Slashdot Mirror

Recently three French economists produced a study comparing 12 European countries, some with fixed price laws and some without, and concluded, "Over the past decade, the growth rate of book prices is weaker in countries with fixed prices than in countries with free prices" and "the increase of new titles is stronger in the countries which have a fixed price."

For those with interest, the bill is here:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129

There's good analysis and info here: http://www.muninetworks.org/taxonomy/term/564
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/natural-monopoly-north-carolina-need-community-networks-and-competition
http://www.newrules.org/information/news/bill-limit-community-broadband-north-carolina-will-kill-jobs
http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/08/broken-promises-rep-marilyn-avila-r-time-warner-says-one-thing-in-public-another-in-private/

Basically, it's a bill written by Time Warner with the goal of killing municipal broadband and the competition and increased service it brings.
They want to morgage our future competitiveness for a few thousand in campaign contributions, and I'm mad as hell about it.

I think this is the 3rd time a similar bill has come up, and it's more likely to pass with the greater Republican presence this go-around..

Anecdotes are great and all, but we're supposed to be nerds. Here are some studies:

http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail#4

Interesting findings from these studies show that most retail purchases at a Walmart (85%) have corresponding losses from local business, within two years there is significant loss of local businesses in general when a Walmart opens, Tax revenues generally do not go up, Retail employee wages and benefits drop as the result of a Walmart opening. Walmarts funnel nearly twice as much of the money running through them out of the local economy (out of the state) as local retail businesses do. One study found that for every job created by a particular Walmart studied, the local community lost 1.4 jobs as local businesses closed. Counties with one or more Walmart have higher poverty rates and poverty rates that increase faster than other counties in the same state and/or area, over a 10 year period.

You can find a good few of the studies that have been done catalogued here. The tl;dr version is that Wal-Mart does not pay well or offer benefits, so its workers generally require public assistance to make up the shortfall. Very little of the money it makes stays local (most of it, of course, is being shipped right off to China), and it's often structured or "incentivized" by the city to pay very little tax. This results in a group of people who are long-term dependent on public assistance (both those who work at Wal-Mart and those who do not, since Wal-Marts tend to drastically reduce the number of decent jobs in an area), so it's a massive drain but only a small boost to the local economy.

I recall a story some time ago of how Wal-Marts actually had materials in some of their break rooms of how to apply for food stamps and the like. Admittedly, I can't find the cite for that, but it certainly illustrates the problem. People with a steady, full-time job shouldn't need food and medical aid.

Granted, it's not only Wal-Mart. A lot of these "minimum wage" type places are similar leeches. They're basically taking the money states and cities are putting into food and medical aid and pocketing it, since they're not paying a wage anyone could realistically live on.

Or form a neighborhood Internet co-op.

You mean let my local municipal government build a last mile connection to my house. This has been tried. The regulated profits of the regulated monopolies provide the incumbents with the ability to write off litigation costs -- regardless of the source of those litigation costs. Those of us who would prefer a municipal network are instead forced to pay the legal expenses which prevent municipal networks.

I always direct people to look at Burlington Vermont as a case study. http://www.newrules.org/info/bt.pdf (PDF) It explains about the long process Burlington went through to install fiber optic around the Queen City.

You can read the case study, or just go find out more.

The real problem with Internet connectivity in the US is the FCC.
Look around where you live. Do you see the possibility of 2 or even
10 or 100 Internet users with in 5 miles of where you use the Net.
If so then you have the potential of a free "last mile" network that
has the possibility to put you into contact with 100s of possible
Internet providers. If The FCC only did not give away our freedom
of speech to the highest bidder. The FCC needs to be told to give up
or reclaim spectrum for the public infrastructure.

Only then will manufactures make the radios for home use to
connect nodes with enough power to be practical. and only then
will Internet providers become plentiful enough to create the
competition required to beet the monopoly. This all dates back
to the days of Al Gore the "Destroyer of the Internet". Apple computer
of all people gave him the chance back in 1995 to get this started, but
he missed the boat. and we are stinking as a result.

The PETITION FOR RULEMAKING of the "NII BAND".

What we get.

More things the FCC has taken away from us.

1. millions of dollars were spent
2. some people are worried about longterm sustainability but things haven't been around long enough to draw any conclusions
3. random Mary Joe Citizen (someone who sells software out of their house and a student) doesn't like it

Local governments have taken the lead in U.S. broadband policy. Hundreds of communities of all sizes are making decisions about how to best deliver universal, affordable access to high-speed information networks. Many are offered seemingly attractive arrangements with no upfront cost to the city. They do themselves and their households and businesses a disservice if they do not seriously explore the costs and benefits of a publicly owned network.

1. High-speed information networks are essential public infrastructure.
2. Public ownership ensures competition.
3. Publicly owned networks can generate significant revenue.
4. Public ownership can ensure universal access.
5. Public ownership can ensure non-discriminatory networks.

Thanks to companies such as Comcast (for example), we're falling so far behind the rest of the world, this comes as no surprise to me.

It's interesting to see that Denmark and Sweden understand they need highspeed broadband to make things happen. Now they are seeing the benefits of this investment.

Here is one report talking about public ownership of fiber to the home. If our Government could only understand the concept of fiber to the home, we may be able to recapture the number 1 spot. It's like roads. Having public roads was the big thing in the 20th Century IMO that pushed us forward. I'm thinking fiber to the house should be our focus for the 21st.

"Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have."

Thank you! And in other news, see this...

Wal-Mart Says 30% Market Share Too Big

In a deliciously ironic turn of events, Wal-Mart has called on the British government to intervene in the growing market dominance of rival retailer Tesco.

In comments to the London Sunday Times, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott suggests that having more than 30 percent of the market in one category is too much. "As you get over 30% and higher I am sure there is a point where government is compelled to intervene," he said. "At some point the government has to look at it."

Tesco, which operates superstores similar to Wal-Mart's, is Britain's largest retailer. The company also has a substantial international presence and ranks as the world's sixth largest retail chain with $51 billion in revenue last year.

Scott's call for government intervention was prompted by figures released last week showing that Tesco now captures 31 percent of UK grocery sales, up from 28 percent last year. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's share of the British food market (through its Asda subsidiary) has fallen from 27 to 17 percent.

In the U.S., small business owners and community activists who favor vigorous enforcement of antitrust policies were delighted by Wal-Mart's move. However, the company has not yet said whether it plans to ask the federal government to intervene in its own growing market dominance.

Wal-Mart has about one-third of the U.S. market for numerous household staples, such as toothpaste, diapers, and shampoo. According to industry analysts at Retail Forward, Wal-Mart is on track to control 35 percent of the U.S. grocery market within the next few yeas.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_slug.php?slugi d=313

I was surprised that no one has brought up a source of motivation for internet control being taxation. If the UN gains substantial control over internet domain name assignments, this could be an opportunity to implement a global tax. Say the UN gets control over .net assignments-- the next time you renew your domain name, you may be paying a percentage to the UN as an effective global tax. For instance: http://www.newrules.org/retail/EUtax.html

Sure, here's a lot of links for you to read over :) .

Some links are by obviously biased parties (for example, NCGA is the National Corn Growers Association). Others are not. This is just a start, of course - I gathered these in about three minutes of searching. Again, if you can find a single "net negative" study done by anyone - university, corn-industry, government, environmental group, anyone really - that didn't have Pimental and his bad data involved, please let me know, because I've never found such a study.

If this is the post I remember, someone responded with good evidence of Hong Kong's prosperity, including the "lower classes", despite (because of?) the lack of the government setting the minimum wage.

Then I replied pointing out the failings of that argument.

Socialism is on the end with communism. The two words are really interchangable.

So Western Europe is communist? No, their countries have safety nets and support structures to help the people while overall allowing businesses to own the means of production. They're socialist and it's a big difference.

Now Canada's supply management systems are pretty far out there. But they've allowed chicken farmers to have stable prices and stay in business instead of being bought out by Tyson.

As long as "these people" making this determination are on the board of directors of that company. It is really no one else's business.

I'm going to make a leap here and guess you're one of those "personal liberty is paramount" kinda folks. Someone who thinks all people have the right to screw up things for future generations because the individual is more important than the group?

the people

No I agree with Madison that government exists to serve the voters it governs.

The tax exemption for remote businesses arises from two U.S. Supreme Court rulings (National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue of Illinois in 1967 and, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota in 1992), which concluded that states and cities cannot compel out-of-state companies to collect sales tax. To do so would amount to an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. Only those firms that have a physical presence, or nexus, within the state are required to collect sales taxes.

The Court, however, noted that Congress has the power to change this policy. It could enact legislation authorizing states to require remote businesses to collect and remit sales tax.

You are wrong. You can just 'pump the energy' back. There are common methods for this - single meter and dual meter. For the single meter if you supply more electricity that you use the meter runs backwards. The Utility will then purchase that energy at retail or wholesale depending on the rules which govern your Utility. In MN they are required to: Use the single meter system. Buy your generated electric at retail. AFAIK there are 33 states which have mandated use of the single meter system. More here and here.

• I handed the clerk money, she gave me the box, that's what called a sale. Now I own the box and contents, and can do whatever I want with them.

Anything? Really?

Hey, make a copy for me and 5000 of your other friends while you are at it!

Unfortunately, now that the DMCA is law, there's little distinction in Copyright law between making illegal copies and breaking in using activation keys.

That's why we needed to stop the DMCA before it became law.

Our hopes now lie in the DMCA being struck down as being too broad or ambiguous.

There's near zero chance that Congress would ever seriously review the DMCA as long as the Media Giants like the status quo.

This situation will become much worse if the current version of Campaign Finance Reform that just passed the US Congress becomes law. Under that law, we won't be able to get together and run issue ads against the DMCA around election time, but the Media Giants, through their news organizations, can run endless editorials and stilted "news" stories about how the DMCA is a good thing right up to and including on election day.

There's still a good chance that bans on issue ads wouldn't pass judicial review. See this page for a discussion of the issues. It seems that this ban would run against the 1976 Supreme Court Ruling Buckley vs. Valeo. There can be no ban on spending, only on individual contributions, which the "soft money" ban would effectively do.

In any case, I don't see much hope of getting the DMCA repealed. Even if we could try to drum up support, it would be an extreme uphill battle trying to get people to understand the issues, what's at stake and overcoming the powerful interests on the other side of the issue. There's some hope that it could be ruled unconstitutional. IANAL, but in my opinion, a bright spot is that recent ruling reported on /. where a judge ruled that put software sales back into the domain of "First Sale" like books regardless of whatever EULAs they might have you clicking through.