Legal Trouble For Multiple ISPs

Ars Technica reports that Comcast has been hit with three new class-action lawsuits due to the company's traffic-shaping practices. "The lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws, in addition to unspecified damages." Meanwhile, members of the US House Telecommunications Subcommittee have asked Charter Communications' president to stop testing a program which uses Deep Packet Inspection to track the habits of its customers. A number of privacy groups have voiced their support (PDF). As if that weren't enough, it seems the City of Los Angeles is suing Time Warner for fraud and deceptive business practices. The Daily News notes, "... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law as well as an additional $2,500 civil penalty for each violation described in the complaint perpetrated against one or more senior citizens or disabled persons."

Comments

Yeah...

[ghostdancer]

First Post?

Re:Yeah...

[ghostdancer]

Oh come on... Why mod me as troll?

Just an innocent first post. Of all my years at Slashdot, this is the first time I had the chance. Don't expect me to waste it.

Re:Yeah...

[spazdor]

I did that on the Firefox 3 article yesterday. Stupidly, I also forgot the no-karma-bonus for extra karmic suicide.

TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Anonymous Coward]

for the same reasons they are being sued by LA, I believe.

Now we have Crapcast and I'm paying $20 more per month for less service.
--Minneapolis dev.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which, contrary to carefully fudged "models", allows for (and in fact inevitably leads to) formation of large industry/geography-specific monopolies, even without any governmental interference whatsoever.

That is so simply because in the real world, unlike on paper, there are a number of physical, geographical, technological and other conditions which lead to an automatic formation of unsurmountable barriers to entry for competitors, especially after a local market consolidation by one market player. In this particular case it is simply the physical limitation of the cables themselves: no community can allow for 20 companies to dig up every road every which way to lay cables to any and all houses in that community, not to mention the fact that the upfront cost reduces the number of viable competitors to a mere handful nationally to begin with.

And in this particular case the only entity which can restore competition (and thus "free market") is ... the government. Municipally owned last mile cabling/fiber, bandwidth of which is then rented to any number of competitors who compete for the customers based on their service and price is of course the only sane way to deal with this. But it contradicts the Holy Theory Of Ultimate Greed which proclaims that everything in this world must be owned by some mogul, and therefore it will never come to be, at least in USA. A future of regional communication monopolies getting away with murder is the only alternative really, regardless how many silly lawsuits are filed. The only choice remaining under such market "freedom" being as to which one of the 3 or 4 mega-corporations will be given a strangle-hold on what community.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[drinkypoo]

And in this particular case the only entity which can restore competition (and thus "free market") is ... the government. Municipally owned last mile cabling/fiber, bandwidth of which is then rented to any number of competitors who compete for the customers based on their service and price is of course the only sane way to deal with this. But it contradicts the Holy Theory Of Ultimate Greed which proclaims that everything in this world must be owned by some mogul, and therefore it will never come to be, at least in USA.

The telcos were actually forced to sell access to their lines at cost, but now they aren't. Or so I understand (FWIW.)

I don't see why this isn't an acceptable solution.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The telcos were actually forced to sell access to their lines at cost, but now they aren't. Or so I understand (FWIW.) I don't see why this isn't an acceptable solution.

Because it does not work. The whole idea is fundamentally silly, as the telco's "competitors" are forced to buy service from their main competitor. It leads to a situation where the dominant telco is able to pretend that it is selling access "at cost", while in fact obstructing those buying in many different ways, such as creating delays, purposeful technological incompatibilities and what not. In all the marketplaces in which it was tried the dominant telco always won resulting in these "competitors" withdrawing or ... irony ... being bought at bankruptcy prices by that very telco.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[zippthorne]

The "insurmountable hurtle" in the case of cable companies is rights-of-way easements, not the actual copper. The natural solution to this is to examine all of the existing rights-of-way that have been granted and tack on additional identical routes that can be purchased/auctioned at the municipal level.

Ten wires is just as ugly as one. 100 wires might be uneconomical or impractical, but I think it'd sort itself out pretty quick.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[drinkypoo]

Instead of just changing it back and allowing them to go back to having a monopoly, why not just start giving pieces of the company to those who they wronged? It only sends the wrong message. "You couldn't do what we told you, and instead killed several of the other children, so you don't have to clean your room or share your cake and ice cream with anyone!" The reality is that it was never really tried, it was always a sham, there was no intention of ever really forcing them to keep reselling the lines... It's like saying that the USA is proof that Democracy doesn't work. First, we would have to live in a Democracy. I really don't want to have the argument about how a republic is a "representative democracy" because it's completely irrelevant in a nation in which the paper ballots which we have produced and retained specifically to enable a recount cannot be recounted.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Instead of just changing it back and allowing them to go back to having a monopoly, why not just start giving pieces of the company to those who they wronged?

Because that solution depends on another point of systemic failure: litigation.

A system whereby the municipality owns the last mile (or conduits etc) requires no constant regulatory supervision as long as all competitors are given equal access. A system dependent on forcing an unwilling company, in whose best interest is to thwart all your attempts at forcing them to do this, requires constant monitoring, constant regulatory loophole fixing and as the final result endless litigation, all to questionable effects as all these measures are reactive and do not take effect for years after the harm to consumers was done.

One solution is simple, effective and has a few easily observable points where it could possibly go astray, the other is complex and depends on endless litigation and political maneuvering as primary mechanisms of control.

The only reason to prefer the complex, unwieldy and unreliable over simple and effective is ideological zealotry.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The natural solution to this is to examine all of the existing rights-of-way that have been granted and tack on additional identical routes that can be purchased/auctioned at the municipal level.

This is merely a variation on the idea. In some cities (outside of USA) the government lays and owns conduits instead of actual cables in them. Each method has pros and cons (the main con of the conduit/right of way being drastic increase of up-front investment for the market players and thus drastic reduction of the number of potential competitors - anything smaller then mega-corps needs not apply - not to mention waste resulting from multiple parallel lines) but any case what is important is the overall concept: municipally controlled last mile.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure. Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void. You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.

Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange. As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply. But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.

All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.

You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors". How do corporations get power? How do they get chartered? By government laws interference in the free market granting special privileges. So you want more power which caused your original problem to be granted to solve the problem which was caused by that very same original granting of power? You mean after all those laws, regulations, and heavy taxation, government still isn't even close to solving your problems?

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[pi8you]

Actually, TWC left because they were swapping territory with Comcast while they divvied up Adelphia.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure.

Which has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling.

Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void.

Non-sequitur.

You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.

Yes, the "school" which rejects empirical evidence in favor of ideologically motivated "deductions". A fringe lunacy even amongst other fundamentalist capitalist lunacies.

Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange.

Oops. That would not be in line with the Austrian School's main premise that observation and empirical evidence takes a second seat to the priesthood's "deductions". Even you cannot keep these fruit-cakes straight.

As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply

Nobel Prize in economics is like the Buttville Chicken Farmers' Award for the longest piss from the roof of Orville's farm. Except that the pissing farmhands cannot cause anywhere near the misery, suffering and death these Nobel "winners" did. Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. None, I repeat, none of the so-called "models" developed by any of these "schools" have been demonstrated to have even the slightest of predictive powers or most tenuous relationships to reality. Which of course never stops these frauds from pompous posturing and lecturing sanctimoniously.

The last time these Nobel "winners" have tried to apply their oh-so-superior understanding of economics to something practical we ended up with a wee little oopsie called the "Long Term Capital Management" hedge fund. Look it up.

But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of telco monopolies.

All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange.

LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence.

If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.

This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get.

You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors".

Say what?! Government is (at least in theor

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[ATMD]

Seems to work in the UK. BT operates nearly all the copper wire and local telephone exchanges in the country, and charges consumer ISPs to use them. BT is also a consumer ISP, and yet DSL competition is excellent, with very aggressive pricing between rival providers. The way this is acheived is careful regulation by OfCom to ensure that the wholesale arm of BT doesn't sneakily make things easier for the Home Broadband arm of BT.
Is that kind of regulation actually unconstitutional in the US, or are the powers that be just unwilling to do it?

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[CodeBuster]

Excuse me, but it is an obvious non-sequitur to conclude that because natural monopolies exist, for which free market solutions are either not optimal or not possible, that free market is broken. Nobody is forcing you to purchase cable television service. If you don't like the price or don't want the service then don't buy it (I don't). It really is that simple. As for barriers to entry they are usually temporary and not as durable as people think. How did Google come out of a college research project to become a billion dollar corporation? They were not the first search engine company and their competitors at the time had a stranglehold on the marketplace, but Google survived to surpass them because they brought a superior product to market. Markets can work if people are willing to let them.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Seems to work in the UK. BT operates nearly all the copper wire and local telephone exchanges in the country, and charges consumer ISPs to use them.

BT is a Crown Corporation, is it not?

Is that kind of regulation actually unconstitutional in the US, or are the powers that be just unwilling to do it?

The powers that be are in the pockets of big business, but more importantly the whole environment is orders of magnitude more litigious. Any such regulations would have resulted in decades long, protracted legal battles with multi-million dollar price tags for the governments involved.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling They are directly related because subsidies cause the corporations to own the last mile rather than service the last mile.

Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. "Monetary Theory" is indeed one of the weakest spots. Only individuals act. I share your criticism of macroeconomic theory whether its Keynesianism or Chicago School.

Here is your fundamental error:

LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence. This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get. If what you traded was *equally* valued then why wouldn't you infinitely trade back and forth the exact same things in an infinite loop? That would be absurdity. This is precisely why trade only occurs because a strict mathematical greater than sign applies to the value of that being received and a strictly mathematical lesser than sign applies to the value of that which is being given away in trade. Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant. And of course nobody would voluntarily make herself worse off from any trade.

That's why my self taught economic analysis method always begins by examining the action of trade exchange. It clears away the garbage that clouds analysis.

Say what?! Government is (at least in theory) merely a representation of the will of the community which it governs Then by definition of will government interference is completely superfluous and only causing wasted energy and wasted resources to allegedly duplicate that will. But of course government only forces someone to do something they are not voluntarily willing to do, a clear violation of the alleged duplication of specific individual wills.

Its purposes have nothing to do with "benevolence" and are unrelated to purposes of companies and other market players whose only purpose is profit All individual action whatsoever only occurs because the actor desires to go to a state of lesser dissatisfaction from a state of greater dissatisfaction. There would be no purpose in acting otherwise, for then acting could only make one worse off from the unacting utopia they resided in. Thus, the purpose of all actions, the purpose of all individuals, is as you say, "profit".

Thus the government operates in a different work space than private entities. Sometimes the private entities are better suited to tackle some societal tasks, sometimes it is the government, depending on the task and the set of capabilities and strengths of each. We should aim to minimize violent compulsion, and maximize voluntary peaceful cooperation. This is the only way society can exist. Free trade is by definition voluntary peaceful cooperation.

Trade of any kind cannot exist without governance. Trade is by definition "self governing" precisely because no voluntary trade ever occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange.

At the very bottom of it is the fact that an authority of some kind must exist to enforce contractual obligations between trading parties, such as for example value of IOUs (read: banknotes) etc and so on. In the absence of governance all trade must, by definition, become barter. All trade is strictly *barter* in spite of any government interference. Trade is a *voluntary* action by definition. If you are forced to do something against your will, the word "trade" ceases to apply. That's why taxation is called taxation and not charity contribution. That's why "subsidy" isn't called business trade transaction.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[ATMD]

I suppose that's the point - BT built its infrastructure when it was still a government body, so I guess it's been heavily regulated from the day it was privatised to prevent abuses of monopoly...

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Excuse me, but it is an obvious non-sequitur to conclude that because natural monopolies exist, for which free market solutions are either not optimal or not possible, that free market is broken.

Free market is not "broken" (whatever that means). It is simply an imperfect, flawed economic system (one of possible many) which is applicable only to a particular subset of human activities, under specific conditions. My objections are not to the concept itself but to rampant and frankly quite maniacal attempts by various ideologues to apply it to pretty much everything with religious zeal, irrespective of its fitness to the task.

Nobody is forcing you to purchase cable television service. If you don't like the price or don't want the service then don't buy it (I don't). It really is that simple.

This silly "reasoning" can be extended to luxury food, then semi-luxury food, then all drinks other than tap water, then all clothes other then a converted potato sack, all shelter other than a cardboard box etc and so on.

The point being of course that if one removes all competition in one area and allows a complete monopoly to take charge then there is no reason not to allow the same process everywhere else, is there?

As for barriers to entry they are usually temporary and not as durable as people think.

Since in this particular case they involve geography, I think they will be with us for a while. Furthermore, allowing a monopoly to exist merely for a generation or two (a "temporary" affair from the point of view of history) is equivalent to allowing it to exist for the entire life span of some people, which for them, subjectively, is indistinguishable from "forever".

How did Google come out of a college research project to become a billion dollar corporation?

Apples and oranges. There are very little in a way of physical (or even technological) barriers to entry for Google's competitors. As time progresses that might change (with Google's expansion into mobile phones etc - causing hardware based lock in) but it is still on a wholly different scale when compared to communities being dug full of holes like by a rabid pack of prairie dogs which is what would happen in the case of unrestricted cable laying in most cities.

They were not the first search engine company and their competitors at the time had a stranglehold on the marketplace, but Google survived to surpass them because they brought a superior product to market. Markets can work if people are willing to let them.

Again, Internet is a place with one of the lowest (if not THE lowest) barriers to entry for any activity. Most barriers to Internet based businesses exist outside of it, in the "brick and mortar" world. You are again comparing apples to oranges.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

They are directly related because subsidies cause the corporations to own the last mile rather than service the last mile.

So without the subsidies they would not have ended up owning the last mile, which would instead be owned by ... the Tooth Fairy? Since the "evil gubmnt" is clearly "not qualified" for such free-market-meddling tasks ...

This is precisely why trade only occurs because a strict mathematical greater than sign applies to the value of that being received and a strictly mathematical lesser than sign applies to the value of that which is being given away in trade.

This sentence makes no sense. Greater-than and less-than are binary operators. You've just used two such operators in one equation with only two values in total. Two binary operators need at least three values to form a valid formula.

Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant. And of course nobody would voluntarily make herself worse off from any trade.

That does not imply any total "gain" in "value". It merely implies a difference in kind. I.e. of two identically priced cakes, made with identically priced ingredients and with identical labor I might prefer the lemon-flavored one over the peach-flavored one. Yet they are both of identical objective value from the point of view of the marketplace, both selling at the same price. That is because my personal preference in flavor does not in any way add to the total "value" of such goods.

Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant.

Which would relegate this "value" to the realm of psychic mediums and witch-doctors and well outside of any economic models as it is wholly unquantifiable and unobservable.

That's why my self taught economic analysis method always begins by examining the action of trade exchange. It clears away the garbage that clouds analysis.

Which gets you of course nothing as that subjective "gain" is utterly useless for any analytical purpose.

Then by definition of will government interference is completely superfluous and only causing wasted energy and wasted resources to allegedly duplicate that will.

Not at all. A bulletin board is also a representation of the "will" of its posters and it "duplicates" the thoughts they carry in their heads yet it does perform a function normally not attainable to these individuals otherwise. It has to do with communication and focus of that normally diffuse "will" to specific tasks. In essence Governments act as a focus and a proxy for that will, which otherwise is not practical to execute individually.

But of course government only forces someone to do something they are not voluntarily willing to do, a clear violation of the alleged duplication of specific individual wills.

Logical fallacy. The "will" of the community does not necessarily need to be in alignment with the will of particular individuals with in it, given any difference of opinion at all between the community members. The only way in which the will of the community would be so aligned would be if everyone shared the same consciousness. Nearly all political theories deal with this difference and with ways of mitigating it, the Democratic Republic being only one of the many attempts at addressing this.

All individual action whatsoever only occurs because the actor desires to go to a state of lesser dissatisfaction from a state of greater dissatisfaction.

Incorrect. Many actions of individuals are random, many consciously counter productive for the actor (altruism) etc and so on. Your "model" is only applicable to robots (and even

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

This sentence makes no sense. Greater-than and less-than are binary operators. You've just used two such operators in one equation with only two values in total. Two binary operators need at least three values to form a valid formula.

No, there are two equations because there are two different individual actors in any trade. Person One Prefers A to B. Person Two Prefers B to A. A is greater than B for Person One, and B is greater than A for Person Two.

That does not imply any total "gain" in "value". It merely implies a difference in kind. I.e. of two identically priced cakes, made with identically priced ingredients and with identical labor I might prefer the lemon-flavored one over the peach-flavored one. Yet they are both of identical objective value from the point of view of the marketplace, both selling at the same price. That is because my personal preference in flavor does not in any way add to the total "value" of such goods.

There is no such thing as objective value. Value is subjective. Value changes. This is why prices change. This is why actions are discretely ordered. All prices are instances of strict trade, where one good is traded for another good, even if one of those goods is called money. If you trade money for lemon cake you prefer the lemon cake to the money, and simultaneously the baker prefers money to the lemon cake.

If money had equal value to the lemon cake, why wouldn't you and the baker stand at the counter in an infinite circular time loop trading the same money for the same lemon cake back and forth? You wouldn't do that precisely because you both definitively prefer one thing to the other, and this is represented with precise mathematical "greater than" and "less than" certainty. It is strictly proven that all exchange is *not* an exchange of equal value, but of *differing* value. Trade occurs because two different people value the exact same thing differently. Trade would not otherwise occur, ever.

This is also why macroeconomics and monetary theory is in fundamental error. It is proved that the equation of trade cannot contain an "equals" sign, but is a combination of two different inverse equations A greater than B and B greater than A. This shows mathematically that real value profit is created from trade. Both Person 1 and Person 2 are wealthier after the trade than they are before the trade even though the exact same goods exist after the trade as exist before the trade. This is precisely why trade occurs, why society exists, and why the division of labor exists.

Which would relegate this "value" to the realm of psychic mediums and witch-doctors and well outside of any economic models as it is wholly unquantifiable and unobservable.

It is strictly the case that preference value can only be ordinal measured. It is impossible to measure the precise numerical quantity by which one thing is preferred to another thing. Money is just a proxy for an attempt at that measurement. But money itself is involved in trade, and thus itself subject to greater than/less than preference in all exchange. But all exchange is observable, all preference is ordinal measurable, and all quantities of goods traded are measurable. It's just the strictly positive value created by exchange for both parties which is not precisely measurable. But it is, and has been above, proved to be the case.

Logical fallacy. The "will" of the community does not necessarily need to be in alignment with the will of particular individuals with in it, given any difference of opinion at all between the community members.

Wrong. That's a mathematical absurdity. You have the Set {Community} which must by definition contain the total amalgamation of Subsets {Individuals 1 ... N}. They must by definition be "in alignment" to make sense, and to be accurate.

Incorrect. Many actions of individuals are random, many consciously counter productive for the actor (altruism) etc and so

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No, there are two equations because there are two different individual actors in any trade. Person One Prefers A to B. Person Two Prefers B to A. A is greater than B for Person One, and B is greater than A for Person Two.

That is not what your incoherent statement said.

There is no such thing as objective value. Value is subjective. Value changes. This is why prices change.

You are continuously confusing (or attempting to somehow conflate) some nebulous, unquantifiable "value" and quite quantifiable, objectively measurable (in currency) market price.

If you trade money for lemon cake you prefer the lemon cake to the money, and simultaneously the baker prefers money to the lemon cake.

True, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with some wildly defined "value" you are attempting to introduce into this. Such "value" is wholly unmeasurable in any trade related terms. Example: I have a lemon cake, and a buddy of mine has an apple one. We both bought them at the same store at the same price. While walking away we decide that we each like the other guy's cake better, so we decide to trade. All is fine and dandy until I ask "I will give you my cake in exchange for yours plus one penny.". The trade would be immediately off and more then likely my buddy would decide to place his cake on my face for being such a capitalist pig, thus instantaneously recalculating his "value" of the cake as being less the "value" of punishing such greed while at the same time estimating the "value" of the difference in his cake preferences as less then the smallest possible currency unit used in everyday trade.

In other words that "value" you keep ranting about is more vaporous then vapor. And wholly unsuitable for purposes of any economic analysis.

It is strictly proven that all exchange is *not* an exchange of equal value, but of *differing* value. Trade occurs because two different people value the exact same thing differently. Trade would not otherwise occur, ever.

True, but that difference is not measurable in monetary terms, ergo it has no place in any economic analysis.

If money had equal value to the lemon cake, why wouldn't you and the baker stand at the counter in an infinite circular time loop trading the same money for the same lemon cake back and forth?

Because the action of trading itself consumes energy and time, thus diminishing our resources with each trade.

This is also why macroeconomics and monetary theory is in fundamental error. It is proved that the equation of trade cannot contain an "equals" sign, but is a combination of two different inverse equations A greater than B and B greater than A. This shows mathematically that real value profit is created from trade. Both Person 1 and Person 2 are wealthier after the trade than they are before the trade even though the exact same goods exist after the trade as exist before the trade.

I think I know why you are so hopelessly confused. You misunderstand simple economic terms: "profit" does not apply to some nebulous, subjective "values" in someone's head, it is defined strictly in monetary terms. Therefore what you call "profit" isn't. The same applies to "wealth", which again, is quantified strictly in monetary terms. Otherwise the happy religious lunatic I mentioned earlier would be the "wealthiest" person on the planet (in his view the "value" of his belief is astronomical), while having at the same time net monetary worth of $2.

This is precisely why trade occurs, why society exists, and why the division of labor exists.

Again, total confusion. Not all forms of exchange are "trade" (exchange of artistic expressions or speech are not trade) and division of labor is not a pre-requisite for a society, nor its automatic implication. A group o

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

That is not what your incoherent statement said. You are a simpleton if you need it expressly spelled out for you that trade involves two different individuals with distinctly different *VALUE* preferences. I shouldn't even bother replying to the rest of your drivel, after your original demonstrably wrong claim that trade involves an exchange of equal values. I'll take it you *finally* grasp the concept.

You are continuously confusing (or attempting to somehow conflate) some nebulous, unquantifiable "value" and quite quantifiable, objectively measurable (in currency) market price. What the hell are you talking about? All things are extrinsically subjectively valued, money included.

In other words that "value" you keep ranting about is more vaporous then vapor. And wholly unsuitable for purposes of any economic analysis. You are utterly clueless. People don't swap money for just any old other thing and vice versa. They trade money for specific other things solely because they value those specific other things *more* than the amount of money they trade away and vice versa for the other trading partner.

But you've devolved into an infantile ideological tirade, so whatever.

True, but that difference is not measurable in monetary terms, ergo it has no place in any economic analysis. Oh, "true"? That's it? That directly contradicts your original, now admittedly, false claim. That difference is precisely why free trade and the division of labor create wealth, dummy. Ergo, that *is* economic analysis.

Because the action of trading itself consumes energy and time, thus diminishing our resources with each trade. Listen, MORON. Trading in the first place also "consumes energy and time". If the money was equally valued to the cake neither would trade for the other in the first place. Exchange isn't random.

I think I know why you are so hopelessly confused. You misunderstand simple economic terms: "profit" does not apply to some nebulous, subjective "values" in someone's head, it is defined strictly in monetary terms. Therefore what you call "profit" isn't. If you are better off, you profit in strict economic terms. If your value, however measured, is greater after than before, you profit in strict economic terms. If you are wealthier, you have profited, in strict economic terms.

Again, total confusion. Not all forms of exchange are "trade" (exchange of artistic expressions or speech are not trade) and division of labor is not a pre-requisite for a society, nor its automatic implication. Wrong again. Speech isn't exchanged to another unless that another chooses to listen or hear it. Also the act of choosing to speak at a specific time is exchanging, is preferring, is valuing, that speaking more than whatever else that person could have done at that time rather than speaking.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. You are now pretending that economic "profit" is something measured in subjective feelings. That is not how this term is applicable in economics and economic theory is what we were discussing here, were we not? If you are better off from trade, which we have proved you are (otherwise you wouldn't trade in the first place, and would instead just keep your stuff), then you have "profited" in a strict economic sense from that trade, in spite of the fact that you cannot measure the "subjective feelings" aspect. The position, the movement, the exchange, of goods from one person to another person voluntarily, proves that it is necessarily so.

What?! Are you implying that the Universe is 100% deterministic? All events have "the capability, the possibility" of not occurring, ergo all events, according to you, are deterministic? What are you? An anthropomorphicist? You believe the Sun wakes up in the morning and decides whether or not it feels like radiating that day? Natural events aren't observed human choice actions with wills of their own, like the action of human trade. Trade is a decision.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You are a simpleton if you need it expressly spelled out for you that trade involves two different individuals with distinctly different *VALUE* preferences. I shouldn't even bother replying to the rest of your drivel, after your original demonstrably wrong claim that trade involves an exchange of equal values. I'll take it you *finally* grasp the concept.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

Furthermore, what you are trying to say becomes pointless if you are simply incapable of expressing it in coherent terms. It is not the whole world's problem that no one is able to get what you are trying to explain, it is your inability to express it in a way that makes any sense whatsoever that is at fault.

Also the "concept", after multiple attempts at getting you to explain it, finally appears to be simply your insistence on redefining commonly accepted terms used to describe economic activities. In economics, physical goods and labor (measured in units of currency) are the only items available for methodical analysis. Any fluctuations in people's desires which cannot be expressed in these terms are irrelevant to any discourse on economics and belong in the same realm as discussions on the meaning of the universe.

What the hell are you talking about? All things are extrinsically subjectively valued, money included.

Here we go again. "extrinsically" is a word which, without any further context, simply makes no sense in that sentence. "Extrinsically" in relation to what? The traders? The marketplace? The transactions?

People don't swap money for just any old other thing and vice versa. They trade money for specific other things solely because they value those specific other things *more* than the amount of money they trade away and vice versa for the other trading partner.

Which, again, is unquantifiable and as such not subject to scientific analysis.

But you've devolved into an infantile ideological tirade, so whatever.

"Ideological"? That word. You keep using it. I does not mean what you think it means.

Attempts to adhere to the scientific method are not "ideological" (well maybe from a perspective of a complete kook or a religious lunatic).

Oh, "true"? That's it? That directly contradicts your original, now admittedly, false claim.

Not at all. The trade, in economic terms, is for items of equal economic value, as I repeatedly explained. That "value" is measured in either goods, labor or currency. That is the only kind of "value" which is applicable to economic analysis. The redefined by you term "value" is a subjective set of preferences which is not what any scientific analysis can deal with as it is wholly unmeasurable and unquantifiable. So when I say that trade is for items of equal value, the word "value" in this context is the one commonly accepted on this planet in the sphere of economics. When you use "value" you refer to a nebulous idea of personal preferences, a definition which is only used by you and your fellow acolytes of whatever lunacy this is. If one accepts your definition, then indeed the "value" of items traded alters from the perspective of each side of the trade. But that is not how it is measured in economics.

That difference is precisely why free trade and the division of labor create wealth, dummy. Ergo, that *is* economic analysis.

None of the above has of course anything to do with division of labor, which is an emergent property of certain (but not all) marketplaces wholly unrelated to the properties of trade itself and instead related to allocation of resources.

Calling me names will change none of that.

Listen, MORON. Trading in the first place also "consumes energy and time". If the money was equally valued to the cake neither would trade fo

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

Take your own advice. Your earlier posts are full of them.

Furthermore, what you are trying to say becomes pointless if you are simply incapable of expressing it in coherent terms. It is not the whole world's problem that no one is able to get what you are trying to explain, it is your inability to express it in a way that makes any sense whatsoever that is at fault.

So now you are applying your own cognitive failings to "the whole world"? More anthropomorphicism.

In economics, physical goods and labor (measured in units of currency) are the only items available for methodical analysis. Any fluctuations in people's desires which cannot be expressed in these terms are irrelevant to any discourse on economics and belong in the same realm as discussions on the meaning of the universe.

Wrong. My explanation scientifically explains *why* trade occurs. Your explanation of an equal exchange of value is a nonsensical absurdity which leads to your further errors and delusions.

Here we go again. "extrinsically" is a word which, without any further context, simply makes no sense in that sentence. "Extrinsically" in relation to what? The traders? The marketplace? The transactions?

Value is not intrinsically objective in things. If it were, every person would value the exact same things equally and no trade would occur, contradicting observed actions of trade exchange. This is why value is extrinsically subjective, determined subjectively by humans for whatever any and all reasons.

Which, again, is unquantifiable and as such not subject to scientific analysis.

It is limitedly quantifiable, as definite greater than and less than signs are established for the differing values for differing persons for the exact same goods. This isn't any more surprising than that humans aren't omniscient in all other scientific fields, whether physics, chemistry, or whatever. Less than are greater than are precise mathematical demarcations.

Attempts to adhere to the scientific method are not "ideological" (well maybe from a perspective of a complete kook or a religious lunatic).

You're the lunatic that refuses to adhere to the scientific method, is clueless regarding epistemology, and constantly contradicts prior original claims, or pretends to brush them off religiously as "irrelevant".

The trade, in economic terms, is for items of equal economic value, as I repeatedly explained. That "value" is measured in either goods, labor or currency.

Wrong. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time and energy in trading items of equal economic value as you would be no better off after the trade than before the trade. It would be literally *pointless*. The excess value created by all acts of trade is not be measured by goods, labor, or currency. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it cannot be precisely quantifiably measured. Throw a baseball and measure the distance it traveled. You can crudely measure it by manually flipping a random 6.32 meter Fool Stick, microscopically measure it to some degree, but there will always be further possible atomic precision which you will fail to perfectly capture, such as possible atomic level indentations measured in microns.

You're a moron that sees no difference between holding an apple, eating an apple, or trading an apple for money, as you believe there's no value difference, by definition of your false value equation, to either possibility.

That is the only kind of "value" which is applicable to economic analysis. The redefined by you term "value" is a subjective set of preferences which is not what any scientific analysis can deal with as it is wholly unmeasurable and unquantifiable.

Do you stand around like a drooling idiot baboon and claim there is no economic behavior if two kids in a school lunchroom swap a banana for an apple? You're just a

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I changed the order of these points to put the most comedic demonstration of the lunatic implications of your stance at the top.

Preference is *value*, plain and simple. Equivalence is *indifference*. Preference is basic economics valuation. "To prefer" means to value *MORE*. Of course at the moment of exchange the religious loon would be better off, otherwise he would choose not to give all his money and property to his messiah. It's his free voluntary choice.

This is pretty much a show stopper right here. So, according to you, the religious loon has, right at the conclusion of his transaction, his net worth valued more, in economic terms, then Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined (as that is what the loon believes)?

If what you say is true then the Forbes magazine needs to redo its lists post-haste! Clearly they've got the wrong sort of people on it! Just to think of it, that dude I see at the corner sometimes must be our city's richest man! Who knew?!

Then again, if not, then what is the exact net worth of the cardboard dwelling fellow just after his transaction was completed, in which he so shrewdly outwitted his partner to obtain "heavenly unlimited wealth" in exchange for a mere house, car and the contents of some bank accounts? What exactly is the economic value of this transaction as clearly, according to you, merely measuring it by such mundane things as money is woefully insufficient?

So now you are applying your own cognitive failings to "the whole world"? More anthropomorphicism.

Since such economic "theories" exist nowhere outside your particular, somewhat fringe circle, it is only fair to apply this reasoning to nearly the whole world where people, for reasons that seem to escape you, insist on sticking to the traditional ways of measuring value in economics. Anthropomorphism has nothing to do with it.

My explanation scientifically explains *why* trade occurs.

No it does not. You've merely conflated two wholly separate concepts: the monetary value of goods in trade exchanges and a subjective preferences of traders and then keep on insisting on renaming this new concoction as "value" to replace the traditional concept used by economists. While personal preferences of traders are what drives trade, the term "value", in economics, is only applicable to the actual transactions themselves where exact equivalence between both sides of trade is a given.

Your explanation of an equal exchange of value is a nonsensical absurdity which leads to your further errors and delusions.

I never "explained" anything of the sort. I merely point out that one cannot scientifically measure anything outside of monetary values of goods (even if that) and thus anything outside that quantification is by definition unscientific and totally unreliable in formulation of any theories of trade. That is why the term "value", as applied in economics to trade, does not include anything beyond monetary measurements. Which is the very root of your confusion. And incidentally which is also the reason why religious cardboard-box-dwellers are not at the top of the Forbes list.

Value is not intrinsically objective in things. If it were, every person would value the exact same things equally and no trade would occur, contradicting observed actions of trade exchange. This is why value is extrinsically subjective, determined subjectively by humans for whatever any and all reasons.

And the result of such valuations of course being the only quantifiable result: monetary value of trade. Thus irrespective of what is going on in people's heads (none of which can be estimated with any degree of accuracy) the only scientific measurement available is that monetary value. None other exist which can be subjected to rigorous analysis. Your redefined economic "value" is useless for

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Mr2001]

The guy you're arguing with here is kind of nutty, and his tone sure isn't helping his case. But I have to agree that you're wrong about value.

A thing doesn't have an inherent value. Value is defined subjectively - there's nothing controversial about saying that, and it's not some made-up definition he pulled out of nowhere. What you're talking about, the quantifiable dollar amount we can place on an object, isn't "value", it's price. (Which is usually the same as cost, but cost can be subjective too.)

If I buy a chocolate cake and you buy a vanilla cake, each for $1.00, that's evidence that we both value a cake more than we value a dollar (right now). If we then decide that we'd each rather have the other flavor, then yes, that's evidence that we could trade our cakes and get even more value.

But value is different from cost. If I demand your cake plus one cent in exchange for my cake, you'd be right to reject that offer - not because you wouldn't be getting value out of that trade, but because you'd be able to get the same thing at a lower cost by exchanging it at the store.

To illustrate further, suppose that the store closed when we left. Your only options are to trade your cake plus one cent to me, or find a different store and pay a whole dollar for a second cake, or keep the penny and eat the cake you have. Which do you choose? If you choose to trade with me, then that must mean you're getting more than one cent of value out of the trade.

As for the lunatic who has $2 to his name and yet is completely happy... you're right, it would be foolish to compare people's wealth in terms of happiness (or subjective value), rather than in terms of buying power. The lunatic can buy two junior bacon cheeseburgers, even though he may not want them; Bill Gates is wealthier because he can buy billions of junior bacon cheeseburgers.

Finally, subjective value isn't unquantifiable. You can measure it by offering trades and seeing which ones are accepted. If the cake store burns down, and the only one left in town is selling them for $5, but you're still willing to buy them, that means you value cakes at >= $5.00 (and you must've thought you were getting a great deal before).

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

So, according to you, the religious loon has, right at the conclusion of his transaction, his net worth valued more, in economic terms, then Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined (as that is what the loon believes)?

You are trying to impose your personal subjective valuations, or the market's (sans that individual) subjective valuation. Of course, he does not have what the rest of the market considers "net worth valued more, in economic terms, than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined". So what? Pet rocks were at what time valued. Value is not constant. Value is not universally objective. Charity exists. The only reason Bill Gates created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is because he prefers that Foundation to using that same money for a private space exploration company, for instance, or swimming in a pile of it in his mansion like Scrooge McDuck, for another instance.

There's plenty of instances of people not selling at what others consider "above market valuation". People hold out selling homes where expressway roads are planned to be built. Men marry women the market may consider "ugly", below market value on physical looks. It's all subjective individual valuations, without exception.

Just because a religious loon donates all his material possessions to another is an extreme case does not invalidate economic theory. Economic theory in fact explains those actions.

Just to think of it, that dude I see at the corner sometimes must be our city's richest man! Who knew?!

Happiness has value. The same things don't make the same people equally happy. Happiness is subjective.

What exactly is the economic value of this transaction as clearly, according to you, merely measuring it by such mundane things as money is woefully insufficient?

If he didn't prefer it, he wouldn't voluntarily do the exchange. So much the better for both sides. Charity happens all the time. And charity has an economic explanation. Charity requires someone accept what is being given, and someone willingly giving. It occurs precisely for the same reasons as all other exchange, for the same reason as all other transference of goods from one person to another occurs, because, obviously, as you can so clearly from your extreme case example, exchange does not involve the transfer of equally valued things, but differently valued things, without exception.

You've merely conflated two wholly separate concepts: the monetary value of goods in trade exchanges and a subjective preferences of traders and then keep on insisting on renaming this new concoction as "value" to replace the traditional concept used by economists.

You still fail to see that trade and the division of labor create wealth, and are thus a piss poor economist. Money is itself subjectively valued. See past currencies which are now worthless after hyperinflation. Subjective valuation is not constant. QED. So your religious loon who gave away 10 billion post WWI marks for a religious lecture might be purchasing "cheaply". Money only has market value if people are willing to trade non money things for money. QED.

Multiple things contain value, not just money. "Money" is just a crude proxy measure of market exchange value. Money is just the most commonly thing involved in trade exchange. Money has subjective value. Diamonds have subjective value. Water has subjective value. Money is not the sum total of all value in an economy. If you entirely destroyed the money supply you would not entirely destroy all economic value. It is epistemologically impossible to trade all the money for all other goods of economic value.

While personal preferences of traders are what drives trade, the term "value", in economics, is only applicable to the actual transactions themselves where exact equivalence between both sides of trade is a given.

You're just flat out wrong again. Personal *preferences* are valuations of one thing *over* another thing. That is a

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

A thing doesn't have an inherent value. Value is defined subjectively - there's nothing controversial about saying that, and it's not some made-up definition he pulled out of nowhere. What you're talking about, the quantifiable dollar amount we can place on an object, isn't "value", it's price. (Which is usually the same as cost, but cost can be subjective too.)

Its simply a matter of labels and definitions. In various economic literature I've read over the years this concept was labeled in many different ways, sometimes as "monetary value", sometimes as "market value" etc. as opposed to "subjective value" which is what you describe. The main point being however that anything but "price" or "market value" is simply outside our abilities to quantify and thus of no use in gaging the state of the economy. If the term "value" (in economic context) were to be defined as you indicate, then this "value" would be irrelevant to any market analysis, although it might be of interest to philosophers, and thus relegated to footnotes and appendices of all economic papers instead of the center stage of various measurements.

To illustrate further, suppose that the store closed when we left. Your only options are to trade your cake plus one cent to me, or find a different store and pay a whole dollar for a second cake, or keep the penny and eat the cake you have. Which do you choose? If you choose to trade with me, then that must mean you're getting more than one cent of value out of the trade.

Which as I pointed out would not have happened if both parties were typical people as one is clearly attempting to rip the other off, even if for one penny. All the people I know would have become very angry since they would be fully aware of the price we both paid for the cakes and would find the idea extremely offensive and would rather destroy their whole $10 of cake as a weapon just to express that anger or at the very least they would have eaten it (even if they preferred the other) after some loud "fuck you"s. Which only goes to show that such "value" is wholly useless for the purposes of economic analysis. These musings about "subjective value" in the context of economics would make sense if you were describing robots the brains of which could be expected to operate in the same exact fashion under the exact same conditions.

As for the lunatic who has $2 to his name and yet is completely happy... you're right, it would be foolish to compare people's wealth in terms of happiness (or subjective value), rather than in terms of buying power. The lunatic can buy two junior bacon cheeseburgers, even though he may not want them; Bill Gates is wealthier because he can buy billions of junior bacon cheeseburgers.

... and ...

Finally, subjective value isn't unquantifiable. You can measure it by offering trades and seeing which ones are accepted. If the cake store burns down, and the only one left in town is selling them for $5, but you're still willing to buy them, that means you value cakes at >= $5.00 (and you must've thought you were getting a great deal before).

... contradict each other. Either the subjective value "isn't unquantifiable" in which case the religious loon can claim his paradise on his balance sheet, or it is not quantifiable in which case the only thing which counts in economic measurements is monetary value. Which is it?

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You are trying to impose your personal subjective valuations, or the market's (sans that individual) subjective valuation.

I always knew that these silly bankers and tax-men were imposing their "personal subjective valuations" on the poor us! The chutzpa they have! To use these wholly subjective balance sheets and income statements on us! And totally subjective money! Bastards! I wanna have my hamster valued at $2 billion for the purpose of my loan collateral! Hey it could sell for that much - after all everything is "subjective" and so I could talk some billionaire into it, no? You go tell them!

Of course, he does not have what the rest of the market considers "net worth valued more, in economic terms, than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined".

So the rest of the sane world disagrees in unison with your "objective" assessment. You alone stand heroically against this evil globe-spanning conspiracy with your banner of "My Value Is Bigger Then Your Value!"

So what? Pet rocks were at what time valued.

They also had this thing called "price". Ever hear of it?

Value is not constant. Value is not universally objective. Charity exists. The only reason Bill Gates created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is because he prefers that Foundation to using that same money for a private space exploration company, for instance, or swimming in a pile of it in his mansion like Scrooge McDuck, for another instance.

Which brings us back to our soon-to-be-raptured Cardboard Castle Joe. Is he or is he not entitled to put his Ticket To Paradise on his balance sheet? What is his net worth? Stop evading. Give a coherent answer.

Just because a religious loon donates all his material possessions to another is an extreme case does not invalidate economic theory. Economic theory in fact explains those actions.

You did claim, persistently, complete universality of your definition of "value" even going as far as claiming that it is the very foundation of industrial civilization as we know it. Thus one example to the contrary, no matter how extreme, ruins your entire argument. That is why you are ducking it so desperately.

I won't even bother to answer your other circular-reasoning ramblings until you address this and the other issue, which I noticed you managed to conveniently "forget" to answer: who and where publishes mainstream economic indicators which incorporate your definition of "value". GDP, growth figures, industry output, anything at all.

It was clarified for you. No need to be an extra ass on top of being an idiot.

In addition to your bizzarro-world definition of "market value" you now introduce a new bizarro-world definition of "clarified" which stands for "I got caught being illogical and cannot get out of it so I will pretend that I explained stuff, throw around some expletives and hope no one notices!".

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Mr2001]

All the people I know would have become very angry since they would be fully aware of the price we both paid for the cakes and would find the idea extremely offensive and would rather destroy their whole $10 of cake as a weapon just to express that anger or at the very least they would have eaten it (even if they preferred the other) after some loud "fuck you"s. Yes, real people tend to get upset when the extraction of profit is shoved in their faces like that, especially in a friendly situation.

But economically speaking, if we assume the two people are rational actors who are more concerned with getting delicious cake than playing nice, there's nothing unusual. If you want something I have, and I try to make a profit instead of giving it to you for free, that's just the market at work.

There's nothing inherently more "unfair" about me selling you that $1.00 cake for $1.01 than there was about the store selling it for $1.00 in the first place - after all, they bought it for less than a dollar and sold it at a profit.

Which only goes to show that such "value" is wholly useless for the purposes of economic analysis. No, it's quite useful. If you want to buy or sell anything, it helps to know how much it's worth to the other guy.

Either the subjective value "isn't unquantifiable" in which case the religious loon can claim his paradise on his balance sheet, or it is not quantifiable in which case the only thing which counts in economic measurements is monetary value. Which is it? It's not a dichotomy. Balance sheets are about buying power, not subjective value, but that doesn't mean subjective value is a worthless measurement. Economics != accounting.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

The chutzpa they have! To use these wholly subjective balance sheets and income statements on us! And totally subjective money! Bastards! I wanna have my hamster valued at $2 billion for the purpose of my loan collateral!

You can and do value your hamster subjectively. That does not mean others value your hamster equally to your subjective valuation. They have their own independent non constant subjective valuations. In trade, two people value the same thing differently. One values it more, one values it less. If nobody is willing to trade $2 billion for your hamster, then tough luck. If you value your hamster at $2 billion then you would be willing to trade it for $2 billion, which would by definition mean you valued the $2 billion more than your hamster. But if nobody else values your hamster at $2 billion, nobody else is going to trade $2 billion for your hamster. No TRADE will occur. That is independent of your subjective valuation. But you also aren't (at least for the moment, as evidenced by any willing and able offers for a trade) not going to trade your hamster away for less than $2 billion.

So the rest of the sane world disagrees in unison with your "objective" assessment. You alone stand heroically against this evil globe-spanning conspiracy with your banner of "My Value Is Bigger Then Your Value!"

You're back to your crazy talk ranting.

They also had this thing called "price". Ever hear of it?

Price *changes*. How do you explain that?

What is his net worth? Stop evading. Give a coherent answer.

His market net worth is whatever people are willing to exchange for his stuff (what he could *theoretically* obtain in exchange for his stuff). If he does in fact engage in the action of exchange of all his stuff for some different stuff, then he will be wealthier than before at the moment of that exchange, as will the other party that takes possession of his stuff, by definition of preferring the state of wealth of stuff received after the trade to the state of wealth of stuff given away which he owned before the trade.

Huge balance sheet net worth write downs just occurred for housing loan instrument portfolios in the banking industry. So was that prior balance sheet net worth of illiquid assets worth what they thought, what they hoped it was, a week prior to the write down. Of course not. You cannot know what your stuff is worth until someone is able and willing to make an offer.

So market net worth is determined by offers of exchange (or lesser quality *guesses* as what "reasonable" offers would likely fetch). Exchanges are prices. If bananas trade for apples at a 1:1 ratio in a school lunchroom, the price of apples is 1 banana *AND* the price of bananas is 1 apple. If apples and bananas trade for $1, the price of apples and bananas is $1 *AND* the price of dollars is 1 apple or 1 banana. Strict barter exists still even in a "monetary" economy.

PRICE IS NOT *AN* (singular) EQUATION! except by inaccurate custom alone, just as exactly as the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth was an inaccurate custom. Nobody trades away or for dollars unless they value the thing they trade away or for dollars *MORE*. It is plainly absurd to pretend dollars equate in value to other things which are exchanged. Are you going to get nutrition by eating dollars, or are you going to trade dollars for food, because food is more valuable to you at the time you eat that food than the dollar amount you traded away for that food? AND VICE VERSA for the person who traded food away for dollars.

You did claim, persistently, complete universality of your definition of "value" even going as far as claiming that it is the very foundation of industrial civilization as we know it. Thus one example to the contrary, no matter how extreme, ruins your entire argument. That is why you are ducking it so desperately.

Society only exists in so far as peaceful cooperation exists. Peaceful cooperat

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

But economically speaking, if we assume the two people are rational actors who are more concerned with getting delicious cake than playing nice, there's nothing unusual. If you want something I have, and I try to make a profit instead of giving it to you for free, that's just the market at work. There's nothing inherently more "unfair" about me selling you that $1.00 cake for $1.01 than there was about the store selling it for $1.00 in the first place - after all, they bought it for less than a dollar and sold it at a profit.

Part of the fundamental problem with all of these economic models is that they assume that market players are rational actors, ignoring abundant evidence to the contrary. That is why I brought up that example (amongst other reasons). In such situations the odds of people behaving "rationally" (from the perspective of the market) are far lower than those of them acting emotionally and thus "contrary to their interest" in market terms.

No, it's quite useful. If you want to buy or sell anything, it helps to know how much it's worth to the other guy.

We were talking about the unquantifiable "subjective value" which only exists in the other guy's head not the "market value" as measured in money. We cannot know that "subjective value" by definition, thus what you said makes no sense. This "value" is useless for the task you mentioned, i.e. estimating market worth (measured in monetary terms). Any attempts at "testing" of this value by engaging in trade would, by definition, come short as some (an unquantifiable amount) of that "value" must remain to form the "incentive" for trade. The thing is utterly pointless.

It's not a dichotomy. Balance sheets are about buying power, not subjective value, but that doesn't mean subjective value is a worthless measurement. Economics != accounting.

Err ... so how one does measure that subjective value? If it cannot be measured means that no formulas can be used to describe its relationship to other economic values, then how are you are going to construct any model with any sort of explanatory or predictive power? And if you cannot, what you propose is no different from reading tea-leaves or chicken entrails. My objections to the other guys entire line of reasoning pivot on this very point: a distinction between science, based on testable, quantifiable phenomena and ... untestable and unmeasurable (by definition) religious belief which requires none such.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You can and do value your hamster subjectively. That does not mean others value your hamster equally to your subjective valuation. They have their own independent non constant subjective valuations. In trade, two people value the same thing differently. One values it more, one values it less. If nobody is willing to trade $2 billion for your hamster, then tough luck. If you value your hamster at $2 billion then you would be willing to trade it for $2 billion, which would by definition mean you valued the $2 billion more than your hamster. But if nobody else values your hamster at $2 billion, nobody else is going to trade $2 billion for your hamster. No TRADE will occur. That is independent of your subjective valuation. But you also aren't (at least for the moment, as evidenced by any willing and able offers for a trade) not going to trade your hamster away for less than $2 billion.

Great, great, but cut to the chase: what do I put down on that bank application in the "net worth" field, since me and the banker disagree somewhat about the value of that hamster by .. oh ... about $2 billion? Do explain.

Price *changes*. How do you explain that?

Prices fluctuate due to many factors such as availability of labor and resources, etc, also amongst them personal preferences of buyers and sellers. Some of these factors are quantifiable, and thus subject to economic analysis, and some are not, and thus not subject to such analysis. Your "value" falls into the latter category. The fact that trade is driven by people's desires does not mean that the desires themselves can be part of economic analysis. Trade in many goods is also influenced by weather patterns and yet no one sane would attempt to modify economic models to account for the "value" of movements of individual clouds in the sky.

His market net worth is whatever people are willing to exchange for his stuff (what he could *theoretically* obtain in exchange for his stuff). If he does in fact engage in the action of exchange of all his stuff for some different stuff, then he will be wealthier than before at the moment of that exchange, as will the other party that takes possession of his stuff, by definition of preferring the state of wealth of stuff received after the trade to the state of wealth of stuff given away which he owned before the trade. Huge balance sheet net worth write downs just occurred for housing loan instrument portfolios in the banking industry. So was that prior balance sheet net worth of illiquid assets worth what they thought, what they hoped it was, a week prior to the write down. Of course not. You cannot know what your stuff is worth until someone is able and willing to make an offer. So market net worth is determined by offers of exchange (or lesser quality *guesses* as what "reasonable" offers would likely fetch). Exchanges are prices. If bananas trade for apples at a 1:1 ratio in a school lunchroom, the price of apples is 1 banana *AND* the price of bananas is 1 apple. If apples and bananas trade for $1, the price of apples and bananas is $1 *AND* the price of dollars is 1 apple or 1 banana. Strict barter exists still even in a "monetary" economy.

Allrighty then: Me and a buddy of mine are going to exchange my hamster for an IOU from him (maturing 20 years from now as to give him the chance to get the money) for $2 billion, following which I will buy back the critter for $2 billion and 10 cents. Trade has occurred, ergo the critter is now worth $2 billion (plus warm and fuzzy additional "value" so dear to you), no? Heck, just to make you happy, we will trade the sucker 10 times, each time I will strive to make myself want to get him back more, just before I will want to sell him even more, following which I will really, really need him back and so forth. I can already feel the "value" expanding. Oh and that loan application? I will put you down as a guarantor.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Great, great, but cut to the chase: what do I put down on that bank application in the "net worth" field, since me and the banker disagree somewhat about the value of that hamster by .. oh ... about $2 billion? Do explain.

The bank puts down it's valuation, which may or may not correspond to your valuation. Don't like that particular bank's valuation of your hamster, go find another bank that may value your hamster higher than the first bank. This type of thing is a common occurrence in the automobile insurance industry. Get in a car wreck and the insurance company may write a check that does not correspond to your valuation of your car before it was wrecked.

Valuing your hamster at $2 billion is no more or no less a priori absurd than valuing a Picasso painting at $15 million. It all completely depends on independent subjective valuations.

Prices fluctuate due to many factors such as availability of labor and resources, etc, also amongst them personal preferences of buyers and sellers. Some of these factors are quantifiable, and thus subject to economic analysis, and some are not, and thus not subject to such analysis.

The specific things which are exchanged are quantifiable. If one banana is exchanged for one apple that's perfectly quantifiable even though there is no fiat currency involved in the exchange. But it is irrefutable that the TOTAL valuation of 'A' for Person 1 and Person 2 are *different* if 'A' is exchanged.

The fact that trade is driven by people's desires does not mean that the desires themselves can be part of economic analysis. Trade in many goods is also influenced by weather patterns and yet no one sane would attempt to modify economic models to account for the "value" of movements of individual clouds in the sky.

Weather futures already exist and already are traded. They exist for rainfall quantity in specific months. They exist for average temperature for specific areas in specific months.

The desires can and are valued by definition of trade. A won't be traded for B if B is valued less than A by Person One and A is valued less than B by Person Two (Person One owns A, Person Two owns B). You should be able to easily comprehend this case. You should also easily be able to comprehend the case that A will be traded for B if B is valued more than A by Person One and A is valued more than B by Person Two. The exchange will make both Person One and Person Two better off wealthier. Mutual profit wealth is created from this exchange.

You are confused on the case where both Person One and Person Two are *indifferent* between A and B, where both Person One and Person Two value A and B exactly the same. They *won't* trade in this case. Why won't they trade in this case? Because, as we covered earlier, it would be a waste of time and energy. It would still be a marginal waste of time and energy the first time they trade, and it would be a further waste of time and energy the Nth time they traded back and forth the exact same things. If they don't trade, or if they *stop* trading, that is solely because the time, effort and resources of trading A for B would make them both worse off. They are not *by definition* better off swapping A for B, and hence going through the process of wasting time and energy to make the swap would cause mutual losses for both Person One and Person Two. QED.

Do you understand now? You'll get an 'F' grade for claiming otherwise in any mainstream university, if not 99.9% of them. As far as I am aware this is standard economic knowledge, whether its Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Austrian School, or London School. There's no point arguing further if you don't comprehend or *demonstrate* otherwise. You'll just be regarded as a discredited Marxist kook if you religiously *believe* otherwise.

You see, it seems that most of the planet insists that price is ... well ... a value

Price

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Mr2001]

We were talking about the unquantifiable "subjective value" which only exists in the other guy's head not the "market value" as measured in money. We cannot know that "subjective value" by definition, thus what you said makes no sense. What makes you think we can't know it by definition? Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's inscrutable. Your preference for ice cream flavors is subjective, but if I put 31 flavors in front of you and let you pick, I'll get a pretty good idea of which one you like best.

Any attempts at "testing" of this value by engaging in trade would, by definition, come short as some (an unquantifiable amount) of that "value" must remain to form the "incentive" for trade. Er... so your complaint boils down to "subjective value is useless because we can only measure it to the nearest cent"? Don't we have the same problem with any other definition of value, since prices are always rounded to the nearest cent?

If you'll buy a cake for $1.50 but you won't buy it for $1.51, we can conclude your subjective value of that cake is greater than $1.50 (where you'd rather have the cake) and less than $1.51 (where you'd rather have the money). That's as much precision as you're going to get from any other kind of measurement.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What makes you think we can't know it by definition? Just because it's subjective doesn't mean it's inscrutable. Your preference for ice cream flavors is subjective, but if I put 31 flavors in front of you and let you pick, I'll get a pretty good idea of which one you like best.

Well, not really. I might prefer one flavor over the others but only after I had coffee. I might like one flavor and then get sick of it 10 minutes later. I might pick a "wrong" flavor based on misleading labeling or color. Etc and so on. All you can determine in this experiment that I would pick some flavor some of the time for reasons fickle and fleeting.

Such is the problem with trying to measure any subjective feelings. And note that you've merely attempted the simplest possible, multiple-choice test. There is no practical method available (outside of a fantastical thought/emotion reading machine + 100% accurate computer model of consciousness) which would allow you to actually measure a degree of a subjective feeling, which is precisely what the quantification of the subjective trade "value" you described would require.

Er... so your complaint boils down to "subjective value is useless because we can only measure it to the nearest cent"? Don't we have the same problem with any other definition of value, since prices are always rounded to the nearest cent?

LOL. What was described is not "measuring to the nearest cent" but the fact that one cent is apparently a measurement far, far in excess of the total amount of this elusive "value" of preferences. I would posit that 1000th or 1000000th of a cent would also be so under the conditions I mentioned. Indeed, any amount at all would be in excess of this "value", as it is simply not measurable in terms of dollars or cents or fractions of thereof.

In contrast, the traditional trade values are measured in numbers ranging from a fraction of a cent per traded item to billions of dollars per item and only under some circumstances (in industries and markets where the prices are traditionally rounded to the nearest penny) this loss of precision occurs.

If you'll buy a cake for $1.50 but you won't buy it for $1.51, we can conclude your subjective value of that cake is greater than $1.50 (where you'd rather have the cake) and less than $1.51 (where you'd rather have the money). That's as much precision as you're going to get from any other kind of measurement.

Except the "value" of the cake here is composed of two elements (according to your reasoning): the empirically observable "market value", equivalent to the price, i.e. $1.50 and the esoteric "preference value" of my "preference of one cake over the other" which is added to the "market value" to form your "total subjective value". Should the total exceed $1.51 the purchase is made. Should it exceed $1.500000001 the purchase is made. But as I described earlier it won't. The very suggestion of a price greater than $1.50 (the purchase price of the cake) by any amount would result in an emotional reaction and accusations of ripoff from the owner of the other cake. So the "preference value" you spoke of is so small (in this particular case) as to be wholly unmeasurable.

In other scenarios where a trade does occur this nebulous "value" would then supposedly be again in excess of the "market value" (i.e. price) by some unspecified amount (different for each trader) making them believe that they are both better off. But any attempt at measurement of this value would require another transaction, which would only occur if the "value" was still in excess of the new "market value" of this "test" transaction and so on, ad infinitum. That is why I say that this subjective "value" is unmeasurable by definition.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Mr2001]

Except the "value" of the cake here is composed of two elements (according to your reasoning): the empirically observable "market value", equivalent to the price, i.e. $1.50 and the esoteric "preference value" of my "preference of one cake over the other" which is added to the "market value" to form your "total subjective value". No, there's no adding. The subjective value of that cake is the most you'd be willing to give up in order to get it, independent of how much it's being sold for (the price). It may be more or less than the price at which you can actually buy the cake. If the price is lower than the value you place on it, then you'll buy it, otherwise you won't.

Should the total exceed $1.51 the purchase is made. Should it exceed $1.500000001 the purchase is made. But as I described earlier it won't. The very suggestion of a price greater than $1.50 (the purchase price of the cake) by any amount would result in an emotional reaction and accusations of ripoff from the owner of the other cake. Why is an individual buying a cake for $1.50 and selling it for $1.51 any worse than a store buying it for $0.75 and selling it for $1.50?

In other scenarios where a trade does occur this nebulous "value" would then supposedly be again in excess of the "market value" (i.e. price) by some unspecified amount (different for each trader) making them believe that they are both better off. But any attempt at measurement of this value would require another transaction, which would only occur if the "value" was still in excess of the new "market value" of this "test" transaction and so on, ad infinitum. Not quite. Here's one way to measure it to the nearest cent: I offer you the cake for $10. You say no. I offer it to you for $9.99. You say no again. I keep lowering the price by one cent until you buy it. Then I conclude that the value of that cake to you is between 0 and 1 cents above the price you paid.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The bank puts down it's valuation, which may or may not correspond to your valuation. Don't like that particular bank's valuation of your hamster, go find another bank that may value your hamster higher than the first bank.

This only goes to show that you've never filled any application for anything involving finances. Not only the valuation of your assets is supposed to be a "fair market value", but you are also liable for criminal fraud if it is not. It must be nice to be so sheltered and spoiled as to not realize these basic facts of life. And it is the applicant not the bank who is responsible for performing an accurate assessment of his own assets.

This type of thing is a common occurrence in the automobile insurance industry. Get in a car wreck and the insurance company may write a check that does not correspond to your valuation of your car before it was wrecked.

Which of course has to do with depreciation and is irrelevant to the bank application (unless you are calculating depreciation to get the "fair market value").

Valuing your hamster at $2 billion is no more or no less a priori absurd than valuing a Picasso painting at $15 million. It all completely depends on independent subjective valuations.

So its settled at $2 billion for the rodent on the application! And that dude in the cardboard-box is indeed the richest man on Earth as of course his net worth valuation is based on the same principle!

The specific things which are exchanged are quantifiable. If one banana is exchanged for one apple that's perfectly quantifiable even though there is no fiat currency involved in the exchange. But it is irrefutable that the TOTAL valuation of 'A' for Person 1 and Person 2 are *different* if 'A' is exchanged.

Which, again, for the millionth time, is not quantifiable, ergo not subject to scientific analysis. Since that "value" for the Person 1 can be less then a penny and at the same time for the Person 2 it can exceed the worth of the entire Universe. You will never know. And thus it is irrelevant and the only observable, measurable value happens to be that of strict equivalence to other goods and labor and is called the "market value" or "price".

Weather futures already exist and already are traded. They exist for rainfall quantity in specific months. They exist for average temperature for specific areas in specific months.

That is not the same as valuation of individual clouds, which is what would correspond to valuation of individual whims of individual people. That is why I specifically stated so, precisely to exclude cumulative statistics which average over vast numbers of atmospheric phenomena.

The desires can and are valued by definition of trade. A won't be traded for B if B is valued less than A by Person One and A is valued less than B by Person Two (Person One owns A, Person Two owns B). You should be able to easily comprehend this case. You should also easily be able to comprehend the case that A will be traded for B if B is valued more than A by Person One and A is valued more than B by Person Two. The exchange will make both Person One and Person Two better off wealthier. Mutual profit wealth is created from this exchange.

Which is still, for the millionth and one time, just as unquantifiable and unmeasurable as it was two paragraphs back and in the previous post and in the post above that and above that and ... and which will be still so in posts future irrespective of how many times you repeat this.

You are confused on the case where both Person One and Person Two are *indifferent* between A and B, where both Person One and Person Two value A and B exactly the same. They *won't* trade in this case. Why won't they trade in this case? Because, as we covered earlier, i

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

No, there's no adding. The subjective value of that cake is the most you'd be willing to give up in order to get it, independent of how much it's being sold for (the price). It may be more or less than the price at which you can actually buy the cake. If the price is lower than the value you place on it, then you'll buy it, otherwise you won

This is merely a different way of representing the same thing. One can have the price P and that subjective "value" V and they will form a relation of V - P = VD, where VD is the "difference", positive or negative. But one can also write V = P + VD, which is equally true, but which gives V as a result of P and VD, instead of VD being computed as a difference of V and P. I chose the latter method to better illustrate the unquantifiable nature of VD, and thus by extension of V.

Why is an individual buying a cake for $1.50 and selling it for $1.51 any worse than a store buying it for $0.75 and selling it for $1.50?

Because of human nature. Remember we had set up the experiment specifically so that the other trading party was aware of the cost of the cake. That is also why all retailers guard their cost figures jealously as to not let customers become aware of them as, rightfully or not, the customers expect the "fair" value of "profit" to be zero.

Then I conclude that the value of that cake to you is between 0 and 1 cents above the price you paid.

Which could, for all intents and purposes, be a value infinitely approaching the price paid. Greater then the price paid (technically) but by an infinitely small amount (such things are possible in mathematics) and utterly useless for any market valuations.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Mr2001]

This is merely a different way of representing the same thing. One can have the price P and that subjective "value" V and they will form a relation of V - P = VD, where VD is the "difference", positive or negative. But one can also write V = P + VD, which is equally true, but which gives V as a result of P and VD, instead of VD being computed as a difference of V and P. I chose the latter method to better illustrate the unquantifiable nature of VD, and thus by extension of V. By treating "VD" as a separate quantity, you're saying its value is a constant on top of (or below) the market price. But when the market price changes, the subjective value doesn't automatically change with it.

If I value a cake at $1.51 (P=$1.50, VD=+$0.01), and then the price jumps up to $2.50, I'm not suddenly going to be willing to buy it for $2.51 (P + VD). I'm going to stop buying cakes because the price is now higher than the value I receive.

I suppose you could say that the value of "VD" suddenly drops from +$0.01 to -$0.99 when the price changes, but that doesn't seem like a useful way to think about it. My valuation of that cake hasn't changed at all, so why should the variable representing my valuation change?

That is also why all retailers guard their cost figures jealously as to not let customers become aware of them as, rightfully or not, the customers expect the "fair" value of "profit" to be zero. I must say, I don't think this is an accurate representation. Everyone knows that the price you pay for something at the store is higher than what the store paid for it. That's why the store is in business. They may not know exactly how much the store is making from it, but they know it's making some profit - and certainly more than one penny.

Which could, for all intents and purposes, be a value infinitely approaching the price paid. Greater then the price paid (technically) but by an infinitely small amount (such things are possible in mathematics) and utterly useless for any market valuations. You've defined away its usefulness by looking at this strange "VD" value, a delta over the market price which must be constantly updated when the market price changes. Yes, an infinitesimal "VD" value isn't very handy; I'd say that's just another reason you should be looking at the "V" value instead.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Areyoukiddingme]

Wow. That was a long thread. A ridiculously long thread, after a while... I stopped reading it after monxtr's debating style devolved into playground "because I SAID SO!" noise.

I can tell what monxtr is trying to do. He's groping for some alternate style of economic analysis that can improve on the existing attempts. That's not a bad idea, in itself. The existing "models" are blatantly inadequate, so of course it would be nice to have better ones. One that includes some more explicit psychological component, as monxtr is evidently attempting to espouse, also sounds like a fairly good idea, but for one thing: psychology is about as hand-wavy as economics. Combining the two adds more fluff, not less. Further, it's a bad idea is to try to coopt existing vocabulary, redefining it for your own purposes. That way lies incoherence and meaningless arguments that go nowhere.

IgnoramusMaximus wins this thread (with a bonus for the nickname), in his insistence on maintaining commonly understood vocabulary. Without agreement on the meaning of words, all else is nonsense. Being the only one on the planet with a different definition of economic value leaves monxtr sounding like a lunatic, not a scholar.

I think the $2 billion rodent nicely demonstrates why existing economics models are couched in terms of the aggregate, not the individual. It could very well be that their deficiencies are due to that lack, but until some method beside aggregation can deal with both the lunatics and the vast majority of the population, economics will just have to get along without monxtr.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I suppose you could say that the value of "VD" suddenly drops from +$0.01 to -$0.99 when the price changes, but that doesn't seem like a useful way to think about it. My valuation of that cake hasn't changed at all, so why should the variable representing my valuation change?

Because it represents your valuation relative to the market price. It says "This cake is $0.99 too expensive for me". A very common real-life situation.

Everyone knows that the price you pay for something at the store is higher than what the store paid for it. That's why the store is in business. They may not know exactly how much the store is making from it, but they know it's making some profit - and certainly more than one penny.

Again, one of the main flaws in the Religion of Capitalism is the underlying assumption that market players are rational. Yes, people do "know" that profit is necessary to the operation of this system but that does not stop their reptilian brains from overriding that knowledge. As long as this profit remains abstract and nebulous they are able to accept it. Make it plain and obvious and their instincts will kick in full force. People also "know" that cooperation when done voluntarily and with deliberation is more efficient (from the point of view of resource utilization and well being of its participants) then dog-eat-dog competition, but their reptilian brains introduce a counter-productive factor called "greed" (a part of much earlier evolutionary genetic heritage dealing with environmental optimization of the gene pool in animal populations) which renders the most effective scheme useless and requires a whole different approach which allows that animalistic mindset to be redirected into something resembling common good (which is why Capitalism, however gravely flawed, beats Communism in practice). It is just the way people are. Irrational. One has to only look at global news for a daily dose of irrefutable proof of this. Capitalism survives (sort of) precisely because greed seems to be stronger in many people then their other insanities. It even trumps religion for the most part. But that very force can be turned against the system, as in the example above of the two friends with cakes (which is why I chose it).

A bit of futuristic predictions here: when people will become capable of connecting their brains to very high capacity networks directly so that their very psyche and memory can interact with them, sooner or later some of them will get an idea to "merge" parts of their minds with one another thus resulting in something approaching shared consciousness and thus end up with a way to form permanent consensus updated in real time. Then watch out Capitalism.

The other interesting possibility is also this: when all the mechanisms our brains become known to science, someone will get another idea: to genetically modify people so that instead of individual greed, satisfaction of which makes them feel happy, their "greed" will become that for betterment of all around them, satisfaction of which would make them happy, while also finding those who feel the old "individual" greed as repulsive. Entertainment will ensue after that.

You've defined away its usefulness by looking at this strange "VD" value, a delta over the market price which must be constantly updated when the market price changes. Yes, an infinitesimal "VD" value isn't very handy; I'd say that's just another reason you should be looking at the "V" value instead.

By demonstrating that when a market transaction is actually performed under conditions of sufficient supply of cash the VD is infinitely approaching zero, I also demonstrated that under the same conditions V infinitely approaches P. Ergo for practical purposes one only needs to concern himself with P only. This is yet another way of showing that all discussions about V are in effect pointless from the point of view of economics. V is by itse

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I can tell what monxtr is trying to do. He's groping for some alternate style of economic analysis that can improve on the existing attempts. That's not a bad idea, in itself. The existing "models" are blatantly inadequate, so of course it would be nice to have better ones. One that includes some more explicit psychological component, as monxtr is evidently attempting to espouse, also sounds like a fairly good idea, but for one thing: psychology is about as hand-wavy as economics. Combining the two adds more fluff, not less. Further, it's a bad idea is to try to coopt existing vocabulary, redefining it for your own purposes. That way lies incoherence and meaningless arguments that go nowhere.

I think that monxtr's motivations are somewhat different. While many people look upon Capitalism as an imperfect, deeply flawed but unfortunately the best workable solution we have to resolving the conflict between individual animalistic urges of the populace and the overall need for the society to move forward, some have come to see it as a religion because they've confused the fact that Capitalism revolves around individual greed with an endorsement and justification of that greed. And such a Religion of Capitalism frees them from all these worrisome social responsibilities and nagging concerns of what remains of their conscience. But one of the fundamental cornerstones of a religion is that it has to provide for some miraculous effects supposedly resulting from following its tenets. And this is where this spontaneously created with each trade "value" comes in. Trying to redefine the idea of trade in this way changes no observable effects of trade itself but enables the acolytes to claim that trade, and by extension greed, are inherently "good". You probably noticed how he insisted on trade being essentially the only possible foundation of civilization. This is a core part of such a religious belief system where all things "good" must be seen as directly, or indirectly, resulting from whatever it is that one is trying to justify of one own character.

monxtr is of course not the first one trying this, I've run into his kind many times before. One could even quip that what monxtr is engaged in is one of the oldest pursuits of mankind: an attempt to justify one's selfish greed to everyone, including oneself. It has been done by kings (who claimed to rule in the name of whatever god was popular at the moment) and it was done by men of wealth all the way to today's CEOs who espouse "social Darwinism" (or more accurately Spencerism) whereby supposedly "the best members" of mankind are "rewarded" by gigantic wealth for being "meritorious" to society. On how this is supposed to work with vast inherited estates they remain mum.

So adding additional fluff and losing coherence by redefining commonly used labels was not high on monxtr's list of concerns, as these (and many more others) are all cheap sacrifices when compared to being able to make him feel good about himself.

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[Areyoukiddingme]

Damn. I always attribute more noble motives than people actually have...

Re:TWC was ousted from Minneapolis

[monxrtr]

Which, again, for the millionth time, is not quantifiable, ergo not subject to scientific analysis. Since that "value" for the Person 1 can be less then a penny and at the same time for the Person 2 it can exceed the worth of the entire Universe. You will never know.

Wrong. *Preference* is an economic concept, an economic term. Preference means valued *more* than something else. This is scientifically established (unless you want to claim mathematics is not science, which would have a huge impact upon the oceans of statistical masturbation "research"). Trade only occurs when one thing is preferred to another thing. This is irrefutable. The scientific data is the observed trade event. Of course subjective value can never be established as precise numeric ratios. And using monetary prices as proxy measures doesn't change the underlying facts, that trade EQUALS *preference*, which EQUALS a "greater than" mathematical sign *more*.

Statistics is mathematically deduced. If there are "confidence" levels, preference of value is 100% absolutely epistemologically known.

"Valued equally" is INDIFFERENCE, not preference. Equal subjective valuation is as impossible to numerically scientifically establish as greater or less subjective valuation. It's *SUBJECTIVE*. Subjective value is epistemologically impossible to measure. That's why the best the scientific approach can accomplish is an ORDINAL RANKING. Ordinal rankings are measured by observation of exchange events. And none of these valuations are constant for any individual. They are constantly changing. But you don't hear physicists claiming quantum mechanics is "not quantifiable, ergo not subject to scientific analysis".

And thus it is irrelevant and the only observable, measurable value happens to be that of strict equivalence to other goods and labor and is called the "market value" or "price".

There is no measurable equivalence, according to the same methodological basis you object to regarding the measurement of more or less. All that is known when it comes to trade, is one good is worth more, one good is worth less, and both goods are not equal. Pretending they are equal when it is *known* they are not equal is not a scientific methodology, it is flat earth religion. And on an epistemological basis it's silly to pretend that a circle is a square, to pretend that an apple is an orange, to pretend that a $1 is a hamster. These are *different* unequal things by nature. Possessing one form as opposed to another form is purely subjective value preference.

You need to see how "price" is a non-scientific *custom* of measuring in terms of monetary units. Money doesn't measure value. Never has, never will. Money itself is subject to changing subjective valuations. Money can never be a scientific standard unit measurement of value. Money is just another *good*, the most commonly traded thing in exchange. It's scientifically, epistemologically, no more than that ever. Money doesn't measure value. Get it through your flat earth head. Price is nothing more than a barter exchange ratio of one good in terms of another good. It says nothing about *value*. That's why people subjectively talk about particular barter exchange ratios as being "a good deal", "a bargain", "a sale", etc.

You might as well complain that biology and geology aren't scientific fields because name like Neolithic are arbitrarily named by humans, and it cannot be established that that is the "correct" name for a period, or that periods are classified arbitrarily by arbitrary events rather than scientifically measured equal time periods.

And I will keep telling you that individual whims and preferences are unquantifiable and unmeasurable and thus cannot be used in calculations of trade values.

This is not true. They can and are quantifiable *ranked* ordinal numbers, 1st, 2nd, greater, lesser, etc. The act of trade is a revealed *observed* act of subjective value ranking. If you trade $1 for a candy bar, it is rev

wtf...

[jonaskoelker]

the lawsuits ... ask that Comcast be barred from continuing to violate various state laws Uhh... it should be made no longer legal for Comcast to do things that that are (already) illegal?

"I am above ze law!" <adds goop to hair>

Re:wtf...

[Gothmolly]

The point is that the state Attorneys General don't care - bigger fish to fry, golden goose, etc. They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?

This lawsuit will bring focus to the issue.

Re:wtf...

[Hassman]

The bandwidth shapers...the crack dealers will destroy themselves.

Is it more just to go after those who CHOOSE to break the law, or those that OPENLY do it because they are big business and feel they can do what they want when they want?

Re:wtf...

[echucker]

LA DA asked for the same in their suit -

The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office is asking that the court permanently prohibit the company from further engaging in any unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices or deceptive advertising and take appropriate action to adopt measures to prevent future acts.

Do they ask the same of DWI's that kill people, or rapists? What the hell is the point of even making such a statement? Trying to save the city money by not having to prosecute again because you asked them not to repeat?

Re:wtf...

[x2A]

The bandwidth shapers of course. The crack dealers aren't rippin me off.

Re:wtf...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?"

The Bandwidth shapers, and of course the Crack dealers who are shorting their customers.

Re:wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

no. its to put the company on notice. it means they violate a court order the next time they do it and will be in a deep load of doo doo.
yes the same applies to sex offenders and the like - ever heard of the 3 strikes laws ?

Re:wtf...

[kosty]

Well, besides the fact that drug USE is, by and large, a victimless crime? I vote to go after the bandwidth shapers. Crack dealers have to compete for customers/victims; at least in Atlanta.

PS: I'd love to see crack-dealer-style competition of gunning each other down amongst the cable/internet pimps...

Re:wtf...

[drinkypoo]

They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?

I want them going after bandwidth shapers. They don't have jurisdiction over the CIA.

Re:wtf...

[Splab]

Crack dealers are easily solved. Just create fixing houses where users can get their fix in a controlled environment like in Holland and you are good to go. Of course that means that quite a lot of drug enforcement people are in a bit of a job trouble.

Perhaps they should be reallocated to BEA (B=bandwidth)?

Re:wtf...

[WillDraven]

More importantly, the crack dealers will replace themselves. Despite anything the government does, there will always be a demand for drugs. Considering the relative simplicity of manufacturing most drugs (especially those derived from natural sources such as heroin, cocaine and of course marijuana) it is no surprise that people are going to meet this demand while turning a nice hefty profit due to the illegality of the product.

The ISPs on the other hand, well they're spying on and interfering with the private communications of thousands of upstanding citizens. A bit more serious than Alice buying her crack from Bob instead of Charlie down the road who'll take over the business if Bob gets popped.

Re:wtf...

[zmollusc]

Ah! Alice deals in drugs! I have been wondering for years why she runs all that crypto. Now it all makes sense.

Re:wtf...

[cdrguru]

As drug use is generally a self-destructive behavior, are you willing to subsidize these people? Obviously, they can't hold jobs. Would you hire a drug addict for anything, especially something that offers the opportunity to become addicted to something else?

The first problem is that people choosing to use drugs in significant quantities essentially choose to devote their lives to the practice. This is pretty much mandated by the term "addicted". The addict has no option, no choice in the matter - they are addicted.

The second problem is where do they sleep? Either we, collectively as a society, put them out on the street, or we take them in. If we take them in, it is a Chinese obligation - we own them and have to take care of them, probably for life.

The third problem is growth. If a reasonable lifestyle choice was to sit around stoned all day, not having to work and having someone take care of your basic needs, who would choose it? Today we see a small fraction of the population making that choice without the side benefits other than just sitting around stoned. If we make it tolerable, neigh even attractive, who will choose it? I'd say we could be looking at significant growth in the US.

So, as a hard-working American, are you prepared to pay taxes at the level required to support those that make this choice? If not, then you want drug use to be as unattractive as possible, including criminal penalties for use. If you are, then I think you are in a minority but one that may be visited upon us soon. Both Hillary and Barak have made statements about "equalizing income" lately. I guess that means if you make too much the government takes the excess in taxes. If you make too little, you get grants. Then everyone is equal, one way or another. Equality for all, right?

My guess is that if drugs were legal with no stigma or penalities and use was effectively subsidized for those that couldn't hold a job while addicted we would see 30% of the population of the US vote with their feet to join the drug-addicted.

Re:wtf...

[Agripa]

Just add handguns and self loading firearms to the NFA. That will give the DEA agents plenty to do and citizens hardly ever get entrapped, shot, or burned alive over NFA violations.

Re:wtf...

[Hubbell]

A huge portion of crime in this country is drug related. Gangs commit crimes over drug turf constantly. The only reason drugs are so expensive, leading people to resort to crime to do them, is because they are illegal which drives the cost up. IIRC cocaine cartels from south america allow (pretty much give to the authorities) one out of every seven ships transporting huge amounts of cocaine and simply write it off because of the insane amounts of money they make off of the other 6.

Re:wtf...

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the old days when you had to nuke a kid to get the slots he was using on the DCC Send of a big sharer...

Re:wtf...

[rohan972]

The addict has no option, no choice in the matter - they are addicted.

An opinion proven false by the fact that on a regular basis, some addicts choose to stop taking drugs.

The second problem is where do they sleep? Either we, collectively as a society, put them out on the street, or we take them in.

I don't get your reasoning here. If they own a house, they can sleep in that house. If they rent, they can sleep there so long as they pay the rent. If they don't pay the rent, they would be evicted and have to make other arrangements, just like everybody else. Why the need for collective action? It is up to them to look after themselves, their refusal to do so does not obligate me in any way.

So, as a hard-working American, are you prepared to pay taxes at the level required to support those that make this choice? If not, then you want drug use to be as unattractive as possible, including criminal penalties for use.

Why not just let people face the consequences of their own actions? The choice isn't just between payment or punishment, you could let them be.

My guess is that if drugs were legal with no stigma or penalities and use was effectively subsidized for those that couldn't hold a job while addicted we would see 30% of the population of the US vote with their feet to join the drug-addicted.

Stigma is a separate issue to penalties. There is no legal penalty for alcoholism, but AA is anonymous for good reason, there is definitely a stigma. Not many people respect those who won't exercise self restraint. You could have stigma, no subsidisation and no legal penalty. Maybe that isn't the best way to go, but the idea that we are obliged to pay the way for people who refuse to do it themselves has got to go.

Re:wtf...

[mdielmann]

PS: I'd love to see crack-dealer-style competition of gunning each other down amongst the cable/internet pimps... Put it in an arena so I won't get caught in the crossfire and broadcast it on TV, and there will finally be a reality show I'm interested in. And the media companies will finally be putting in the effort for all those profits they want.

What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[jonwil]

All 3 ISPs are cable companies with heavy investment in distribution of content from the major media companies. Distribution that is threatened both by piracy and by "free" content being distributed on line.

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[AHuxley]

Or they do not want to spend cash upgrading suburbia.
Let it rot and demand the gov helps rolls out the "future".

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Z00L00K]

So soon nobody will be able to watch YouTube if the bandwidth chopping continues.

You have to pay extra for access to YouTube, UDP traffic, images in HTML, Java Applets, Embedded Flash - and you must accept that we inject some commercials in the pages you visit.

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like in the 90's?
  http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Yaa 101]

So essentially we have to make them choose between TV and internet running over their cable, to solve the problem that they created them self.

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Killjoy_NL]

I'd choose internet, but I already threw out my cable :)

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[monxrtr]

What's the percentage breakdown in fiber optical cable resources used to deliver cable television channels and that used to provide internet service? The Comcast internet/cable television charge monthly bill seems to break down around 40% internet 60% cable television? So how much per byte do Comcast customers pay for internet content versus cable television content?

Maybe Comcast has idiot executives who aren't paying attention to the bottom line profitability per byte per medium. What would the return on customer satisfaction be from cutting out high definition television channels and using those freed resources for internet bandwidth? Comcast is in full panic mode from the success of Verizon FIOS. Just look at the huge swings in quality and price whenever and wherever Comcast has to compete against Verizon. Maybe that explains why Comcast shares are down 27% over the last year while Verizon is only down about 10% (Time Warner is down about 31%)?

In internet parlance, they're doing it wrong.

You could also seriously wound Comcast if you started a limited boycott, and got all their VoIP customers to switch to competitors of VoIP. Doing that would send a message many times more damaging than all the lawsuits will net. A 10% loss of revenue would sting them incredibly hard.

Re:What do all 3 ISPs have in common?

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Then I tell them, "you, you, FUCK YOU, you FUCKIN' FUCKS, you!" and cancel the service -- or better yet, I get together with other people who are also pissed off about it, and work on ways to subvert their bullshit technology.

A sign of distorted economics in the ISP industry?

[compumike]

Everyone loves unlimited bandwidth and being off-the-meter. But by selling bandwidth with zero incremental usage cost, they're really just having the light users subsidize the heavy users. That's what really causes problems like this. Sure, bandwidth is cheap, but the whole reason that they're having problems that require traffic shaping is that their bandwidth is NOT unlimited.

I know consumers (myself included) enjoy not having to think about bandwidth usage, but maybe there could be a better pricing model that more appropriately sets the costs of the bandwidth for heavy users.

--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics!

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[corsec67]

Too bad for you that the ISPs are a monopoly due to "control by government busy-bodies". Or are you suggesting that every single ISP/cable company/power company/water company/sewage company be required to run their own pipes to your house?

Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.

If you run from injustice instead of fighting it, guess what, you are going to lose.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[poetmatt]

I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.

You can always set up emergency tier 1 ISP lease plans where they lease you extra bandwidth so you don't end up short, although its less cost efficient than making an enormous profit off light users to subsidize the heavy ones.

The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month....sure, the super light cars would live painfully, but the SUV owners (and other things that guzzle gas but are legit such as diesel, freight, airplanes) would be screaming out. For internet purposes replace diesel, freight, airplanes with fileservers, bittorrent, streaming video, and downloaders/gamers. Yes, at that extreme just like internet, people will stop using it as much, because at that point it becomes practically extortion (and in the case of gas, the oil industry would be kaputz/pay in blood for charging so much, however there is competition enough that if they all do that there are other gas options). When there are no options, this extortion has no retribution, thats where we're at now with internet.

This comparison isn't 100%, but it's the closest I could think of at the time.

Don't like comcast, time warner, etc? You have nowhere to go, and you're paying the 20$ no matter what you drive, even though they could be charging 2$ or 3$.

It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies....(say 600 people who can average comcast's download speed for upload as well ends up around 60$/month )kinda makes you wonder just how much is siphoned to CEO's, huh?

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[garcia]

Sure, bandwidth is cheap, but the whole reason that they're having problems that require traffic shaping is that their bandwidth is NOT unlimited.

We paid for their build out and have yet to see the benefits of that tax break. I call it even.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[vertinox]

I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia.

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

If they all did it or you only had one of them in your area then you don't have much of an alternative do you?

With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave.

Otherwise, one could only imagine they'd have no qualms encouraging the regular government giving them power to search your house without a warrant if it made them a quarterly profit.

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel. So the next time you fill up your gas tank, thank those unregulated futures speculators.

I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[nebular]

I live in Canada and know the pain of throttled traffic. However I do agree that bandwidth is not free and the we can't continue to have unlimited. Right now my ISP has a cap of 200GB for 29.95. I find that reasonable. If I use too much bandwidth, I pay for it, but anyone using the internet reasonably is fine and will be fine for the next few years at least anyway.

I don't mind having to pay extra if I use an unreasonable amount of the network, but my definition of reasonable and most ISPs seem to differ

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[WK2]

That's exactly what they should do. They should charge per bandwidth. The problem is exactly that they aren't doing that. They advertise unlimited service, but then they go and snipe connections and disconnect users who use more than an unspecified amount. They need to be up front and honest about what they provide and how much it costs. Hopefully these lawsuits will make a dent in these crimes.

Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidth

[chabotc]

Living here in The Netherlands it's almost hard to imagine how it can be so bad over there in the US.

For me bandwidth has been un-metered, un-throttled, un-shaped, unlimited and un-restricted in all senses of the word for the last decade or so. And while i do pay 50 euro's (~ 75USD) a month, i get 20mbit with great service, a personal home page, spam filtering and all the other services you would expect from an ISP, plus they never blocked any ports so running your own http/smtp/imap/etc server from home is no problem either. (there are a lot of cheaper options, you could get 4mbit with no restrictions for about 12 euro's a month but then you would loose a bit in the service and quality department).

I guess my question is ... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all ... it sounds outragous!

Why is that even a question?

[khasim]

They have limited resources, do you want them going after crack dealers or bandwidth shapers?

So it's okay to break the law ... as long as you're paying taxes? Or what?

If it's a choice, then raise taxes and hire more people to pursue more people (and corporations) who are breaking the law.

Re:Why is that even a question?

[drinkypoo]

If it's a choice, then raise taxes and hire more people to pursue more people (and corporations) who are breaking the law.

It really doesn't need to involve raising any taxes. See, busting crack dealers costs money. Busting corporate criminals makes money because once you prove malfeasance on the part of a company officer, you can go after the company for money. But then, IANAL, maybe you can do it the other way around too. :P

Problem is that only the people who haven't paid up their bribe money and/or won't fall into line are actually ever busted. Look at the Billy Gates situation - they've got Microsoft red-handed for antitrust and Bill is absolutely complicit. First Microsoft is assigned a slap on the hand, and then the handslap is even foregone! If your lobbyists are doing their job, then all the right people have been paid off. Once they receive big bundles of cash that it's possible to track down (especially if you leak some records) then they are hesitant to expose you since it will mean the death of their own career... which is why Ms. Clinton will never say one more fucking word about the insurance companies, for example - they crossed her palm with silver. (The only difference between a Rep and a Dem is that it costs more to buy the Dems. Seriously, look it up :P)

"Vote with your wallet": Moving to a new house ...

[Jumperalex]

and took this as an opportunity to make the move to FIOS. Now granted the OTHER reason this is when I'm changing is because CUNTCAST was the ONLY available broadband at my current residence. Now that DSL and FIOS are available I made sure to tell COMCAST exactly why I was cancelling my service. Doubt they are smart enough to keep statistics that might clue them in, but I voted with my wallet and made sure they knew about it.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Coopjust]

It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all

That's about right. I have a choice between DSL and Cable for high speed internet (satellite is too high latency). Luckily my cable company treats me well (15mbps/2mbps for $55/mo) but the DSL service is horrible. If the cable company made changes like these I wouldn't have much of an alternative...

It's ridiculous. I hope somebody who actually has a brain gets in the FCC and forces the telcos to actually use the $200 Billion we've given them so far to improve the infrastructure...like we PAID them for with tax dollars.

Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Doug52392]

Here's some of the promises Comcast makes on their latest ad I just got in the mail. Let's see if theres fraud in it...

• "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
  Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.
• "McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."
  I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!
• And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
  So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...
  

So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Wister285]

• "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
  
  Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.

This is absurd. PowerBoost does in fact work, but I doubt that it is designed to be able to work in every circumstance. What if you connect to a slow server? How can it even work then? Are you going to sue because the server can't serve fast enough? BitTorrent is peer-to-peer and considering most connections are asymmetrical to begin with, expecting PowerBoost to let you download really fast to begin with is unreasonable.

"McAfee(r) Security Suite featuring a series of tools to help keep you, your family, and your home computers safe, protected, and virus-free. A $120 value."

I have McAfee, provided by Comcast, installed on my Windows OS (I use Linux most of the time). Guess what? ANOTHER LIE! Sure, it's free now, but in a year EVERY DAMN time you turn your computer on, McAfee nags you to buy a $120 dollar subscription. MORE FRAUD!

So you got a year's subscription for free. I'm sure there's fine print that says that exactly.

And for their phone service: "Utilizes Comcast's own secure network, not the public Intedrnet, for secure VoIP phone service".
So your saying the NSA can't listen in? More fraud...


So 3 counts of fraud on ONE ad! Comcast are going to have a problem defending themselves this time...

Quit being so sensationalist. Their claim is that they don't use the public internet for voice communications. This makes a man-in-the-middle attack that much harder as it would probably have to be an inside job. As for the NSA claim, it is purely conjecture. I'm also sure they don't claim that they secure their customers so much as to break the law by violating a court order.

Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!

Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like..." Hard to argue that speeding up the first 10 MB or 5MB of a file doesn't help.

2. "A $120 value." What did you expect, McAfee forever? That would be an infinite value since it's priced at $120/year.

3. "for secure VoIP phone service" Note how they said "secure" and not "super secure".

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[celle]

"Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast."

So I'm thinking you're biased. Read the article, lawyers are going after them.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quit being so sensationalist. Their claim is that they don't use the public internet for voice communications. This makes a man-in-the-middle attack that much harder as it would probably have to be an inside job."

Did you even read what you wrote? What is "the public internet"? (Hint: Comcast is part of it) And are you telling me that Comcast VOIP customers CANNOT call non-Comcast customers? Because unless that's the case, the traffic is leaving Comcast's network.

And if Comcast et al really cared about securing customers from internet threats they'd be supplying them with routers with unified threat protection built in and maintained as part of the ISP subscription.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[drinkypoo]

This is absurd. PowerBoost does in fact work, but I doubt that it is designed to be able to work in every circumstance

It is sold as being useful for video files.

Thank you, please drive through.

So you got a year's subscription for free. I'm sure there's fine print that says that exactly.

Putting it in the fine print makes it okay? Companies used to say "A one-year trial of..." right up front. You know, honestly. Because let's face it, nobody (statistically) actually reads the fine print, and this is a well-known fact.

Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth.

That's not as easy right now as it used to be.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this one...

I had Insight for the last few years. In 2006 (I think), they upgraded their broadband to 10Mbps (Insight 10.0! was their tagline in commercials). Everything was great. I could download things from stable servers (newgroups, rapidshare, linux isos, etc) at the full 10 Mbps (1.2 Megabytes per second reported in the various apps).

Then, this year, Comcast bought Insight out in this region. In February, they sent me a letter that since I had been with Insight/Comcast for so many years, I was a premium member! And the title only cost another $10 per month. There was no added service, just the extra charge. Oh, and they were moving a few channels off basic cable to digital (so you would have to rent a box). Luckily, they weren't any channels I cared about.

Then my connections started slowing down. I was lucky to top 700 KB/sec. Also it wasn't stable any more. It would drop down to 100, pop up again to 800, come down to 500, etc. I did a little digging at Comcast's web site, and come to find out they don't have any 10Mbps service at all. Residential stuff is 6. Wouldn't ya know it, after a couple Internet outages here, things were slowing down to 6 Mbps.

So, in the end, it's more expensive, worse service, and there's not much of any alternative in these parts. Welcome to Comcast.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[b4upoo]

The problem rests in the false definition of broadband that Comcast and others are using. There are nations whose nets are race horses who would never consider three or five megabytes per second as broadband.
          The real deal is that American service providers are way too greedy and they are neither keeping their equipment and services at a modern level nor are they giving good coverage in more rural areas.
          Obviously our government should be protecting us from this third rate net service attitude and it is not.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[joshtheitguy]

It is really apparent they don't give a damn about their customers if they give away and recommend you use McAfee.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[bussdriver]

Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast. So comrade, do you work for SALES or Public Relations?

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Anonymous Coward]

• "PowerBoost(r) makes fast even faster! PowerBoost(r) helps power downloads of large files like videos, music, and games at speeds up to 12 Mbps!"
  
  Now, do I see a "boost" of speed when downloading videos, music, and games (legal ones) from BitTorrent? NO! I NEVER even get a good connection! And at the bottom of the flyer, in that long list of fine print, it says "PowerBoost(r) provides bursts of download and upload speeds for the first 10 MB and 5MB of a file, respectively. So I don't even get PowerBoost for longer than a second! Theres one fraud.

MB != Mb. So it's more than a second :)

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[joleran]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

Their ads may be slightly confusing compared to reality at first glance, but the fine print is all there in black and white, and those ads are innocuous enough:

PowerBoost is working as intended? If you could use it for entire huge files (how many files >15MB do you really download) that would be a faster connection, not an added bonus.

If you don't like what McAfee is doing, uninstall it? It's as advertised.

OK, the VoIP line is a little off, but "secure" isn't defined as "completely private", it only means unwanted intrusions are not likely to happen.

As an aside, I once had a Comcast "tech" agent vehemently deny that their digital phone service used any sort of VoIP technology, so it's pretty amusing to see it in an ad.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Wister285]

No, but I bring up these points because I think they are valid. I've had Verizon DSL in three separate locations and I can tell you that they have nothing on Comcast.

Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Wister285]

What do you consider to be broadband? I'm surprised every time I see a company up the ante. Even before I started to work for an invest in these companies, I actually regarded their actions as more generous than necessary...

Disclosure: I am an employee and shareholder of Comcast.

Re:Examples of fraud on the latest Comcast ad

[Anonymous Coward]

You got a little something on your chin, pal. I hope Comcast doesn't have herpes.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[tloh]

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

With the manpower/resources involved in doing this, you wonder if it will work out economically in the long run. Minor nit-pick, but I understand the spirit of your comment.

I think, however, it is more interesting to look a the problem from the perspective of the government. Why bring such charges when the national security apparatus similarly invading the privacy of citizens via laws like the patriot act? I suppose one can get around the hypocrisy charge by asserting only the government - not private businesses can do such things. But then we end up looking more like the police state we are fond of criticizing. Would industry lawyers actually have enough balls to call the kettle black? intersting times.

No, they should not.

[plasmacutter]

I'm sorry but I'd rather have sniped connections and over-zealous QOS than take a giant step backwards and have internet billed like a cellphone service.

Any company that tries to meter me to "improve customer efficiency" will get a reminder that customers are supposed to get what THEY want. They will get my service cancellation call, regardless of any potential contractual penalties.

Re:No, they should not.

[DrEldarion]

I want Comcast to pay me for using their service! I also want a new Corvette for $5k and Gwen Stefani to chill with me for the weekend! What I want matters, and no other concerns do! I'M THE CUSTOMER DAMN IT!

You have to deal with the reality of the situation. Some customers cost more than others, and as much as I wouldn't like it, it's not ridiculous to charge the high-usage customers more and the low-usage customers less.

If you're costing them more than they're making from you, they won't be sad to see you go, anyway.

Re:No, they should not.

[plasmacutter]

This is a fallacy.

I think the USPS and fedex should also charge by the mile.

think of the poor people using their flat rate envelopes to ship to the neighboring states who are being "forced" to subsidize the people shipping to california and alaska.

damn those "heavy shippers".

what kind of stockholm syndrome do you have?

Re:No, they should not.

[DrEldarion]

You picked a very poor example. The people mailing envelopes are the light users, the people mailing packages are the heavy users, and they already do pay based on distance.

Re:No, they should not.

[maxume]

The USPS sells flat rate boxes. Anything you can fit in the box goes for the price of the box. A local business uses them to ship horse shoes. The postmaster told me about it when I was using the flat rate boxes to ship some stuff, he said that they were really getting away with one (I shipped plastic with some air in it and barely beat a per mile box).

Re:No, they should not.

[Killjoy_NL]

Gwen Stefani is a sweety, I wouldn't mind spending time with her either :)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[mitgib]

Too bad for you that the ISPs are a monopoly due to "control by government busy-bodies". Or are you suggesting that every single ISP/cable company/power company/water company/sewage company be required to run their own pipes to your house?

And why doesn't it make sense that the pipes/wires/drainage belong to the people instead and then the service providers can all lease that from some management authority to gain access to the last mile and provide everyone service?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[baboo_jackal]

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel?
Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations.

It is because speculative corporations...
No. Speculators perform a valuable function in the free market. You're only looking at one half of the picture (the half that allows you to demonize speculators).

Speculators buy a commodity in the hopes that the price will rise. In doing so, they decrease the supply, thereby further driving up prices. (this is the "bad part" that you've fixated on). However, by driving up prices, they decrease consumption (and *please* don't trot out the "but gas is price inelastic!" argument. It's not).

The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase.

A better way to look at speculation is this: Speculators act as "buffers" for supply and demand. They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand. Also, you left out the fact that speculation is *not* a risk-free enterprise. Speculators take considerable risks in storing commodities. If the price decreases, they've lost out! In addition, consider the fact that the rising price in oil incentivizes energy companies to develop alternate forms of energy, and maybe will even help politicians in the thrall of mindless environmentalist special interest groups see the folly of preventing domestic drilling for fossil fuels, and the development of a nuclear energy infrastructure.

If your opinion is that we ought to be consuming less fossil fuels, then speculators are doing you a favor! If your belief is that fossil fuels ought to be cheaper, so we'll use more energy, then why not just advocate for the development of nuclear power, or drilling in ANWR? Why not vocally denounce the unethical price-gouging behavior of OPEC nations? There are a lot more culprits to blame for this than speculators. In fact, they're the least of our worries.

But just because they happen to be making out like bandits right now, they're easy targets for ill-considered and thoughtless rhetoric.

Fines have gotten too low!

[wfstanle]

"... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law"

WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.

Re:Fines have gotten too low!

[mitgib]

I'm pretty sure I understood the article to say per violation to mean $2,500 * xxx customers, that can get quite expensive quickly.

Re:Fines have gotten too low!

[dasheiff]

"WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business."

Well let's see, if they earn about $50 from us per month as profit and the $2500 is per person effected (which is everyone), then it is equivently to 50 Months (4y 2m) worth of profit. I think that fits.

I found myself

[jsse]

woke up in the wrong universe. In my universe customers are sued all the time.

Hi there guys, I'm very new here.

Comcast lock in

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live in San Francisco bay area, there are three main ISPs - AT&T U-verse, Astound.net and Comcast. Unfortunately in my apartment, they do not allow anybody other than Comcast to make connections. Astound is not even allowed to enter the premises, while U-verse is not allowed to make connection from the apartment junction box to my unit. That makes Comcast the default monopoly.

What surprises me is that AT&T and Astoud.net is taking this lying down. I even went personally to Astound.net office and they say my apartment address is black listed in their database (essentially meaning they will not even try to make a connection here). At least AT&T technician from U-verse came here and argued with apartment manager with no success. I wrote a letter to AT&T U-verse and did not even get courtesy of a form letter reply. Yet U_verse is wasting their marketing dollars by sending me fliers almost everyday (and to everybody else in this complex) to sign-up with U-verse.

Comcast Internet connection is the pits these days. After a minute or two of good connectivity, it drops to almost 0 bytes per second. This creates havoc even in accessing gmail. My VOIP phone or chatting with my friends on iChat becomes impossible.

The whole situation makes "voting with our dollars" impossible. By the way, I found out that other apartment dwellers in SF bay area are in similar position.

Re:Comcast lock in

[Anonymous Coward]

This is illegal as of last year. The FCC ruled that locking people into contract monopolies in apartment complexes and housing units is against the law.

Call the FCC and file a complaint.

Re:Comcast lock in

[Duncan Blackthorne]

The whole situation makes "voting with our dollars" impossible

Not impossible, just unsavory for you. Cancel the service and don't have internet at home. If everybody who was unhappy with them did that, they'd be out of business in a year or less.

Re:Comcast lock in

[not_anne]

I think your angst is misdirected. Do you really think Comcast forced your apartment owner/manager to sign the contract against their will?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Richard_at_work]

BTW and kind of off topic... Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? Yeah. OPEC, and prohibitive taxes and restrictions on domestic drilling, plus increased fossil fuels demand from developing nations. That has a bit to do with it, but mainly its at $136 a barrel because the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

They already do charge by weight to make stuff easier and cheaper to deliver, you raving neo-Bolshevikite/Trotskyite anarcho-communo-crypto-statist Marxo-Marxite-Marxist retro-phyto-gangreno-Guevarite proto-postulo-pappado-vivido-pappado-pappado-vivido-Blarite/Brownite-Barakist/Clintonite unreconstructed loon.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[nine-times]

I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies.

So in other words, you're in favor of a free market. The chief problems with the government running things is that it's an overly-powerful body that can exert undue influence, and they aren't subject to the normal market forces that would keep things running well. Monopolies have the same problems.

You can be in favor of the free market, with no qualifications, and then there's a separate question: What do we do with the markets that are run by monopolies, and therefore aren't free? Thinking the government should regulate those monopolies does not make you a communist. Particularly not when, as in the case of cable/telephone companies, the monopoly is enforced by the government.

How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[plasmacutter]

Seriously, how much are the telcoms paying you to make these posts?

There is no reason to get self-righteous about this. It's not as if people go to jail if they choose NOT to buy the service because they dont like the idea of subsidizing heavy users. They as light users don't see noticeable service degradation from heavy users, and they still choose to buy it. there is no "injustice" being perpetrated.

There is NO CREDIBLE REASON to charge for internet like cellphone service. What kind of stockholm syndrom do you have where you can defend this practice?

Does fedex charge by the mile? I contest that people who ship using flat-rate envelopes to the neighboring state are subsidizing people who ship using the same envelopes cross country. Do you see how stupid this sounds?

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[RCL]

So they pay the same amount of money no matter where you send the package in US? I can already see the ways to abuse this system, but given low postage costs, it wouldn't probably be a problem for fedex/whatever you have out there.

I really like your way of thinking that internet should not be billed like a cellphone. I'm glad to hear that bandwidth is that abundant in States.

I assume that you wouldn't mind sharing your connection with me, then - for a fixed sum of money, of course? Why not share something that's UNLIMITED, after all? :-)

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they probably do, so what? Fedex can determine that the average distance a package travels is say 649 miles and price their flat rate envelope service (given size and limited weight, keep in mind) based on that. Its not worth the hassle to try to figure the difference between an envelope travelling 3000 miles and one travelling 30 miles, since most of the cost is in the handling charge to get it 1-5 miles from the customer to the depot and then other 1-5 miles from the depot to the customer.

If Fedex offered envelope delivery to the Space Station, they could probably keep the flat rate structure if they wanted, since very few people know someone on the Space Station so there wouldn't be many deliveries there. But if they expanded the Space Station and it was manned by 1000 people, suddenly a lot more people would be sending stuff there, and they'd be faced with a similar choice to that of the telcos. Either charge more for the "heavy" users, or raise the flat rate price and let the light users subsidize the heavy users even more.

But when the Space Station gets expanded again and is manned by 100,000 people (more and more people watching HD video on the web) then the plan has to break down eventually and WILL move towards heavy users bearing more cost, your whining notwithstanding.

And no I don't work for have never worked for and have no investments in any of the big telcos, cable companies, Sandvine or anything else that makes me say this other than knowing more about the business world than you, apparently.

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[TheThiefMaster]

See: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=577465&cid=23700981
For an insightful reply.

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great to send small quantities of ammunition, ammunition components and gun parts quickly. Up to the point you fill their box full.

I've bought lead shot stuffed in one and that was a large savings over ground.

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[nthcode]

Yep, I can see how stupid this sounds now because if people who are shipping more stuff they would have to ... oh wait... nevermind

Re:How much are telecoms paying you to astroturf?

[Zoxed]

> Does fedex charge by the mile?

No, but they probably charge by the kilo ?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[lattyware]

With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave. Restriction on how they behave? I don't know how you view a government, but, in theory at least, they don't have restrictions on how they behave set by any higher authority.
Oh, of course, you mean that the US will nuke any company that steps out of line. Right?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[ScrewMaster]

I think the big fiction is that there has to be a "last mile" monopoly in the first place. That made sense back when a. there was only one telecommunications provider and b. running that last mile was prohibitively expensive. The telcos have been milking that for all it's worth: maybe it is time to eliminate that monopoly and allow some serious competition.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[sconeu]

i get 20mbit with great service

I live in L.A. and it just seems like I get 20mbit. Oh wait. You meant 20 Mbit.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[plasmacutter]

it's called a republican--corporations have a god given right to march over the "lazy" people who aren't rich--appointed FCC allowing local monopoly frachise agreements. In the majority of areas there are 2 choices, "the cable company" or "the dsl company", assuming both options exist.

telecom lobbies have exercised regulatory capture for at least a decade now, and, while their agendas are much less invasive than the RIAA, have considerably greater lobbying grip on our legislatures.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[rfunches]

Do you know why oil is 136 a barrel? It is because speculative corporations like Goldman Sachs are driving the market trying to get $200 a barrel.

OT but I have to respond because the theory of speculation just doesn't work out. When people talk about oil in the U.S. they refer to light sweet crude, which is traded on NYMEX, a regulated futures market. (Another popular market, Intercontinental Exchange, is not regulated but only trades North Brent crude.) It's a delivery contract, meaning that when the contract expires (and all contracts have an expiration date), you must take physical delivery of 1,000 barrels per contract owned.

So if there are so many speculators able to push the price up, they have to sell the front-month contract to avoid taking delivery of oil -- they're in the contract to make money, not get oil, after all. So they should be selling the day before contract expiration, and all of the speculators trying to sell at once should cause the price to drop, right? If oil isn't selling off sharply right before expiration, then either the people who are holding contracts for delivery are keeping the price up or the speculators are taking delivery of oil. Unless you argue that people are lying about oil delivery on a regulated exchange (NYMEX) the argument of speculation just doesn't hold water.

It could add up even more quickly...

[Coopjust]

If you count every forged TCP RST packet as a violation, that would mean damages in the billions.

Re:It could add up even more quickly...

[drinkypoo]

Sounds good to me. If the damages exceed the value of the company, take it away and give it to the beneficiaries of the suit (with the proviso that the lawyer not get a percentage of the company as pay) :P

Re:It could add up even more quickly...

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone seeing this possibly as an alternative to paying for the Iraq mistak.. I mean war? :)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Ephemeriis]

I am against any sort of control by government busy-bodies. Don't like it, go elsewhere, like russia. The problem is that without any sort of control by government busy-bodies companies will do whatever it takes to maximize their profits.

Without control by government busy-bodies you'd have companies using sawdust as filler in their sausages... Pressing chalk dust into tablets and calling it "aspirin"... Paying children $1/day to work in hazardous conditions... You get the idea.

And without control by government busy-bodies, as we're seeing now, companies will sell you 20 GB/month and call it "unlimited".

MB mb

[way2trivial]

12 Mbps
10 MB

do you know what comparing apples to oranges means?

it takes 6.66 seconds to push 10 MegaBytes down a 12 MeagaBits pipe

Liability issues

[Larsrc]

Then solution is easy: Have the RIAA/MPAA/anybody else slap them with a billion dollar lawsuit for not filtering out pirated/obscene/hate/terrorist/etc content. So far, they have been able to claim "common carrier" protection. If they can do DPI, they are liable for *anything* that gets transmitted over teh internetz.

-Lars

Re:Liability issues

[ScrewMaster]

So far, they have been able to claim "common carrier" protection.

No they have not, because none of the big players have common-carrier status for their data services. Not even the telcos. Nor, I might add, do they want it.

Re:Liability issues

[Larsrc]

Not clear, see http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2002-01/Uncommon.html - but if they don't have CC statys, then we can certainly sue the for, say, spam being sent across their networks. And the CAN-SPAM act has shown to give significant fines to spammers, consider how many spams are carried by the average ISP...

-Lars

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Znork]

They actually smooth out the peaks and valleys of supply and demand.

While I agree with you in theory, if you add in leverage and valuation bubble driven lending I'm not so sure it works out that way. The game changes when lending creates money.

If the price decreases, they've lost out!

If the price decreases they go bust and the lender loses out, which apparently translates into the Fed and taxpayers bailing them out. Structured correctly over several deals, most of the speculative profit is retained anyway, and the losses get almost completely socialized.

Supporting the freedom of the market is one thing (and a good thing, IMO), but you also have to realize that certain segments of what we have today is nothing like a free market. The banking industry in combination with fractional reserve lending distorts the effects of what _should_ be rational (and market smoothing) speculation.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[kosty]

"The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities..."

That's not how the commodities market works. Read this: http://theroxylandr.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/how-commodity-speculation-works/

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

I disagree about limited bandwidth. The problem is that bandwidth is flexible, and cheap. If you don't buy enough that's no fault other than the ISP themselves.

This is not true at the last mile. It should be true for the telco equipment, but in reality you end up with crosstalk and all kinds of other problems. These problems are being reduced as the copper between the telco and your block is being replaced by fiber... but there's many miles of copper out there and lots of it is Shit. It's especially untrue for the cable companies just due to the nature of their distribution architecture as well. But then, a small percentage of a DOCSIS connection is a hell of a lot faster than a small percentage of any DSL connection.

The current way we deal with internet (consumer to corporation) is like charging X dollars/gallon for gas, but only if you buy less than 5 gallons a month.

You do have a point, but the supply of petrochemical fuel currently exceeds the demand - at least in this country, people are not avoiding doing things because fuel is not available, it's only because it's so expensive. That cost is not due to scarcity, either; oil companies are charging record prices and making record profits.

On the other hand, the demand for bandwidth (as in, the amount the pipe can carry at any one time) is frequently exceeded (again, at least at the last mile) on a regular basis. You can say they should add more equipment, and you're probably right. They'd say they're doing it as fast as they can, which is disingenuous but more or less correct (it's as fast as they can do it without taking a salary within the realm of reason.)

It's ridiculously cheap to make a fast wireless mesh network in a decent sized neighborhood even without subsidies.

And THIS is what we need to focus on if we want to solve this problem permanently. IPv6 provides us a large enough address space to pull it off - let us go forth and network the world. What we need now is a multitude of devices with hardware built in to facilitate this, so that more repeaters are floating around the world. The XO has a Meshing AP built right in...

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Government generaly have, you know, elections.
So sure, right now they are already like governments; dictatorships, to be precise.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their wire, the traffic is not.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[x2A]

Here in the UK we seem to have the "best" of both worlds. I recently upgraded the network card that connects to my cable modem, and removed traffic shaping that reserves just a couple % of upstream bandwidth for my ssh sessions so they remain lag-free even while ppl I share with are using p2p networks, to discover that my service provider have secretly, without telling me, over doubled my connection speeds (up and down), and I haven't been using it! Oh and the only ports that they block are the windows networking ports, which to be fair, is probably a good idea, the amount of people who connect directly with windows machines and don't have passwords (or have very weak ones).

However with other networks it's another story. Plenty will sell you more bandwidth than you are allowed to use, leaving you stung at the end of the month when the bill comes in, unexpectedly disconnected until the end of the month when your counter is reset, or being warned of permanant disconnection by letter through the post.

Why go with them? Well not everybody lives in a cable enabled area. My parents, who both run internet based businesses, made sure they could get cable internet before buying their new house, as they didn't want to buy a house that would leave their businesses crippled by having to use a different network.

On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[goombah99]

Forget Shaping, how about active censorship of some websites.
here's the traceroute: ...snip...
  5 pos-5-0-0-ar01.albuquerque.nm.albuq.comcast.net
  6 te-0-7-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net
  7 te-0-0-0-0-cr01.stratford.tx.ibone.comcast.net
  8 comcast-ip-services-llc-los-angles.tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net
  9 tengigabitethernet6-3.ar4.lax1.gblx.net (64.211.110.153)
10 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.arn1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102)
11 * *

As you can see it dies in comcasts network. I can still get to piratebay.org via anonymous proxy, so it's definitely a comcast issue.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[billcopc]

I'm actually surprised this practice isn't more widespread.

I still don't surf TPB unprotected, because quite frankly what I surf is none of my ISP's business. There is so much "network damage" caused by these god-complexed imbeciles, I simply route the majority of my traffic through a big fat tunnel back to a private server overseas. The added privacy is well worth the extra latency.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[goombah99]

Well at some point it has to get onto a network backbone and you won't have any control over the path it takes. Having a server elsewhere may not really help as this practice spreads.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the DNS servers. Use OpenDNS (www.opendns.com) and you can get there without a problem.

"It's Comcraptic!" -- Disgruntled Comcast Customer

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Your traceroute and your conclusion are nothing alike.

Looks to me more like comcast hands it off to globalcrossing, who then takes it through what is actually their edge, and then PirateBay.org does not respond to your UDP requests, likely due to a firewall.

This can be verified with a TCP SYN based traceroute to port 80(which you know they allow). Heres one I did from a server with comcast.

TTL LFT trace to thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80/tcp
** [firewall] the next gateway may statefully inspect packets
  1 [AS7016] [CABLE-1] 73.201.88.1 6.2/9.7ms
** [neglected] no reply packets received from TTLs 2 through 4
  5 [AS7922] [COMCAST-16] te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 18.4/13.8ms
  6 [ASN?] [GBLX-13] Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.6/25.3ms
  7 [AS3549] [GBLX-8] port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 140.7/139.9ms
  8 [AS16150] [83-RIPE] [target] thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146):80 143.3/142.9ms

Now the fact that it jumps about 110ms in one hop is a little odd, but that just shows GlobalCrossing isn't exactly top of the line.

And just for another datapoint, heres the (tail of) the same route using ICMP ECHO requests instead of UDP datagrams:

  5 te-0-4-0-1-cr01.pittsburgh.pa.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.91.129) 13.598 ms 14.115 ms 13.300 ms
  6 Te6-4.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net (67.17.194.97) 14.536 ms 13.284 ms 16.724 ms
  7 port80.ge-2-0-0.407ar1.ARN1.gblx.net (207.138.144.102) 137.295 ms 135.119 ms 136.846 ms
  8 thepiratebay.org (83.140.176.146) 135.577 ms 133.808 ms 131.285 ms

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[silas_moeckel]

You do understand that 110ms jump is going from the US to europe?

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Actually I didn't even think about it, and no wonder I didn't recognize the location codes.
That is entirely reasonable if not impressive that PA -> euro is 8 hops.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[darth dickinson]

Ping over UDP? Man, I've been doing it wrong all these years, just using plain ol' ICMP.

Re:On my subnet Comcast blocks PirateBay.org

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

That's what ICMP is most used for. Unfortunately most routers know this and often treat them specially as a result -- Prioritize them or route them through your best bandwidth to make your hosting facility appear more responsive.

Luckily you can deduce ping or route from just about any kind of packet that will generate a response from the distention machine by just timing it and/or reducing the TTL. Good way to discover where things get filtered.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

They really need peak-time metering, like the power company (at least out here on the best coast, PG&E will come and switch you over to a time-of-use meter for free) so that they can give you a financial incentive to stay away from the peak hours. However, a certain number of peak hours or bits should be paid at a low rate, so that you can still check email and the weather without having to look at the clock.

Furthermore, I want to see this regulated. I realize that legislation is not the answer to all problems, of course - but we the people have subsidized ALL of these services to some extent. Right-of-way, for example; the argument for even allowing a company to have a legislated right-of-way is that it provides a public benefit. While the company's reasoning for putting it in is that it provides them new opportunities to take your money, that is not the public justification. Regardless of intent, if the public decides it is not in their interest to allow that nonsense, it is the public's prerogative to prevent it from occurring.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[drinkypoo]

I think the answer is something more along the lines of having mesh-networking WiFi phones. If someone could just slip that into the phones as a feature it would be great. I figure the cellphone companies will actually implement mesh networking for their own ends soon enough, it would certainly enhance the value of microcells which are smaller and thus less offensive than the big towers. Perhaps the mesh WiFi thing won't take off until after that, when the average mortal gets used to the idea.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Rickz0rz]

What's a 'unreasonable' amount of the network? You must remember that companies like Comcast won't explicitly tell you this. They market it as it's unlimited... even though they don't say it's unlimited, at the same time, they don't actively mention an invisible cap.

It's like you go to the gas station and pay for $20 of gas but you're only allowed to get 10 gallons before the gas attendant cuts you off because you're 'using too much'. (this thread needs more metaphors.)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

They only act as buffers when they buy low and sell high, as you would expect rational speculators to do.

When they take the "free" the money the Fed keeps printing and buy high, because they think the Fed is going to keep on printing "free" money and hence it's going to go higher still, they are not buffering. They doing the reverse, and making the peak higher, when the sell they'll make the low lower too - the opposite of smoothing things out.

But it's not their fault, they're being rational enough, it's simply Fed induced inflation at work. You'd be mad not to leverage as much as you can into positions that will do well in inflationary times (which is commodities...)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you misunderstand how "futures" trading works. Traders (the ones you're calling speculators) do not actually buy and take delivery of commodities, thereby acting as pricing and supply buffers as you seem to think. The single thing that a futures trader never wants to do is to actually own the commodity they're trading. If this happens, they're screwed as these are guys with Park Avenue offices, summer homes in the Hamptons, and winter homes in Aspen - not warehouses or tank farms.

In the futures market, a trader simply says something like: "I'll sell you a million barrels of oil for $150 per barrel on the first of next month". He doesn't own oil wells or a million barrels of oil, he is simply offering to sell something (which is probably still deep in the earth somewhere in the world) at a particular price on a particular date in the future. If I think that oil is going to be selling for more than $150 on the first of next month, I accept his offer to sell and guarantee to give him $150 million on delivery of the million barrels. This is a contract between me and him. If, when the futures market opens for trading the next morning, I offer to sell my million barrels of July oil for $160 per barrel and find a third trader willing to pay, I simply sell my contract with the first trader to that third trader.

The first trader is still on the hook to deliver the million barrels for $150 million and the third trader is obligated to buy a million barrels for $160 million. I'm out of the deal completely. The oil is still in the ground somewhere. Nothing has actually moved from the possession of one individual to another. The $10 million difference is mine to keep.

The student who wishes more insight into futures trading might want to watch the classic 1983 film "Trading Places".

Can't we nail them

[iminplaya]

over some interstate commerce clause, restriction of trade, or something?

Hmmm, Fines Eh?

[BlueStrat]

Just calculate the total amount of these fines and judgments, divide by the number of residential customers, and you'll know how much your internet bill will be going up in a couple months.

This reminds me of the way a certain meat-packing plant a couple towns over operates. They employ (and underpay) illegal alien workers, they violate workplace safety codes blatantly, and they just pay the fines and judgments and go on as usual because the cost of compliance is more than the fines and judgments.

Until the financial penalties are a very significant percentage of their gross income, and/or CEOs and board-members are held personally financially and criminally liable, this kind of behavior will continue, and any costs imposed will be passed along to consumers.

The "corporate veil" of protections against personal civil and criminal liabilities of corporate heads and boards needs to be more easily pierced when it involves intentional abusive or illegal behavior on the part of corporations like the kinds of behaviors exhibited by Comcast and other cable ISPs, and corporations in the US as a whole.

If the people actually in charge of corporations knew that abusive and anti-competitive behavior by the corporations they head could land *them personally* square in the hotseat, much of the corporate bad-faith, "nothing counts but the bottom-line" behaviors so typical of the current corporate environment in the US would quickly undergo radical change.

Ah, to dream...

Strat

Re:Hmmm, Fines Eh?

[freedom_india]

You are right on target. This is what i have been saying in all my previous posts.
Coprs are irresponsible children with immense power and one goal: Be Selfish.
Unless you uncharter their existence, and prevent their CEO and Board Members from serving in same capacity for life, you would not get a safe field.
For that to happen, you must prevent corporations from donating to campaigns: Only legal persons who are citizens may donate. And all donations are NOT anonymous and cannot exceed $250.

"futures" cannot be horded.

[plasmacutter]

"futures" cannot be horded.

people who buy futures are investing in the future price of a product.. futures are essentially corporate bonds used specifically to purchase commodities.

the people who buy the futures are not in control of the oil theyre connected to. they cannot horde it in warehouses to drive up the price.

As much as I hate corporations and agree with your sentiments about them having government power, the assertion about futures simply doesn't hold water.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[lattyware]

You know as well as I do that he wasn't saying that big companies should have elections.

Most disturbing image...

[Jorophose]

This reminds me of possibly the most disturbing image I've ever seen on 4chan... And 4chan of all places! I don't have it saved but it really did make me crap a house, especially when I realised the poster wasn't kidding.

The image?

19.99$: Basic service: Access to MSN, Yahoo, (various other sites)
29.99$: Premium service! Access to MSN, Yahoo!, Facebook, CNet, (other sites)!
49.99$: Extreme service! Access to over 100 web sites! Even youtube! ... And I wouldn't put it past them even for a second.

Re:Most disturbing image...

[carambola5]

The image: http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

Re:Most disturbing image...

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope you changed your pants before posting..

Re:Most disturbing image...

[Jorophose]

Ahh! Thank you! :)

I knew the post was a bit off but the idea was still there...

I don't mind paying $1 or two extra for

[LM741N]

an Ubuntu iso image now and then (or even a Knoppix DVD). But the ISP's have to spell out in graphic terms exactly what they are going to charge for the larger use of bandwidth. The same would apply if I was a big video fan. I just want them to be honest, thats all. I think that if they really got honest, customers would warm up to them, and they would get more business. The CEO's at these companies must be all idiots- not realizing this. They are just alienating their customers.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting argument I've heard against domestic drilling is not environmental. There's a limited amount of oil available. How do we want to use it? Produce a plausible plan for oil usage over the next 50 years involving known domestic oil reserves plus imports. For almost any reasonable such plan, you'll discover we're using oil faster than we want to be. We should be saving it for later, by leaving it in the ground right now. It's far less painful to wean ourselves off it over an extended period of time than to extract it as fast as we can and then run out at a similar pace.

Sue comcast under anti-trust law or file FTC compl

[plasmacutter]

They are entering into contracts with that apartment complex to tie comcast to their rentals which is completely unrelated in order to further their market share.

this falls afoul of anti-trust law, and denies customers choice.

File a complaint with the FTC or sue comcast.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[mitgib]

Maybe you misunderstood me, I am all for nationalizing the last mile. Be it locally, by county, state, or federally. Locally and by county would probably be bad as too many city/county councils are controlled by the ILEC anyway, and and federally would also be bad as they seem to have a way of not being able to do anything right to start with.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called capitalism sir.

it's what makes the USA #1.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Easy2RememberNick]

Speculators hope for a large difference in price depending on the situation they don't necessarily care if it goes up or down. If you're long you hope the price will go up if you're short you hope the price will go down.

  Then there is hedging, you're both long and short, usually farmers do that to help with large price changes.

  Arbitrage, where you can exploit the differences of markets that offer the same type of futures but due to time or communication differences you can swoop in an make a profit before they equalize.

  Otherwise yes I agree, if it wasn't for futures this mess would be worse there would be far greater fluctuations in the prices of everyday goods.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[j79zlr]

What utopia do you live in where you get "cut off" at 10 gallons for $20.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dumbfuck they don't have cable in Russia. Granted there is a pair of tits doing the weather but its OTA with attennae. Like France it's dial-up for the Internet. It's 3rd-World for fucking sake.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

You mean the way that light telephone land line customers subsidize the usage of the heavy phone users?

This is the way it works with any 'flat rate' service, and it's not inherently evil - it's just one business model.

I vacillate between canonizing Comcast for providing stable cheap bandwidth, and demonizing them for traffic shaping and outsourced tech support.

They still suck less than telcos and dsl providers.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[SirTreveyan]

You hit the nail on the head when you said you have "options" from which you select. Here there really are no options or tiers of service to select. We have the "Home" option, which is advertised as unlimited, at what ever price they want to gouge customers for, and then we have the "Business" option, with no better service at 3 or 5 times the price just because the ISPs know businesses are able write off their internet connection as a cost of doing business. Those are the options with which the US high speed customer are stuck. In the US you basically are seeing a fight between customers and major ISPs to provide the services they promise. If we had options...and IF the damn telecomms would deliver what they promise, and abide by the laws that apply to them, things would be different. Until they do...you are gonna see things like this all the time.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[paulmer2003]

If they did that then a large number of customers would defect to another company who does *not* go through their packages. Capitalism works.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Urza9814]

Heey, I pay about $60USB a month for 6mbps, many ports blocked, and pretty much no customer service. You know why? I have no other choice. It's either that or dial-up. Well, I suppose I could pay much more for satellite...and have a slower connection, still be half dial-up, and have even WORSE service. Oh, and bandwidth limits. And I'm lucky. I'm the last house on the street to have cable. I know a couple people that live further up that have to have satellite. They got their internet service cut off completely just by browsing. Heavy browsing (myspace, youtube, etc with three kids), but still just browsing

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[legirons]

Living here in The Netherlands it's almost hard to imagine how it can be so bad over there in the US.

For me bandwidth has been un-metered, un-throttled, un-shaped, unlimited and un-restricted in all senses of the word for the last decade or so. Is that just because you get the (apparently quite good) XS4ALL ISP there?

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[shdowhawk]

We "put up with it" because we have no choice in the matter.

It always makes me laugh when people post something like "If you don't like it, don't use it!" ... Explain to me how I'm suppose to do that when I don't have a choice.

I'm a professional Web developer. Dial up is out of the question. But wait! It doesn't matter what my job is since 90%+ (I'm pulling this out of my ass) of webpages now assume that JS is turned on AND that you have "broadband" (there was a /. post about this a while ago and I'm too lazy to look it up). So that means for me to really do anything, I need "high speed". I'm an hour south west of Pittsburg in the state of Pennsylvania. My options are 1. Comcast for $50 american a month. 2. DSL. for 50$ a month, 3m/b download -- note: 3m/b download as BEST CASE --, AND you are forced to pay 20-25$ a month to ALSO have a phone line (required). Even though I use VOIP for business(25$ a month). That means that DSL would cost me 75$ a month, for much less options and access AND staticy lines.

So what are my options? Pay more for less with DSL? Or hold hands with the devil (comcast) and let them do anything they want to me?

Thanks to the government here not doing anything about it (since they're probably well paid by lobbyists) a LOT of us really don't have options.

What CAN I do? Vote? HA! that would involve us actually getting that option from the people running the country who mostly think that "that internet is some new fangled thingy running on those tubes in a closet". Those who don't think that are people like Al Gore *cough*dumbass*cough* - "The inventor of the internet"

This sueing is some of the best news I've seen in quite a while

The fallacy light subsidizing heavy users...

[plasmacutter]

I'm sick and tired of hearing regurgitations of the fallacious telecom perpetuated equation of flat-rate internet service to government welfare programs.

first, this is a private service. Nobody is forcing anyone to pay for it it under threat of prison like taxes, so there is no reason to get self righteous about it.

Second, unlike the way taxation diminishes disposable income, light users don't see any noticeable degradation in service because of heavy users.

Third, NOBODY mentions the fact that light users have the option of ubiquitous "dsl lite" plans, and the extremely frugal, extremely light users always have the option of dialup.

This righteous presentation of the "poor light users" as victims whose money is being siphoned to support heavy users is a fallacy. It's obvious light users are perfectly happy parting with their money for these services and that they have the choice of lower fees for lighter plans.

Another straw man feels the warm lick of immolation.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know whom the fed gives money to? Actually, no one. They *lend* money to certain banks. It's not for oil speculators. Quit pretending you know anything about how the market works. Have you heard of Amaranth??

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Qzukk]

Well shit, I better revoke my shareholder proxy in time to show up at the next election and demand that they stop this tomfoolery at once!

if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[big_paul76]

Then where are the inventories?

The classic example of speculators raising the price _and keeping it high_ is DeBeers/diamonds. And we all know they have enormous inventories of diamonds, because they buy up any surplus any given year.

So where are the oil inventories?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[legirons]

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package?

They already do charge by weight to make stuff easier and cheaper to deliver However, they don't yet forge your friend's handwriting to include advertising in a letter from them, which would be the USPS equivalent of Phorm.

Neither do they scan your letters and send copies to a marketing organisation, which is what DPO is really all about (i.e. the leaking of huge amounts of personal information gathered via illegal wiretaps)

Good news.

[nurb432]

But can we also tack on a rider to prevent metered use?

Hey, it works for congress..

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, they should put themselves out of business and back in the concept of DIALUP. I totally agree.

ISPs here tried that, the consumers changed tier and they lost out. They removoed the meters and everybody changed back tiers.

Ranting on a forum wont solve your problem. Voting with your money WILL.

You dont NEED the internet. You CAN live without it. Go outside.

Exactly what is happening.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Stop hating companies. If they really were making false or deceptive claims, the vulture lawyers would have tried to rake the company over for all that they are worth. If your position is right, it would be too easy!

No kidding, you would have expected to see at least two, maybe even three, class action suits by now.

Re:Exactly what is happening.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[ch0knuti]

Funny since I am in Russia and writing this on a computer connected by broadband. True ADSL is more popular than cable here but still it is not dial up. Also I thought that France had one of the best broadband coverages in the world.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

"prohibitive taxes"

On petrol? In the US? Is this a joke?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[LM741N]

He is correct. Everything I have ever read about market economics makes the same point. it was the same way with "day traders."

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it's from demand from developing nations, and the tenuous supply (OPEC isn't increasing output, and there's a lot of badness going on in oil-producing countries). The dollar has gone down significantly by FX standards, but compare that to oil which has doubled in the past year. (I work in quant finance and DO know something about this.)

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[maz2331]

It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.

A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.

Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.

Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like Compuserve or AOL.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Hedging is not "both long and short". Hedging can mean owning options, collars, swaps, etc. --basically anything that insulates you from price movements. "Both long and short" makes no sense--long means you net own the instrument, short means you net sold the instrument.

Usually when someone is hedged, that means they own (or sold) futures contracts, meaning they have a guaranteed price for commodity X delivered on date Y. Farmers might sell futures on corn, for example, which means they already have a price for the corn they're going to sell next year.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[foobsr]

the argument of speculation just doesn't hold water

Aha.

Quote: "A panel of experts told a Senate committee on Capitol Hill Tuesday that rising oil prices have a direct connection to manipulation of U.S. energy futures markets, and federal regulators failed in their responsibility to protect consumers.

Among the experts who testified were Michael Greenberger, JD, professor at the School of Law and a former director at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Greenberger argued that basic market fundamentals are only a piece of what explains the current cost of crude oil.

"I think the price is completely unmoored from supply-demand," said Greenberger."

CC.

Or maybe it's global crossing censoring websites?

[goombah99]

checking who owns the last stop on the traceroute:

whois 207.138.144.102

OrgName: Global Crossing
OrgID: GBLX
Address: 14605 South 50th Street
City: Phoenix
StateProv: AZ
PostalCode: 85044-6471
Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.gblx.net:4321

NetRange: 207.138.0.0 - 207.138.255.255
CIDR: 207.138.0.0/16
NetName: GBLX-8
NetHandle: NET-207-138-0-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NAME.ROC.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.PHX.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.SNV.GBLX.NET
NameServer: NAME.JFK1.GBLX.NET
Comment: THESE ADDRESSES ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 1996-05-20
Updated: 2005-03-02

RTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
RTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
RTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net

OrgAbuseHandle: GBLXA-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: GBLX-Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@gblx.net

OrgNOCHandle: GBLXN-ARIN
OrgNOCName: GBLX-NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgNOCEmail: gc-noc@gblx.net
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/08/1354257#
OrgTechHandle: IA12-ORG-ARIN
OrgTechName: GBLX-IPADMIN
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-404-7714
OrgTechEmail: ipadmin@gblx.net

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-06-07 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

just how do you...

[Scudsucker]

..."vote with your wallet" with monopolies, eh? Until telecos pay back the subsidies they were given and start paying rent on the land their lines cross, they can take their regulation and like it.

Re:just how do you...

[Jumperalex]

Perhaps you didn't actually read my entire post. Since I clearly pointed out that I was not able to switch because Comcast was the only game in town until my impending move where I have already ordered my FIOS service and told Comcast why I don't want their service.

Beyond THAT, I completely agree with your comment re: subsidies, rent, and regulation.

In short we are in violent agreement.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would be irrelevant if the US hadnt started a war to ensure that Iraq didnt trade its oil in euros instead of the almighty dollar.

Cake^Hegemony or death? Looks like death it shall be.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Anonymous Coward]

But by selling bandwidth with zero incremental usage cost, they're really just having the light users subsidize the heavy users. That's what really causes problems like this.

Fuck that. The problem is caused by them offering higher bandwidth than their network is capable of and DEPENDING on the existence of light users to make it feasible. In a world of increasing bandwidth intensive activities, even light users are going to use more. They knew this was coming and they were paid to upgrade their network a LONG time ago. Switching to a metered system is just another way for them to avoid upgrading their network and pocketing a lot of extra cash. Cash that you know won't be used to upgrade the network as well.

neither

[Scudsucker]

We shouldn't have to put up with either shitty access or pound me in the ass prices. It's time for the feds to step in and tell these guys to either upgrade their networks or return all the subsidies they were given and start paying rent on the land that lines run across. And for the Libertarians out there, the lines run across public land, so the telecos can take their regulation and like it.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[4e617474]

It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all

It's a lot different servicing 9.8 million square kilometers than it is servicing 41,000 square kilometers. Throw in the tradition of companies engaging in the most aggressive anti-competitive practices they possibly can unless the government steps in despite their efforts to buy them off (a publicly-traded company must engage in any legalized form of bribery available - passing up this opportunity for more profits is an actionable tort), the enormous economic pressure on companies to spend as little money as possible while bringing in as much as possible (anyone in IT in the US getting whatever they need to do their jobs without any hassles, let me know where you work), and the widespread belief that being sophisticated enough to realize that they're getting a raw deal is "elitist" and wrong/weak/arrogant/gay/unpatriotic, and yeah. Internet Stone Age. There are actually, staggering though it will be to someone like yourself from civilization, advertisements still going around that talk about 768K DSL as the "High Speed" alternative to dialup.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Yaa 101]

The monopolies you talk about are the result of telecom consolidation that is the work of the US federal government.

All this negative stuff that the US internet users must endure is the price of the US federal government it's wish to spy on their citizens.

Hooray!

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Hooray for signs of intelligent life in our government! They might just be starting to pay attention!

There are some commenters here (like always) who are saying that "the light users are subsidizing the heavy users". I call "bullshit" on you; how much is $ISP_NAME paying you to blog for them? :p The reality is this: If the ISPs actually had infrastructure to handle the bandwidth they're selling everyone at such high prices, then they wouldn't be placing unfair restrictions on it's use. Let me say that a different way in case you didn't catch it the first time around: If they (the ISPs) weren't selling more bandwidth to their customers than they actually have to sell, they wouldn't be scrambling to find someone to point fingers at other than themselves. It's high time that someone in a position of legal authority started taking notice of their (the ISPs) bullshit, greedy business practices, and did something about it, and it's high time that their customers got all up in their face about it in civil court. Hell, where do I sign up for the class action lawsuit myself, I want my voice heard too!

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[budword]

Would be because demand is high, due to inefficient SUV's we drive, AND our insistence to not use the oil we have, to instead buy oil from people who hate us ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403052.html

We get what we deserve. With oil prices anyway.

Addendum to previous comment

[Duncan Blackthorne]

..oh, and BTW boys and girls, according to results of the glasnost test run not more than 48 hours ago, Comcast is STILL inserting bogus TCP reset packets into BitTorrent streams; TFA says that Comcast had agreed to stop doing that. Big surprise! They're LYING.

Democracy...

[conureman]

...leads to tyranny. Anyone can earn mod points.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[maxume]

In a supply and demand situation, scarcity doesn't mean just 'a limited supply' it also means 'a fixed supply'. The price of oil (and thus gasoline) certainly isn't being set purely by supply and demand, but a significant portion of the price is due to the relative amount of supply and demand, and it takes months and years to start producing new oil, so it is very difficult for producers to increase supply in response to higher prices, even when they want to.

There is probably a good argument to be made that (at similar volumes to today) whatever the lowest future price of oil is is reflective of the amount of demand built into the price of oil today. If we never see anything less than $80 (inflation adjusted) oil, then that is at least a starting place for how much of the market is being driven by actual consumers, rather than speculators.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called an analogy, stupid.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[celle]

Regulated speculators are good for a limited market, which is what we had up until 2000. Unregulated aren't. Right now the commodities markets have been completely hijacked by large funds. Thank you republican congress and earmarks for putting in the loophole that allowed it(I think it was a congressman who earmarked it into a must pass bill for his wife on the cftc board in 1999, no one even had time to read the bill.). Right now we have virtually unlimited banks and funds in control of large blocks of very real limited commodities. So guess what, false shortages, price manipulation, and it hits real people because they depend on those commodities to just live. There was a reason congress put limits on the commodities exchanges and we're seeing why. Basically we're all being blackmailed and robbed of our necessities because the investing swine have run out of more indirect places to steal from. We need to drive these funds back out of the market and put the controls back on. And then drive these banks and funds out of business for manipulation, making the point that they crossed the wrong line when they screw with the needs of the public.

It's cannibalism plain and simple, they helped build up the public need and now they're manipulating the public for their own interests, okay robbing us.

I think we need public floggings and lynchings of public officials, with extreme fines and retroactive penalties that can be extended to their whole family and thieving friends. Get these crooks out of the gene pool. Let's not forget the unethical (often short term looking) business swine while were at it.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[twotailakitsune]

The network with 5% in use cost the same as the network at 95%. It only starts to cost more when the network has demand over 100%. If your phone company set you up with frame relay, you pay for a QOS of some bandwidth (ex. 1mb/s, 5mb/s,...). They will let you use more then that but the packets get marked. If the network can't deal with anymore they start dropping the marked packets. You can even get a QOS of 0mb/s vary cheap.

Deep packet scanning would put more load on the network, than if they just send the packet.
There is 2 resows they do the scanning.
1.) Outside of network uses. The Cable co. have to pay for the bandwidth to the internet.
2.) Cable co. wants you to pay them for movies, and music. They hate youTube, and any other ways that you can see movies (copyrighted or not). Even if they block other things while blocking copyrighted things.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Renraku]

Everything is elastic. When people can no longer afford gas, they won't be buying it.

They'll be stealing it.

They'll be getting fired for not being able to make it to work anymore. They'll be living off of welfare/food stamps because they can't afford to move closer to the jobs.

The demand is going to go down from all of these people not being able to afford it. But the price drop will not be immediate. By the time the price starts to drop, output and refinery capacity will be reduced to compensate for the decreased demand. Speculators will still be playing the "..it could rise sharply at any time!" game.

Speculators hope that the price rises like they've been betting on so that they'll make more money.

Speculators fail to realize that if they trigger an economic depression that their money won't be worth a whole lot anymore. Inflation will more than make up for any gains they have made off of the market.

In the end? Everyone loses.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[jopsen]

With corporations with more money in the bank than the GDP of many small nations, I think its time we start treating them as governments too and have some sort of restriction on how they behave. FYI, war on cooperations is called a communistic revolution :)

- Not that I don't think it a good idea... :)

I'm all for the free market, but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved into smaller yet competing bodies. I think a free market needs to be regulated to remain free... But you Americans doesn't seam to get that...
You start yelling communist as soon as anybody starts talking about socialism and government involvement...

but when corporations behave like governments and as de facto monopolies then they either need to be regulated or dissolved Off topic, but it's quite funny how you Americans like to regulate and dissolve foreign governments... :)

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[maxume]

Satellite is pretty much bidirectional at this point. I guess if you live in a really unlucky spot you might still need a phone line, but they generally advertise that you don't need to tie up your phone to use it.

Lying?

[conureman]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Scudsucker]

Running the last mile is expensive and will always be expensive. They're also called natural monopolies for a reason - do you really think three telecos are going to run wires to hour house when you're only going to use one? Why invest in redundant infrastructure when you can only use a third of it at a time?

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[infinite8s]

That's what happens when you live in a socialist country like the Netherlands. Here in the good 'ole USA, we have capitalism to make sure there is good competition to keep prices low. Wait, what?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

This is correct. The Federal Reserve creates bubble after bubble by counterfeiting the money supply, even if it's hidden by grossly manipulating official inflation measurement indexes such as the CPI, and removing the M3 total money supply number from official Fed reports. The late '90s internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now the commodities bubble. It's exactly like stepping on bumps in a rug; one bump deflates while another bump pops up elsewhere underneath the rug. Newly printed money and credit is going to be spent, rigorously in economic terms *traded*, for other specific goods first as opposed to the goods where that new money is not traded first.

Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.

If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.

http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1432203

Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free indeed

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

In a supply and demand situation, scarcity doesn't mean just 'a limited supply' it also means 'a fixed supply'.

I understand what you're saying. However, the various oil companies are invested in biofuels and could conceivably be producing them in quantity, so they could probably make more. I can only assume that they're not doing this for one of two reasons based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation: either they're trying to milk the dino juice as long as possible because you don't change horses in mid-stream, or they're concerned about the OPEC response to anything that fucks with their monopoly on oil.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[drinkypoo]

And without control by government busy-bodies, as we're seeing now, companies will sell you 20 GB/month and call it "unlimited".

As it is, Hughes will sell you a service on which you are not permitted to download more than 300GB/day and tell you that it lets you download large files quickly. Quickly? You're not allowed to download them at all.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Killjoy_NL]

Heh, 24/1,3 Mbit for 34.95 euros per month here, that's +/- $55. Using www.speedxs.nl
Pretty nice ISP and somehow I got free newsgroup access as well, just don't tell them ;)

(disclaimer: just a happy customer, don't own stock, etc)

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Tacobowl8]

(anyone in IT in the US getting whatever they need to do their jobs without any hassles, let me know where you work) You might want to try with the big oil companies such as Shell and Exxon. For them, figuring out what needs to happen and getting things in place in a timely manner is extremely important. Any delay will delay the entire folding out of a new oil well or pumping operation. Now, this mainly stems from the fact that the oil business is something that has huge startup costs for any new production (means of getting the oil), and the profits gained from it are spread out over many years. Toss in inflation, and you begin to see why they care so much about timely results. My father used to work IT for Amaco, and they often got the latest equipment so they could do their job just one day faster than they used to.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Killjoy_NL]

XS4ALL is good, but quite expensive.
You do get good value for money though.

We also have some good cheaper ones, www.speedxs.nl www.alice.nl who are fast and affordable.

That is OH SO WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your gas analogy is kinda stupid, because you didn't fill in the $x.

If gas is $4/gallon today, what the ISPs currently do is to charge everyone $39.95 to fill up their tank. They figure those who are just topping it off when it is half full and only buying a few gallons will subsidize those who drive it until it reaches E and buy up to 20 gallons.

The problem is the guys driving the semi that buy 300 gallons of fuel at a time. When there was just a few they could ignore them. But more and more of their customers are driving semis now and if the trend continues they'll have to change their pricing plan.

If gas was sold this way which would you rather see, that they raise the cost of the fill up from $39.95 to $59.95, which makes it an even worse deal for the guys just topping off their tank (i.e., the people who use the Internet for basically mail and web browsing) Or would you like to see them put in some surcharges for the guys with the semis who get 300 gallons at a big discount?

Many of the people reading this are the Internet equivalent of semi drivers so it makes sense that they don't care about what makes sense they just want to continue having the grandmas subsidize their Internet connection.

I'm not saying charge $1/GB of extra traffic, but the people who download half a terabyte per month need to be paying more. Ideally they'd do the pricing based on peak times so if you keep your big downloads to less busy times the extra traffic is free, but if you do it right after dinner when it is the busiest then you pay for it. Sort of like how you get 500 free "anytime" minutes in a cell phone plan but pay beyond that, but not for evenings and weekends when the cell network is less busy.

The problem with the way ISPs implement this is that often customers have no idea how they they are using. The ISP should make a web site available where you can see your real time usage, and/or give you the option of having them mail you when you have used half your monthly allotment before the charges kick in. If you see the mail on the 25th, no big deal. If you see it on the 3rd, on the other hand...

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[joshtheitguy]

I guess my question is ... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all ... it sounds outragous! It is outrageous, America is so far behind in bandwidth because the providers are allowed by our government to give us the shittiest service available and rip us off. Though as Americans we also have the power to do something about it, i.e. boycott but people have seemed to stray so far away from the ideals the country was founded on. So we sit here and openly bitch about paying as much as we do and complain about getting throttled though we could collectively hurt them where it matters most and everyone cancel their service.

You don't need the internet to get to work to pay bills and you could live without it but no one will do what it is going to take because they "need" the internet because they "have" to check myspace.

I personally have books, single player games, movies, the outdoors which will keep me going without stimulation from the internet. If people wanted to boycott I'd do it, but the other 98% of America is either too lazy or hooked on their addiction to do anything about it.

Yes it is outrageous, but we (the United States consumers) are not going to do anything about it. Please feel free to ignore our pointless bitching.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[zippthorne]

G'dang it, I had mod points like two days ago.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

Sorry, but inflation solely occurs by government counterfeiting of the money supply. The exact same goods which exist before every trade exist after every trade occurs. Money is just another good which is itself subject to supply and demand subjective valuations. But only morons would think fiat paper which can easily be manipulated into an infinite supply is a good sound monetary policy.

The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops. Say hello to the new gold, say hello to the new money. It's called oil.

Who thinks it's a good idea to save your money at 2% interest rate as the Federal Reserve counterfeits so much money that your saved money is worth 10% less next year than it was last year? That's precisely why people took on debt to speculate on houses (even if it meant buying a bigger house than you otherwise might have bought) to avoid having their savings stored in rapidly devaluing fiat currency. Now that we have ran out of new suckers to pay the highest prices for houses, it's a better bet to convert savings into commodities.

So you wrongly demonize speculators, and give government interference in the free market a free pass? No voluntary willing trade occurs between any two people unless by definition that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If both parties to the trade didn't simultaneously profit in strict economic terms, the trade would not occur. Demonizing speculators makes about as much sense as some third party making your computer hardware and software purchases for you without your consent.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about that. What's this about the tits and weather?

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[QuasiEvil]

You don't need the internet to get to work Actually, yes I do. I'm a telecommuter. Please stop assuming that you can generalize your life out to everyone else.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[maxume]

Corn ethanol isn't economic (Cellulosic isn't economic either, because nobody is making industrial quantities yet). Biodiesel, I think, is economic, but I don't think that there is enough cropland to switch over to it. The 'but there is free grease' folks fail to imagine exactly what 390 million gallons of gasoline a day is (and another 120 million gallons of diesel!).

The oil companies are sticking with oil because it is currently the only way to meet the tremendous appetite for liquid fuels (and because they are making money hand over fist; GM shutting down the Hummer line is *not* something they like though).

As much as anything, the problem isn't just the oil companies, it is that everybody has capital tied up in oil consumption; cars, furnaces, blah, blah, blah. It's cheaper to keep driving the car that you own than it is to buy a new one, so increasing fuel economy takes months and years (I was looking at my car earlier; I don't drive a huge number of miles, so I have a disproportionately high gasoline cost (ownership and repairs get amortized over fewer miles), and I am still only paying ~$0.18 a mile for gas (that's at $4 a gallon), versus $0.35 a mile to purchase and keep the car running). I'll buy a car with better fuel efficiency in the future, but even at $10, gasoline would still only be about half of my cost per mile, so the motivation would be there, but I would be looking for a good deal, not looking for a quick deal.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[zippthorne]

Actually taking delivery is academic. They perform their buffering by securing future prices.

You can buy and sell puts and calls, and you can even buy derivatives of stocks which function like commodities, but that's only relevant to the discussion if it helps you understand what's going on.

Despite the "speculators" there is still the *actual* market for oil. If trader A sells trader B the option to buy at $150/barrel in six months, and the market price of oil is $100/barrel, then trader A makes money as his option expires unexercised.

Trader B will then have paid $100/barrel + the commission. An efficient market will tend to make the "strike+commission" price approximate the moving average. And the beauty is that the more speculators there are, the more efficient the market will be.

It behaves exactly as if the actual deliveries were made, but without the overhead of physical warehouses.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

The government tends to "set up" monopolies first rather than outright enforce them. When you are a giant corporate telecommunications infrastructure player and get *billions* in subsidies for laying your network, new competition isn't going to get those same subsidies. So if you want to compete against Comcast, your business plan needs to be billions of dollars more efficient than Comcast's business plan since you won't be getting network infrastructure subsidies.

And "loosely" enforcing (aiding and abetting more accurately) monopolies ensures campaign contributions, ensures nice jobs for your friends and family, and ensures future lobbying work for yourself in the future when your political career is over.

Strict regulations also make it too expensive for new competition to gain a foothold.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[easyTree]

Cheap +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"

All Americans suck because {^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H.}

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Speculators perform a valuable function in the free market.

Yeah- just like Enron did.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[antdude]

Lucky you. You have two decent priced options for fast speeds. It is either 3KB/sec dial-up or 5 Mb/sec download with 384 Kb/sec upload (not always 5/384 either) cable speed. DSL is 20K ft. from CO. Forget ISDN, satellite, etc. (expensive and slow). :(

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

Corn ethanol isn't economic (Cellulosic isn't economic either, because nobody is making industrial quantities yet).

The technology to produce energy-positive cellulosic ethanol exists today, but corn subsidies make it less economically desirable than the non-cellulosic stuff, which in practical terms is enough to cause one to happen, and doom the other.

Biodiesel, I think, is economic, but I don't think that there is enough cropland to switch over to it.

Stop thinking about growing fuel from soil. This is a basically wrongheaded thing to do, especially with the methods of farming in use today. Instead, think about biodiesel from algae. The US DOE published a report saying that biodiesel from algae would be profitable by the time diesel fuel hit $3/gallon. You can pump seawater into the desert using solar power (big glass tubes... being used today) and use PV solar-powered paddlewheels to mix circular raceway ponds. It's even more useful and efficient if you combine it with coal or oil power plants (of which we have an overabundance) because you can capture about 80% of the CO2 from the plant in the algae.

In addition, there is also Butanol, which is based on a bacteria used to make TNT, it's very well-known and readily available (the bacteria, not the fuel — yet.)

As much as anything, the problem isn't just the oil companies, it is that everybody has capital tied up in oil consumption; cars, furnaces, blah, blah, blah.

Biodiesel is a direct replacement for petrodiesel; Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline (it can go in your existing gasoline-powered vehicle without ill effect - in fact, it reduces emissions. And it can be made from any organic material.)

Propane and natural gas can be supplemented by the use of Methane which can be recaptured from sewage treatment. Often this methane is simply flared off and wasted instead of being captured and used. What a waste of carbon load.

The oil companies are sticking with oil because it is currently the only way to meet the tremendous appetite for liquid fuels (and because they are making money hand over fist; GM shutting down the Hummer line is *not* something they like though).

Until the new battery plant is completed the Prius uses nearly as much energy over its lifetime as a humvee.

Parallel hybrids, and all non-plug-in hybrids are a stupid boondoggle and people who buy them missed the point entirely.

It's cheaper to keep driving the car that you own than it is to buy a new one, so increasing fuel economy takes months and years

It takes even longer when the federal government forces you to drop emissions standards which would have effectively ushered in an era of electric cars, which is what actually happened in California.

Our plan is to purchase a TDI Golf and convert it for veggie oil. Biodiesel is now cheaper than petrodiesel if I buy it at the pump (I can get it pretty near me, and someone I know personally has contracts for waste oil and is working on permitting to sell biodiesel very nearby.) and I'll run that when I can't get veggie, using petrodiesel only as a last resort.

Down the road, if the Loremo actually makes it to market, I hope to get one of those. I want the 80 mpg "GT" model but will settle for the 120 mpg base model that is too slow to be believed. I'm also starting to think about picking up a VW microbus and using it as a platform on which to prototype a series hybrid.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[monxrtr]

Classic scapegoating devoid of sound fundamental economic analysis. It's the oldest smokescreen blame game for hiding Federal Reserve monetary policy. Because it would be absurd to think the Federal Reserve banks would have the gall and balls to try and double the money supply every seven years, right? Right? I suppose your cool if we just copy our fiat bills right in front of your face to buy all your stuff with?

If you only you knew how much of the increase in technological innovation productivity of the 20th century has been stolen. We can't have peons affording the ability to organize internet grassroots campaigns to send Ron Paul "money bombs".

Re:if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[monxrtr]

So where are the oil inventories? Locked in the ground.

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Controlling energy prices controls movement and controls people. The government thanks you for your dependency on water, food, and oil.

Pharmaceutical companies push a lot of drugs by marketing. How much marketing is involved in the diamond industry, from engagement and wedding rings to jewelry for special occasions? Gotta have those bling bling rims spinners around the fingers and hanging from necks and ears. Otherwise what's the status of karats if your 50,000 album record collection can be "pirated" by just any old peon by clicking a mouse button?

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[cdrguru]

I don't understand how anyone trying to operate a business can operate over a cable modem. You can't upload anything. Sure, you can download at 12-20Mb but upload speeds are often 128K or even less. And then when the school children get home, your service drops to nothing.

If you had a T1 you would get 1.5MB both up and down with dedicated bandwith that nobody can interfere with, no matter what they are doing in your neighborhood.

Yes, it is more expensive than cable, but you get RELIABLE bandwidth and RELIABLE performance. What I have seen from cable is a burst at 12Mb and then a long, long time at 1Mb, if that. If you know it is going to take 30 minutes to upload a web site to a server then you can plan for it. If it might take 5 minutes or it might take 4 hours what sort of planning can you do?

How can anyone seriously use a cable modem for business purposes?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is elastic. When people can no longer afford gas, they won't be buying it.

They'll be stealing it. That sounds like inelastic demand to me.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[gmack]

You can just spin the company controlling the last mile off into a corporation that can only break even. Then order them to give the same rates to all of the CLECS.

Problem solved.

No I don't think so.

[goombah99]

Well http does not work either. So it's not simply a UDP ping drop issue as you guess. Http just hangs the browser waiting for a response. Go through an anonymous proxy like Zund2 and the piratebay.org page comes right up.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[no1home]

I guess my question is ... how the **** do you guys put up with it! It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all ... it sounds outragous!

Yep, you nailed it. There is no competition allowed due to the way the contracts are set up with the local municipalities. Here in Pasadena, CA, we had competition in the form of a second cable/internet/phone provider, but I guess decent equipment and service costs money, so they ended up being bought out by the big brutes in the area. Yep, I'm a capitalist pig, but this is the dirty underbelly of capitalism: enforced monopolies carried out through economic warfare.

The way capitalism is going south here, and the way our government is going south with it, I'm wondering where I should run off to!

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[cdrguru]

Biofuels? You must be kidding, right? If you ignore the fuel used by the farmer, ethanol is about 1:1 with how much energy it takes to make it vs. what you get out of it. Adding in the fuel used by the farmer, is is more like 1.2:1 from what I understand.

Sure, there migth be some other alternatives on the horizon. But for now we have a clear choice: eating or making ethanol. In the US the "making ethanol" decision has been made and hopefully will be reversed soon. Otherwise, the true downside of the equation is going to be felt.

There is oil for at least the next hundred years at current consumption rates. We can drill for it, or we can let others do it - China is already drilling off the coast of Florida. Are we prepared to deal with the side effects of that?

Until the environmentalist scene is managed better we aren't going to be building any new factories, refineries, distilleries, nuclear power plants, coal power plants, or any other major industrial plant anytime soon. You see it now with a new emphasis on "reduce, conserve" rather than growth. You are going to be forced into conserving soon, with limited electrical power and limitations on other energy sources. We have a choice, and clearly for the economy, jobs and international standing we have made the wrong one. Can we chance our minds? Probably not anytime real soon.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[compro01]

b. running that last mile was prohibitively expensive. Where exactly are you living that the cost of copper, fibre, labour, and right-of-way have fallen so dramatically that it is not prohibitively expensive?

Re:Not a Trick Question

[monxrtr]

So do people who hardly watch any television cable channels per day subsidize those who watch more cable television channels per day? Or do all subscribers of the same cable television package receive the exact same number and quality of (shaped or unshaped) content bits per month?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[rfunches]

I read Greenberger's testimony, and here's the important part of what he said:

ICE, [unlike NYMEX,] operates with no regulatory oversight, no obligation to ensure its products are traded in a fair and orderly manner, and no obligation to prevent excessive speculation. [...] As a result, NYMEX's instructions to Amaranth did nothing to reduce Amaranth's size, but simply caused Amaranth's trading to move from a regulated market to an unregulated one.

So in a market where there are no CFTC rules or government oversight, there is speculation. Surprise surprise. But ICE is not where oil is physically settled. ICE WTI (West Texas Intermediate) is cash settled against the prevailing market price for US light sweet crude (what's traded on NYMEX). If the speculators are fleeing to ICE because they can't get their way on NYMEX, then my point still holds: the price of NYMEX light sweet crude (LSC) should decline right before front-month expiration because the speculators have to sell to avoid taking delivery (which they don't have to worry about on ICE), and the price between NYMEX and unregulated, OTC crude prices should decouple. NYMEX crude should be priced on pure supply-demand on the expiration day, so either real buyers are supporting the price or the speculators are somehow dodging delivery.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Anonymous Coward]

Nailed It.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[spazdor]

You understand the situation perfectly.

Where are the ads served?

[Stan92057]

I haven't seen anything about how they serve the ads? Are they loaded on someone Else's web site like a few of theses ad-ware programs do? And when is our government going to start thinking about us tax payers and make better laws to protect our privacy. As a US Resident i am embarrassed that other country's have better privacy laws that we do. Opt-in should be the gold standard,not opt-out

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Yvan256]

The guy just wrote that his only options were cable and DSL, and you make a comment about why he doesn't have a T1 line.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[u-235-sentinel]

Lucky you. You have two decent priced options for fast speeds. It is either 3KB/sec dial-up or 5 Mb/sec download with 384 Kb/sec upload (not always 5/384 either) cable speed. DSL is 20K ft. from CO. Forget ISDN, satellite, etc. (expensive and slow). :(

I'm hoping with some additional effort we can have a national infrastructure in place in the next few years. I've been bugging our politicians (local and fed) about this since Concast terminated my families internet in 2007. With an infrastructure in place we could have switched providers and told Concast to screw off.

Now that other's have brought DSL to our area AND now that Concast is bugging us to come back (since the 12 months termination is over), we've been using the alternative providers and it's pretty nice. But of course with FTTH it could be much better :D

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[antdude]

Why did Comcast terminate your broadband connection? And do you have an alternative?

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[bussdriver]

The last mile's LAND is largely public except in foolish areas that gave up their public rights to their land. Anybody doing stuff on this land is subject to local regulation; the phone company always had to get permission and compromise with local governments over the PUBLIC land.

If you have a house, you know that the sidewalk edge of your property is not exclusively yours; this is in addition the land the roads are on. Those power/phone polls and lines are on the peoples' property. Without this common land, it would be impossible to run roads etc or at least prohibitively expensive.

Unfortunately, there are slow movements undermine the whole concept; you may have heard of the supreme court ruling allowing abuse of immanent domain for private corporations. Combined with plundering of public resources there is a progression towards a model where we the people will have NO power. At the moment we just don't effectively use the power we have.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[u-235-sentinel]

It is NOT "their traffic" at all. This is bandwidth that's been SOLD to the customers. It's not like using, say, a school or corporate network where the owner who pays the cost can shape and set policies of use at will.

A paying customer has an absolute right to use what they paid for. Dropping packets, snooping on the flows, overselling their capacity, et cetera are all inexcusable.

Really, with Comcast and Time-Warner, all we need to look at is what these company's core business is. They are content providers whose business model is threatened by the Internet.

Really, they seem to be trying to recreate the "old days" of closed and propreitary services like

I agree. Since Concast terminated my families internet in 2007 we've been pushing for public fiber to the home. An infrastructure like that would mean if another ISP had 'issues' we would be able to fire them and go with someone better able to meet our needs. This means the screwy company either changes OR goes bankrupt.

Works for me :D

Re:if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[big_paul76]

Yes, well, maybe, anyway... There's a good chance that OPEC nations are lying through their teeth about reserves, but that's a separate discussion.

But all I mean about 'inventories' is that deBeers et. al. have GIANT inventories of diamonds, because they like to buy up the surplus in any given year.

I don't see anything like that going on with oil. If it's speculators pushing up the price only, then the only way to keep the prices high is for somebody to be buying and hoarding whatever commodity you're talking about.

Now, I'm not an oil economist or something, so I could be missing something here, but it doesn't look like there's anybody hoarding oil at $136/barrel.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Detritus]

It has nothing to do with partisan politics. Contrary to some people's beliefs, the Republican Party is not the source of all evil.

Where I live, the cable company obtained its monopoly by showering county government officials, and their relatives, with money and jobs. They were all Democrats. Not that it would have been any different if they were all Republicans.

The Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, specifically prohibits the president from packing the commission with members of one political party. There are other parts of the law that were designed to keep the commission independent and balanced. In any event, the commission's powers are limited to what has been delegated to them by the legislature. If you read the law, as amended, the FCC has very limited power to set policy. Most of those decisions were made by the legislature, and given to the FCC to implement.

Communications Act of 1934: as amended by the Telecom Act of 1996

Re:if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[monxrtr]

What's the difference between "buying up the surplus" and just "paying" them not to produce the surplus in the first place? Alaska contains huge amounts of oil reserves that are locked up and stored through prohibitive regulation.

There's lots of attempted oligopoly hoarding of oil from OPEC production quotas to environmental regulations. But I think the price has risen primarily because A.) the government is massively counterfeiting the money supply, B.) there is tremendous uncertainty about future supply from political problems, and C.) growing demand and artificially limited supply, weighted in the order from 'A' to 'C', roughly 50% 'A', 25% 'B', and 12.5% 'C'. But then again, that's what "speculation" is all about. ^_^

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[maxume]

It would be interesting to see the projected return on capital for such projects, and how it compares to the return on capital for, say, ultra deep drilling or tar sand extraction. If the return on capital is worse for biofuels, I have trouble holding it against the energy companies that they are not making those investments. If it is worse for tar sands, then there is clearly some entrenchment, intentional or otherwise.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet nobody who modded you informative actually read the article.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[baboo_jackal]

Here's a howler from Iran's OPEC cartel representative, Mohammad Ali Khatibi:

"I foresee the price of oil reaching around 150 dollars a barrel by the end of the summer,"
Another alarmingly absurd utterance:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also said oil is priced too low and that the commodity "should find its real value."
And something we can *all* agree is stupid:

Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari has said the market is currently oversupplied with oil
From this article.

Given that there's a handful of people in charge of decreeing, by fiat, the price of oil from OPEC nations (Iran being one of those nations) don't these statements seem kind of... I don't know... Odd?

OPEC nations decide how much money they want, and then produce and price oil accordingly. Their only upper bound is that if they get *really* crazy with the artificial pricing that the Western world might just decide that it'd be cheaper to diplomatically or militarily depose the regimes that currently control their nationalized economies and give the reins back to their massively, and usually violently, oppressed citizenry, which would allow *actual* market forces to decide the price of oil.

Like I said, speculators are the *least* of our concerns regarding the price of oil.

Dude

[/dev/trash]

That meat packing place follows ALL The laws to the T. it's the sub-contractor that was at fault. Don't believe me, read any of the news reportsa bout any of the raids.

Re:Dude

[BlueStrat]

That meat packing place follows ALL The laws to the T. it's the sub-contractor that was at fault. Don't believe me, read any of the news reportsa bout any of the raids.

I don't know what news reports you're referring to, as to my knowledge this plant and their problems never made the news. I *worked* there, as a second-shift electrical maintenance technician. They didn't use any employment contractors (other than a cleaning crew that came in during third shift). I believe that they have since moved operations to Mexico.

The reason I left was that they wanted me to disable the emergency stop buttons on much of the equipment, because they didn't want production halted just because someone got a finger, hand, etc lopped off. They also wanted me to remove interlocking safety doors to ground meat packing machines (the ones that pack hamburger into those 3 and 5 pound "tubes") because that also slowed down production. I watched an average of 3-5 workers a week get taken away by ambulance because of injuries on the job. It was a running joke that the company liked the accidents because it added extra cost-free meat to production.

To top it off, they wanted me to sign off on the work orders, but no supervisors or managers would sign those work orders as was the normal practice for other work orders. They basically threatened me that they would fire then blacklist me so I'd "never work in this state again" if I didn't go along. Threatening me wasn't a good idea.

I removed and hid a number of critical PLC controllers and other unique and hard-to-replace and maximum-time-consuming to re-install/reprogram machine and electrical components and walked out. From what I heard from former workmates, that cost them several hundred thousand dollars and much lost production time. I did do my duty in reporting the violations, but as I described in my earlier posts, the penalties that were available were ineffective and the agencies responsible were unenthusiastic at best about following up on violations.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Dude

[/dev/trash]

Suuuuuuure.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[arotenbe]

That has a bit to do with it, but mainly its at $136 a barrel because the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be. I thought the dollar isn't worth anything because the price of oil is being set so high by American oil firms.

Of course, the problem with trying to understand the economy is that all reasoning is circular.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

And why doesn't it make sense that the pipes/wires/drainage belong to the people instead and then the service providers can all lease that from some management authority to gain access to the last mile and provide everyone service? Fucking socialist. If you don't like your local cable and/or phone monopoly, move.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[crunchy_one]

The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops.

Wow. Three cliches in one!

Good point, BTW.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Duncan Blackthorne]

That's bullshit. Their "problems" were self-created, by selling more bandwidth than their network can sustain, all in the name of profit. Either upgrade the network infrastructure or stop selling more bandwidth than they have to sell!

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Stuff and nonsense!!! They need to either stop overselling bandwidth or build a network that supports the bandwidth they're selling, damnit!

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Duncan Blackthorne]

Actually you're completely wrong. They switched to "dimensional weight", which means if you ship a 12"x12"x12" box empty it costs the same as if it had something in it.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Duncan Blackthorne]

When people can no longer afford gas, they won't be buying it.

This is already happening, and it'll just build up momentum until gas prices drop.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[mrraven]

For verily the market has deemed strangle marks on your neck to be good and Holy, it is not the market that is wrong but your lying nerves telling you pleasure is pain. For it is written in Adam Smith that the market's "invisible hand" always produceth pleasure you senses are wrong that it strangeleth you, just like when say the Earth is round your eyes are wrong heathen.

Now be gone and go back to your wage slave job before you are banished to homelessness, no healthcare, and being riducled on Bill O'Reilly for daring critiscize the Holy Market and its most intelligent design.

The undermench only deserverth dialup so sayeth Thomas Friedman for the market is lord and Ayn Rand is her profit.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Xyrus]

For $DEITY's sake, it isn't speculators.

It's quite simple really. It began when the dollar started plummeting. This in turn affected the price of oil. At the same time, global demand has been skyrocketing and producers are not keeping up. When the price of oil kept moving upwards, companies that rely on oil for production started getting a little nervous. This has led to companies hoarding to prevent being undercut for price increases, since oil prices kept going up. This in turn puts upward pressure on oil prices. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The speculators took notice after this cycle got started, and are continuing to ride the wave. They influence the price, but not nearly to the degree people have been claiming.

If you want to see what the cost of oil has really done, use gold as the basis for comparison. You'll see that the the cost of oil, using gold, has remained pretty steady. There's been a slight upturn the last decade or so as emerging markets have increased demand, but nothing like the spike we have seen in dollars.

The simple fact is that the dollar is an inflated wreck. It has lost more than 40% of it's value over the past 8 years. And the problems we are seeing now are the result of it.

Believe it or not, Ron Paul warned everyone about this. So have several others. Of course, no one listened to them.

It also appears that peak oil production may have occurred last year. The OPEC nations seem to be getting very interested in sour crude processing tech, which could tell you something.

But hey, believe whatever the talking heads want you to believe.

~X~

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

To speak on your first analogy, when I was in college and coming home for the summer I did something stupid and tried to mail my unused bleach back home. Since the college mail room didn't have the little graphic about what FedEx doesn't let you ship I didn't think anything about it. My package arrived at my house resealed and the only thing missing was my bleach. Nothing else was touched and they didn't even include a not telling me that it had been removed. Before it arrived I had learned that shipping bleach was a no-no but I must admit that I was intrigued that I wasn't even informed about the removal of about a quarter of the total package weight. I didn't even get a refund for that part of the weight. Oh well, live and learn ^_^

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[AliasMarlowe]

Everyone loves unlimited bandwidth and being off-the-meter. Who's selling "unlimited bandwidth" and what kind of equipment can support it?
The ISPs are selling a specified bandwidth. The problem is that it appears to be a common USA practice to place usage caps (throughput in a set period), and even to degrade the bandwidth itself for some connections (traffic shaping).
Luckily, my ISP just provides me with 20 Mbps and does not appear to care how many gigabytes I transfer per day or what kind of traffic it is. They also have an unmetered unthrottled 100Mbs service, but not an unlimited bandwidth service.

Re:if oil price is 'cause of speculation...

[big_paul76]

You're totally right on the money on (A). USD is the currency that oil is denominated in, and it's lost 30% of it's value relative to the Euro or Yen or even the Canadian dollar.

Which, of course means, god help the US economy if OPEC starts denominating oil in euros or something...

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Dan541]

When people can no longer afford gas, they won't be buying it. and lose their house when they can no longer afford the rent due to losing their job that they have no transit to.

Not to mention the increase in the price of goods needed for survival.

Re: problems with comcast, but not fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

celle, is correct about some things. The powerboost is a nice feature, they give you a few seconds of best effort connectivity before backing you down to the rate you paid for. In a normal web browsing experience, that can give you a faster response. I have a Mac also and cannot worry about a pc based anti virus subscription.

On the other hand, they make too many mistakes. They outsource their DNS to Network Solutions. I know they insert fraudulent RST packets to slow things down. They have terrible technical support. If there was any reasonable alternative I wouldn't use them, but I have to bite my lip and carry on.

They make enough mistakes, you don't have to make stuff up.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[docwatson223]

That has a bit to do with it, but mainly its at $136 a barrel because the dollar isn't worth as much as it used to be. I'd have to agree that without a *real* strong dollar, we're going to get hurt even more. We need to get back to saving rather than spending and find a way to get back on a more solid currency standard. 'full faith and credit' is a scam that we need to rescue ourselves from.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[digitig]

The part you've neglected to mention is what happens when speculators decide to start selling their stored commodities. When a speculator guesses that scarcity is at its peak, they start selling. This increases the supply, and drives *down* price, and allowing consumption to increase. I don't see how this acts as a buffer. When they expect the price to rise, they buy, causing the price to rise faster. When they expect the price to fall, they sell, causing the price to fall faster. So the effect is to increase the swings, not to buffer them. Of course, they're not perfect in their timings, but surely they would have to consistently start selling/buying embarrasingly early before the peak/trough to actually have a buffering effect. Whether the good is elastic or inelastic seems to be a red herring. The amplification effect would be less with an elastic good than an inelastic good, but the negative feedback in the loop provided by elasticity doesn't seem to change the fact that the speculators' effect is positive feedback!

Geography

[erexx23]

The difference is geographic size and distance.
Upgrading the infrastructure for a larger country takes more time and money.

The Netherlands is slightly less than twice the size of the state of New Jersey.
Japan is roughly the size of California.

Its the same reason why cell phone technology is so much more advanced.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[mpe]

Stop thinking about growing fuel from soil. This is a basically wrongheaded thing to do, especially with the methods of farming in use today.

Ethanol from food is an especially daft idea.

Biodiesel is a direct replacement for petrodiesel; Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline (it can go in your existing gasoline-powered vehicle without ill effect - in fact, it reduces emissions. And it can be made from any organic material.)

An ideal biofuel is one which you can mix in any ratio with an existing petrofuel.

Propane and natural gas can be supplemented by the use of Methane which can be recaptured from sewage treatment.

"Natural gas" is methane. Any machine designed to run on methane isn't going to care if it's fuel comes from a petro-chemical source, methane hydrates, sewage (human or other animal), rotting garbage, etc, etc.

Often this methane is simply flared off and wasted instead of being captured and used. What a waste of carbon load.

Especially since it can be used to power the sewage treatment plant, cutting gas and electricity bills.

Does Comcast Have a Choice?

[DeanFox]

Does Comcast really have much of a choice? If it costs 100 million to deliver service but only 10 million to pay fines and settle lawsuits for not doing so, Comcast has a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to not deliver service.

The only way to fix this is to make it more expensive or illegal to deny us what we paid for than to actually give it to us. One way may be to pass a law that forces the Charter of Incorporation to be primary over profits and sue to revoke their Incorporation when they do not live up to their charter. It could be easier to argue that blocking content goes against a charter of providing data services. Include in the law an assumption that all Incorporation Charters must be to provide the best possible of what ever the carter covers and do not allow charters specifically written to provide substandard service or products. ...It's an idea. Attack it from the Incorporation side of the law.

-[d]-

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[Zenaku]

He already told you -- Canada. (And wow, I knew their dollar was stronger than ours now, but damn. Maybe he meant litres?).

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

And the biggest reason of all -- The value of the oil still in the ground is increasing. The best move is to drain the countries who want immediate cash and take their oil. Save the domestic supply for later. How much later? The longer the better.

Prices have already gone WAY up, which validates the concept. The higher they go, the better this strategy works.

One of our big problems is weaning ourselves off of not just oil, but the oil companies themselves. We need a more diverse, competitive energy market, with multiple technologies and multiple players. Otherwise, we will see the same manipulation and gamesmanship that exists in the market today.

Bringing all of this back to the original discussion -- with enough competition the energy market and the ISP market would self-correct. Competitors would offer better choices than overpriced oil and crippled internet service. But the established players are pretty good at cutting off effective competition. The government provides just enough stupidity and corruption to facilitate the problem.

If the government wants to do something useful, they could enhance the competitiveness of various markets. But here in the US we are practically a socialist country and we have forgotten how to compete.

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market is good if it's free all the way around. None of this it's free so long as we're making money and if we loose money we'll just pass that off to the tax payers.
We need to stop letting corporations have their cake and eat too.
If they want to socialize their losses then they need to socialize their profits.
If they want to keep their profits to themselves that fine as well. Just keep the loses too.
There is no incentive for investors to make good decisions if they get bailed out by taxpayers every time they get burned. Remember the S&L of the 80's and soon to be sub-prime bail out.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[u-235-sentinel]

Why did Comcast terminate your broadband connection? And do you have an alternative?

We were terminated because they said we were using it too much. They gave us two numbers of how much we used (my wife and I called separately and received different numbers from their security department).

They wouldn't let us speak with a manager, we were bumped up eventually (after two weeks of calling them) and found their escalation department. But it wasn't until 3 months later that Qwest DSL finally arrived.

It's not the same service speeds but I'm hoping the FTTH will come soon. Both Utopianet and Qwest are doing this. Qwest just started in the Salt Lake Valley as of last autumn.

It would have been nice had Concast provided us some minimal customer service in resolving this issue.

Personally I don't believe they know what they are talking about. I've been watching our network usage for the last 18 months and we haven't used more than 70 Gigs in a single month in all that time.

So when Concast said we used 300 Gigs a month on average I personally believe they added a 0 or are simply incompetent with their measurement tools.

I mean think about it. 300 Gigs a month? Where the hell would I put all that??? I have two 200 Gigs hard drives on my computer.

Anyway, sooner or later fiber to the home will be as normal in the US as it is in the rest of the world. When that happens, there will be either a change in the company or they will go away.

Either way works for me :D

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be ok for the USPS, FedEx, UPS, and DHL to all practice opening your packages and throwing out stuff to make it easier (cheaper) to deliver your package? Actually, these companies do open your packages all the time to make it easier to deliver them.
Usually they are just looking for a packing slip with further contact information so that they can call you if your address is miss-typed or unroutable. But, they also help enforce government regulations regarding the shipment of drugs, explosives, and hazardous materials (just try shipping a large box of matches cross-country through FedEx and see if your package makes it).

This makes shipping cheaper for everyone in two ways:
By calling you and asking for details on how to deliver your package, they don't have to ship the package back to the sender, who would then have to contact you and re-ship.
And, by sorting out hazardous materials, they can make skip a lot of regulatory monkey-business for the majority of packages, which streamlines the whole process (and, if you really want to ship a hazmat, you can always pay a little extra).

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[antdude]

Unfortunately, fiber could take another decade ago. I was promised FiOS in my area two years ago and still nothing. I will believe it when I see it. :(

Nice going Time Warner...

[shentino]

You just managed to cheese off the government.

*crosses his fingers and hopes something a little higher, like county or state, gets upset too*

Re:Their traffic - shape it if you want

[spikedvodka]

From the marketplace Morning Report this morning (If I remember it right)

"If anybody tells you that they know why the price of oil keeps going up, ignore them, better yet, punch them on the nose"

Everybody's just guessing.

oh yeah *Punch on the nose*

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like your living in some internet stone age where regional monopolies are trying to squeeze every dime out of you they can without having to provide much service to their customers at all.

Wow. Sounds like you've been over here, that is exactly what they are doing.

Re:Why this constant fuzz in the US about bandwidt

[u-235-sentinel]

Unfortunately, fiber could take another decade ago. I was promised FiOS in my area two years ago and still nothing. I will believe it when I see it. :(

Agreed. Without a major outcry it will take some time before it happens.

If enough people are educated about how far in the stone age America's Internet is compared to the rest of the developed world then we will be pushing it as well.

Re:A sign of distorted economics in the ISP indust

[drinkypoo]

An ideal biofuel is one which you can mix in any ratio with an existing petrofuel.

Biodiesel, vegetable oil, and butanol all qualify.

"Natural gas" is methane. Any machine designed to run on methane isn't going to care if it's fuel comes from a petro-chemical source, methane hydrates, sewage (human or other animal), rotting garbage, etc, etc.

Natural gas is a refined mixture of gases.

Converting cooking and heating appliances to methane may require some reworking, like a $40 kit to change the working pressure and orifice size.