Sure they do. There are laws that regulate every single aspect of society nowadays. What can and cannot be done and how. It is no wonder that you need expensive lawyers, able to find and twist the many loopholes such a complex law code has to have any chance of success in a lawsuit.
And you are completely wrong in your assumptions. The more regulations you have the easier is to keep competition out. It has always been this way and you won`t ever find an example of the opposite.
And why courts would be that way? Maybe because the legislation is overly complex and extensive trying to regulate everything, and government is too busy trying to do 196797698 things that it shouldn't be doing toi do the thing it should correctly.
If the houses in your examples burn it will be a trivial matter to determine the cause and there will be a lot of witnesses. The company will have to pay a lot of money in compensations which will make it much cheaper for them to do it right, even because the maintenance costs for doing it wrong are considerable. Regulations are irrelevant here, the responsibility for any accident generated by their equipment is theirs and that is enough.
The funniest part on your example is that the worse and most irregular electrical installations are those made by State owned power companies in countries where the State tries to do even more than in US, and in these cases there are no consequences at all, you can't even sue them with any hope of receiving anything.
Regulations only serve to create gargantuan regulatory bodies, which basically exist to sell favors, block competition and perpetuate themselves. Bodies that do not grant any measure of increased security compared to a judicial system that works.
You prevent the poles from becoming like this with the due legal responsibilities for any accidents they produce, and this responsibility does not depend on the existence of regulatory agencies and much less of limited concessions. The same applies to your shooting example. You don't have a regulatory agency verifying if people are shooting well with their registered guns, but if they do misuse them they go to jail. Regulations solve nothing, even because regulators are always for sale. Consequences do.
The truth is: there is no monopoly in the face of the Earth that was able to survive more than a very short time without the help of a government.
The State has very clear roles which is to keep peace (police), protect people from external threats (military) and solve disputes that can`t be solved by mutual agreement (judicial system). That is very far from doing nothing and the only reason that justifies the existence of a an entity that is based on violence and coercion. Everything else is better done by the private initiative, especially when the State keeps out of it.
You have one power company because the STATE forces you to have a single one. If the state did not regulate and use the concession model you would probably have more, especially if the business is a lucrative one.
Having to work not to starve does not make it non consensual. From the damn of mankind it is a choice every single human being has. Sorry, but nobody has the duty to work to feed you.
In a free market you don't need to sign to work for someone else or starve, you can work yourself without signing for anyone. It is the STATE that forces you to sign by making expensive and too risky any endeavor you decide to start. For example, if you want to be a taxi driver good luck, you won't get a license. Want to open a hair cut shop? I hope you know somebody in the mayor office. And so on.
Oh and if you point a gun at me and say: "Your money or your life", you will be the State, because that is exactly what the state does.
Sure it is. You have the possibility to "sign here" in many many places and very few people really starve in US. And even if there was a lot of people starving that is a job for charity and voluntary help not coerced help.
All crazy laws are based on the assumption that it is the govern business to regulate everything and that by doing that it will solve all problems. And by everything I mean not only the economy, which consists basically of consensual deals between two or more individuals which should not be the business of the government in any way or form, but also any relation between individuals and even regarding how a single individual lives his life.
There are several mechanisms used to pass such laws, from the infamous "national security", to the "defense of poor victims of society", to the equally horrible "we are giving this right you didn't ask for and because of that we own you", among many others.
Sure, current healthcare laws are certainly not THE thing to blame, they are just part of the problem, a problem that started decades ago, when people began to naively think that the government is a magic entity with infinite resources and can solve all of humanities problems.
For each one of those arbitrary laws that are stopped at least a couple more pass. The number of absurd laws that try to protect people from themselves is inexorably growing.
You are right. Wikipedia should have better rules and checks against propaganda and manipulation from whatever source it may be, or it will become increasingly irrelevant and unreliable for anything that is related to History or Politics.
If it is true let someone who is not paid by an interested party to do it again.The only mistake is that people affiliated to political parties should also be ineligible to be editors,
Oh they are all stored both in the server and in my own backups, but then again neither I not my company are a governmental entity who has the duty and the legal obligation to store and preserve this kind of information, what should I know.
Please you don't need to be a totalitarian to support cronyism, control and oppression. Soros, Gates and all other progressivists billionaries are all having billions of profit thanks to cronyism and big, protective states and they plan to keep it going for as long as they can.
Totalitarianism is the eventual endpoint of this, but who cares if it will take more time than he has of life. In the meanwhile the reap the benefits to be the friend of the king.
Sorry, but the progressiveness and socialists advocate for control, oppression and cronyism in the name of the an ideal that can never be achieved and whose attempts to achieve it have produced catastrophic results. Or do you really thing Soros and Bill Gates are angels?
If you want to receive at half the speed the server is sending you the server will have to wait either way. The ISP is not magical, it will have to do exactly the same as your router. If you feel your router does not have enough processing power or memory to deal with your needs, buy a better router or use a computer as gateway.
That is complete nonsense. You just need a good router, or to install a computer as the gateway in the worst case scenario. If you establish the priorities in your router you will not be any worse than if you establish it on your ISP.
QoS may be controlled by you, but that may be made in your internal network without any influence of the ISP. There is no motive to involve ISPs on that.
Realistically you can't have one without the other, and either way it should not be their decision what should be prioritized, they are selling the band, you should be able to use it as you wish and give priority to whatever you feel that deserves it.
Then demand from your provider that he provides the service he is selling to you adequately. The fault is not on the video watchers, the fault is on the lack of investment from the provider.
It is impossible not to mix the two cases if you open Pandora box. Sure you can use QoS inside your network, but Comcast or any other provider has no right to control your flux. They sell the band, you use it as you please and control it as you please.
Sure, but they don't have 3 second latency now and they won't have it ever if the ISPs invest the necessary amount of money in infrastructure. Japan and Korea ISPs do...
I would rather prefer to open the market to anyone who wants to provide the service without unnecessary restrictions as government concessions. Failing that I can be satisfied with legislation that forces the providers to offer a service of reasonable quality to the user as a condition to their concessions.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do. There are laws that regulate every single aspect of society nowadays. What can and cannot be done and how. It is no wonder that you need expensive lawyers, able to find and twist the many loopholes such a complex law code has to have any chance of success in a lawsuit.
And you are completely wrong in your assumptions. The more regulations you have the easier is to keep competition out. It has always been this way and you won`t ever find an example of the opposite.
And why courts would be that way? Maybe because the legislation is overly complex and extensive trying to regulate everything, and government is too busy trying to do 196797698 things that it shouldn't be doing toi do the thing it should correctly.
If the houses in your examples burn it will be a trivial matter to determine the cause and there will be a lot of witnesses. The company will have to pay a lot of money in compensations which will make it much cheaper for them to do it right, even because the maintenance costs for doing it wrong are considerable. Regulations are irrelevant here, the responsibility for any accident generated by their equipment is theirs and that is enough.
The funniest part on your example is that the worse and most irregular electrical installations are those made by State owned power companies in countries where the State tries to do even more than in US, and in these cases there are no consequences at all, you can't even sue them with any hope of receiving anything.
Regulations only serve to create gargantuan regulatory bodies, which basically exist to sell favors, block competition and perpetuate themselves. Bodies that do not grant any measure of increased security compared to a judicial system that works.
You prevent the poles from becoming like this with the due legal responsibilities for any accidents they produce, and this responsibility does not depend on the existence of regulatory agencies and much less of limited concessions. The same applies to your shooting example. You don't have a regulatory agency verifying if people are shooting well with their registered guns, but if they do misuse them they go to jail. Regulations solve nothing, even because regulators are always for sale. Consequences do.
The truth is: there is no monopoly in the face of the Earth that was able to survive more than a very short time without the help of a government.
The State has very clear roles which is to keep peace (police), protect people from external threats (military) and solve disputes that can`t be solved by mutual agreement (judicial system). That is very far from doing nothing and the only reason that justifies the existence of a an entity that is based on violence and coercion. Everything else is better done by the private initiative, especially when the State keeps out of it.
You have one power company because the STATE forces you to have a single one. If the state did not regulate and use the concession model you would probably have more, especially if the business is a lucrative one.
Having to work not to starve does not make it non consensual. From the damn of mankind it is a choice every single human being has. Sorry, but nobody has the duty to work to feed you.
In a free market you don't need to sign to work for someone else or starve, you can work yourself without signing for anyone. It is the STATE that forces you to sign by making expensive and too risky any endeavor you decide to start. For example, if you want to be a taxi driver good luck, you won't get a license. Want to open a hair cut shop? I hope you know somebody in the mayor office. And so on.
Oh and if you point a gun at me and say: "Your money or your life", you will be the State, because that is exactly what the state does.
Sure it is. You have the possibility to "sign here" in many many places and very few people really starve in US. And even if there was a lot of people starving that is a job for charity and voluntary help not coerced help.
All crazy laws are based on the assumption that it is the govern business to regulate everything and that by doing that it will solve all problems. And by everything I mean not only the economy, which consists basically of consensual deals between two or more individuals which should not be the business of the government in any way or form, but also any relation between individuals and even regarding how a single individual lives his life.
There are several mechanisms used to pass such laws, from the infamous "national security", to the "defense of poor victims of society", to the equally horrible "we are giving this right you didn't ask for and because of that we own you", among many others.
Sure, current healthcare laws are certainly not THE thing to blame, they are just part of the problem, a problem that started decades ago, when people began to naively think that the government is a magic entity with infinite resources and can solve all of humanities problems.
For each one of those arbitrary laws that are stopped at least a couple more pass. The number of absurd laws that try to protect people from themselves is inexorably growing.
Exactly. We don't need regulations, we need consequences.
Well said.
You are right. Wikipedia should have better rules and checks against propaganda and manipulation from whatever source it may be, or it will become increasingly irrelevant and unreliable for anything that is related to History or Politics.
If it is true let someone who is not paid by an interested party to do it again.The only mistake is that people affiliated to political parties should also be ineligible to be editors,
Oh they are all stored both in the server and in my own backups, but then again neither I not my company are a governmental entity who has the duty and the legal obligation to store and preserve this kind of information, what should I know.
It is very difficult not to reach this conclusion, unless you believe that the IRS just lost all relevant information by accident...
Please you don't need to be a totalitarian to support cronyism, control and oppression. Soros, Gates and all other progressivists billionaries are all having billions of profit thanks to cronyism and big, protective states and they plan to keep it going for as long as they can.
Totalitarianism is the eventual endpoint of this, but who cares if it will take more time than he has of life. In the meanwhile the reap the benefits to be the friend of the king.
Sorry, but the progressiveness and socialists advocate for control, oppression and cronyism in the name of the an ideal that can never be achieved and whose attempts to achieve it have produced catastrophic results. Or do you really thing Soros and Bill Gates are angels?
If you want to receive at half the speed the server is sending you the server will have to wait either way. The ISP is not magical, it will have to do exactly the same as your router. If you feel your router does not have enough processing power or memory to deal with your needs, buy a better router or use a computer as gateway.
That is complete nonsense. You just need a good router, or to install a computer as the gateway in the worst case scenario. If you establish the priorities in your router you will not be any worse than if you establish it on your ISP.
Again, to use QoS yourself you don`t need the ISP. You can control the priority of the packages at your on network. Stop spreading disinformation.
QoS may be controlled by you, but that may be made in your internal network without any influence of the ISP. There is no motive to involve ISPs on that.
Realistically you can't have one without the other, and either way it should not be their decision what should be prioritized, they are selling the band, you should be able to use it as you wish and give priority to whatever you feel that deserves it.
Then demand from your provider that he provides the service he is selling to you adequately. The fault is not on the video watchers, the fault is on the lack of investment from the provider.
It is impossible not to mix the two cases if you open Pandora box. Sure you can use QoS inside your network, but Comcast or any other provider has no right to control your flux. They sell the band, you use it as you please and control it as you please.
Sure, but they don't have 3 second latency now and they won't have it ever if the ISPs invest the necessary amount of money in infrastructure. Japan and Korea ISPs do...
I would rather prefer to open the market to anyone who wants to provide the service without unnecessary restrictions as government concessions. Failing that I can be satisfied with legislation that forces the providers to offer a service of reasonable quality to the user as a condition to their concessions.
I prefer my bits non optimized than someone else deciding how they should be "optimized" for me. Thank you!