have a ruling in his/her favor.
On what basis? A law court's reputation will depend on its ability to issue competent judgments. The two courts, if they cannot reach an agreement between each other, might head to a third court which they designate as their appeals court. Once two of the three courts reach an agreement, the result is binding.

Which requires the dissolution of the state first. A requirement you did not mention earlier. Besides, dissolution of the state has always led to violent anarchy(Somalia) or plain collapse (former USSR) and subsequent plummeting of currency values, which lead to massive spikes in prices.
Market anarchism implies no State. Do I really need to specify something so glaringly obvious?

Your proposed plan fails on the basis that some sort of utopia anarchy would arise. But it won't.
You're omniscient? Oh wait, you're not.

Which in turn leads to government by corporation. Why? Because corporations are the ones with sufficient resources and singularity of purpose to create all the branches necessary to. Why should they? Because order is better for profitability as opposed to anarchy.
The law & order firms would provide it, yes. So?

No, it is also your problem. Any overt moves like that would be interpreted to be rebellion, and no rebellion movement I've ever seen has failed to draw an armed and violent response. And who do you think it going to suffer? The common citizen.
Secession and tax-rebellion will work just as well.

By using their own private security force. There are after all, private security firms that are more accurately called private armies not just because of their manpower, but weaponry and training which include military assault vehicles.
And again, there will also exist other security firms to counter their influence. War is costly to firms, they cannot engage in it in the same way government can. They will have to reach agreements instead.

You said this.

"I'd prefer competing courts though to a monopoly system."

Monopoly, indicating one primary holder/provider. And yet, competing courts. A monopoly of what?
The government monopoly of law and order. Understood?

Competition does not serve the bottom line, it serves the citizenry (the Rabble, what have you) left alone, providers of the same services would tend to merge into cartels/monopolies in order to conserve the bottom line.
By dislocating competing firms, a firm stands to gain a greater market share. Hence they compete. Cartels cannot exist without the State, collusion tends to result in failure (firms are averse to giving away much information about how they work and do not cooperate well) and "monopolies" are only a problem if they face no competition (which they do, usually by way of firms entering from other markets or on the stock exchange - nevermind the fact that some inefficient monopolies are allowed to exist by way of government regulation achieving a peverse effect, and due to subsidies).

Why would the corporation no longer exist as an entity?
The corporation is a government-granted charter.

what insanity are you babbling? also, in an anarchic state, what incentive does any one have to establish a court system?
Law and order are more conducive to wealth-creation than chaos. That is what.

by self regulation duh! why do you think your TV will work with cable from Cox, Time Warner and who-ever else, because the government set a standard? Hell no, it's because the television manufacturers and cable providers got together and set a standard themselves, same thing that's going on now with HDTV. if a regulation is beneficial to the corporations, int he absence of government they will apply it without the customers approval.
...and? Voluntarily adopted industry standards are fine by me.

then why do act as if, in the absence of a governing body, those strong and cunning will continue to act in ways beneficial to the general populace? even governments barely contain them
Because it is profitable for them to do so.

For the rest, my replies to Non Aligned States will do. Do yourself a favour and do some courses in Economics, or at least some basic reading on it, before referring to Adam Smith. The discipline has evolved far since his death.

However, if they all (and they would) jump on the proposals that prompted Network Neutrality. Not much you can do.
Well, that's the question. There are two alternatives in this case: Either they all cooperate, or one goes for the short-term profit and charges less.

Of course, the former may well get into trouble with anti-trust authorities. Which would then have to go through their records and see whether they actually need to charge more.

Which raises the second question: The ISPs aren't going to think about charging more to huge bandwidth users for no reason. What if it really does cost more to keep a service like Amazon running? Who in their right mind would then come out and tell them that they can't charge more?

If it costs more to build a Porsche than it costs to build a Hyundai, could one justify forcing both to cost the same per kilogram of car, for example?

As I suggested, I have little to no idea about the market in question. But one should keep in mind that there is a chance that competition between the relevant ISPs will keep the prices in the same sort of range as they are now.

Of course, for most people these considerations never come up. They just hear that "corporations" want to control the internet and are automatically against it. And because of that, politicians are more likely to be in favour of net neutrality, even if the economic case for it may actually be weak to non-existent.

Yes and no. Many of the ISPs don't own the wire in the ground. They don't own the Internic.
But they own the service they provide, and that's the important thing.

The wire on the ground is a second thing alltogether. Both in Germany and in Australia there's big problems with that because they have privatised previously public monopoly telecom companies.

Those now private firms still own the actual wires in the ground though, but now have to be forced by law to allow their competitors to use their networks. It's a ridiculous outcome, and in some ways sorta similar to this.

Network Neutrality might visit Australia depending on the outcome here.
I doubt it. They need to sort that whole "who owns the cables" mess out first, followed by "why should the now privatised telecom company have to pay for phone and internet connections into the Outback which will lose them money".

Add the government meddling in there, and you find out that Australia actually has a ridiculously slow network compared to the rest of the developed world, to the point where economists are asking questions about future competitiveness (questions amounting to hundreds of billions of GDP).

Cartels are government-sponsored forms of collusion, such as OPEC. What you mean is collusion, which for the mere fact that firms do not trust each other tends not to work well.

Mmhmmm, and Intel, Microsoft, Dell and a whole host of other computer component manufacturing (MS does the software tie in) firms don't work together to maximize control and profit? Monopolies occur when barriers to entry are high (resource requirements) and one of the existing corporations is smart enough to co-opt a few others.

Not everything is the government's fault.

And besides, OPEC is not a corporation, but a cartel of countries. Straw man. Try again.


Erm, no. The largest firms profit-maximise by targetting as many consumers as possible. Try again.

Let me put it this way. A corporate run court would have no interest in giving rulings that would in any way, do harm to it's patron.

Besides, as Mondoth pointed out, those who are wronged often have no way of stopping the ones doing the wrong. Government run courts are supposed to redress that. Without the government, no corporation would see a point to having a court to settle disputes. Rather, it would be much more profitable simply to appoint an overseer who would arbitrarily judge things with the might of the corporation backing him up.

A court system run by corporations would have as much point as a screening of American Idol. It keeps the masses pacified, but serves no real point.


Law, order and security is a service. Read below too.


Security is a service yes. Law and order however, are government roles. Have you heard of the term "protection racket"? It's where if you don't pay Jim Bob $500 a month, his gorilla friends 'redecorate' your premises, and if they're feeling nasty, you.

I see no reason why any, in fact, all corporations wouldn't resort to such practices if they were in the business of providing security without having to worry about government interference.

So if you cannot afford to pay for these services, you're screwed. Either the providers terrorize you into paying, or they leave you to the criminal element.


On what basis? A law court's reputation will depend on its ability to issue competent judgments. The two courts, if they cannot reach an agreement between each other, might head to a third court which they designate as their appeals court. Once two of the three courts reach an agreement, the result is binding.

Which is ludicrous as a concept. Courts work simply because they do not compete against one another. If two courts were in dispute, what on earth makes you think they'd accept some third party when they know that there's a 50/50 (I'm being generous) chance that the ruling would not fall out in their favor? All they'd do is declare "Your court is not acceptable to us" and things would go nowhere.

Furthermore, you seem to think that corporations would provide courts as an arbitration service. Why would they? They have no need to, and it certainly won't be anything more than a waste of money. With no courts, they would no longer need lawyers, and certainly without any government to enforce a law, no court could make them do anything they didn't want to.


Market anarchism implies no State. Do I really need to specify something so glaringly obvious?

And you seem to be missing a very important thing. Without the state, you wouldn't have roads, street lights and other assorted government amenities that are tax supported. Why? Take street lights for example. Who would you charge for it? How much can you charge for it? How do you determine who's a free rider and who isn't? You can't.

Or how about fire services? Your house on fire? Well, that'd be $200 for a fire truck and its crew. Can't pay? Well, too bad.

Not much of an utopia is it?


You're omniscient? Oh wait, you're not.


Of course I'm not omniscient. Your idea might work if it weren't humans trying it. But humans will, and I've made a point of studying them for a great deal of time. Enough to know that in your utopia, corporate dictatorships will arise merely by the fact that if the government were to vanish, they'd have the most power to replace it.

You have a charming, if naive, hope that somehow, things will work out.


The law & order firms would provide it, yes. So?


There wouldn't be any law and order firms. More profitable to do away with law entirely and legal costs. Easier, and certainly more profitable, to be a dictatorship. Can you imagine it? An entire country of sweatshop workers.


Secession and tax-rebellion will work just as well.


Secession AKA rebellion, has always resulted in an armed suppression response. Tax rebellion puts you in jail and your possessions confiscated.


And again, there will also exist other security firms to counter their influence. War is costly to firms, they cannot engage in it in the same way government can. They will have to reach agreements instead.

I laugh at your naivety. Some corporations are actually richer than most nations. And though they can certainly wage war in the same way governments can, it'd be much cheaper not to. Because governments usually must restrict their military actions according to whatever treaties they signed. Corporations don't have to.

Furthermore, if these other corporations with security firms of comparative power realize the drawbacks of fighting one another, they will simply collude and divide the territory amongst themselves. Far more profitable than actively fighting it out. Less resources spent fighting against each other.

In essence, corporations would become the new nations. So your anarchy fails.

Again.


The government monopoly of law and order. Understood?


Then your sentence wording was misleading.

"I'd prefer competing courts though to a monopoly system."

This should have a comma between 'though' and 'to' to indicate a pause and contrast because otherwise it corrupts the logical flow of the sentence.

In fact, the sentence would be better reconstructed as:

"I'd prefer competing courts compared to a monopoly system"

By dislocating competing firms, a firm stands to gain a greater market share. Hence they compete. Cartels cannot exist without the State, collusion tends to result in failure (firms are averse to giving away much information about how they work and do not cooperate well) and "monopolies" are only a problem if they face no competition (which they do, usually by way of firms entering from other markets or on the stock exchange - nevermind the fact that some inefficient monopolies are allowed to exist by way of government regulation achieving a peverse effect, and due to subsidies).

Right/ So, let's see what happened the last time the government butted out of an industry and take a look at Airline De-regulation. Almost Immediately, DC-10's literally started falling out of the sky (for back-ground, despite this the DC-10 is still one of the most reliable aircraft ever built, second only to the Ford Tri-Motors of yore) and nine carriers collapsed leaving the 'Big Six' holding a oligopoly yet to be broken in thirty years.
In aircraft manufacturing, Market Anarchism would burn Airbus to the ground leaving Boeing to dominate an industry that has traditionally responded poorly to monopoly, and not poorly in that they lose money, but poorly in that people get killed by cheaply built planes.
In your Market Anarchy, we also have the resurgence of Ma-Bell, a Telecoms monopoly/cartel that only doesn't exist now because of government anti-trust legislation. The last time AT&T was the big boy on the block we the people got charged arms, legs and vital organs for what has become a service as vital as air. And if you think the customer's outrage would be enough to de-monopolize either market then I have to warn you not to under-estimate consumer apathy, a force so powerful it that it floats the entire diamond industry, From inflated value to conflict diamonds no one is supposed to buy but every-one does anyway, only the very ignorant are un-aware that diamonds are little more than pretty rocks, many of which were fought over by starving africans even thugh they wouldn't see one penny of the market price even if the diamond didn't spend eternity locked in a vault to maintain market value.
Or the Oil Industry, nobody doubts that oil use pollutes, hell many have big rows about how the oil industry should be taken down several notches, but when it comes time to money where there mouth is, everybody is content to pay ever increasing gas prices for a product they are loathe to use. And don't blame it on the technology, there are enough kids building all electric cars in their garage, or converting their diesels to run on used kitchen grease etc. that the only explanation is that the consumer doesn't care enough to call the Oil industry on their pay-affs to car manufacturers.

which brings us to another industry that gets the boot in your market anarchy, name auto-manufacturers, just like Air-bus, the Invisible hand has spoken and the American auto-industry got bitch-slapped, but it continues to float on government subsidy. Kill those subsidies and all of a sudden you have millions un-employed and a collapse of the steel market along with many other industries supporting the American autos. And those lost Jobs won't go to European car manufacturers that are content to keep their jobs in Europe. Even japanese car makers who are stumbling over themselves to export jobs to America couldn't do so fast enough to pick up the slack.



The corporation is a government-granted charter.

So it would cease to exist as a legal entity, but the corporation would still exist.


Law and order are more conducive to wealth-creation than chaos. That is what.


Oh that's true enough, but even more conducive to wealth creation is the corporate state with no true freedom, only buy what the corporation tell you to buy and be content with your corporate issue life.


Because it is profitable for them to do so.

hardly.


For the rest, my replies to Non Aligned States will do. Do yourself a favour and do some courses in Economics, or at least some basic reading on it, before referring to Adam Smith. The discipline has evolved far since his death.

Sure has, all kinds of new ways and means have been invented to bring economies more in line with a Smithian free-market economy, just take a look at the G-8! Meanwhile, the invisible hand still forces Europe to spend billions supporting Airbus and America to spend an equal amount supporting its Auto-Industry, and the economies of self-interest have been busy dismantling the Soviet Union and wreaking huge socio-economic change in China to may but a few of his ideas still at play in modern economic thought.