the size of the IT employment market in the United States today is higher than it was at the height of the dot.com boom
The study is showing that the size of the IT employment market is higher than in the dot.com boom. It doesnt say that everyone is still making as much money, but people were making a rediculous amount of money at the time. We are finding that most people simply are not worth what they were being payed, thats why the bubble burst. It wasnt because of offshoring.
You talk about a bunch of things that you do not like, such as ID Cards and CCTV Cameras, but never make a compelling argument about why they are bad things. If you think so strongly that they are bad things then do something about it. Lobby your government or at least pay lobbiests to do it for you. Run for political office or at least help out a local politician with like minded ideals.
If you are not willing to do these sorts of things, then you really dont care all that much do you? If you dont have the money or power to do it, then do something to get more money and/or power. It is people like you that allow things like this to happen.
People get so used to all of the freedoms that we enjoy, that no one remembers that people have had to DIE for these freedoms in the past. That is why we have them, not because the world is a some wonderful place where everything is fair and people are treated equally. Do you want equality and justice? Then you better be ready and willing to die for it.
so please tell me the difference? [Between the West and China]
The difference is that if you actually want to go out there and make change; you are allowed to do it in the west. In countries such as the US, you can camp outside the President's house and protest without being shot or imprisoned indefinetly. You may not make a difference, but you are allowed to try.
And people do make a difference, just look at the progress made in women's rights and racial equality over the past 100 years. But it doesnt happen over night. Dont expect to start protesting against government power and have anything change within one administration. It takes decades for real and meaningful change to take place. But it is possible.
1) Admit that Israel has won territory in a war. 2) Redraw Israeli borders to include all of the west bank and gaza.
Wait a minute, every single country on this planet has won territory in a war. That is why they still exist today, because they have fought and won various wars since the dawn of mankind. Just because Israel won territory in a war does not mean they should give it back.
And Israel did not win this territory by simply invading innocent surrounding countries (like Iraq did to Kuwait). They attacked three countries that were manuevering themselves to destroy Israel. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had all been massing troops on the Israeli border, with men such as the Egyptian president claiming that if hostilities erupted their "basic objetive will be to destroy Israel." Iraq also joined up in a military alliance with these countries.
Israel fought a war against four countries that wanted Israel's destruction. And Israel won. I do not see any valid argument for why Israel should give any land back. I think we should applaud Israel for having so much restraint with the Palestinians. Most countries, including probably the US, would have resorted to genocide a long time ago.
I'm saying the government ought not to be able to declare us criminals based on our publicly stated OPINIONS on blogs and other web sites
I have yet to hear of 1 case like the one you mention here. I do not see the government outlawing our ability to complain about the government. I just see them outlawing our ability to blow up buildings.
Where did you read anything about the government searching the internet so that they could arrest everyone who thinks that Bush is an idiot?
How does the 4th Amendment have anything to do with this? When you put something on the internet, you are making it public. It is no different than putting up a poster on a tree outside your house, or printing something in the newspaper.
Are you saying that the government shouldnt be able to read publications such as magazines or newspapers without having probable cause and a warrant?
While it is true that these internet searching methods might not have much success, it doesnt mean that they will have no success. Terrorists make mistakes just like anyone else. They might accidentally send an unencrypted email, have an unsecured ftp site, or any number of other slip ups. There is no good reason for the government not to at least try to catch terrorists (or other criminals) in every legal way possible. And scanning the internet is very legal, just look at Google.
With all of the illegal acts that Al Capone committed, it was the simple crime of tax evasion that finally got him caught. If we can catch a terrorist whenever he does something stupid online, I think that is a good thing.
You also cannot blame Yahoo until you have some reason to believe that they knew why this person was being arrested. Reporters without Borders is quoted in the article as saying that Yahoo knew he wasnt an ordinary criminal, but doesnt say why. For all anyone knows they simply said that because they felt like it; wouldnt be the first time that a reporter put a spin on a story to make it more interesting.
I was an administrator at an ISP a few years back, and I was once subpoenaed to release information on our servers about web access. I had very little idea about what the information was being used for or what that person did wrong, I just knew what logs to pull from (although I believe it was a case of identity theft). I do not see anything that shows that Yahoo knew anything more than that. They may indeed have done something immoral, but it takes more than just blind accusations.
The law is that the government issued a subpoena, which is a court order, i.e., legal requirement to do something. Google said no because the subpoena essentially is not valid
Okay that makes sense, but I wonder what legal trouble Google could get into. I hope that fighting a subpeona is not illegal even if you do not win, expecially if you had a valid reason to fight it.
I hate how short sided people can be when they have their mind made up about something. Cooperating with the Chinese government was not as "evil" as the Slashdot crowd would like you to believe.
Google had two options:
1) Refuse China's request, therefore reducing the average Chinese citizen's access to information on the internet greatly.
2) Comply with China's request, therefore helping the average Chinese citizen access information while only restricting their access slightly. In addition, they can have a message that notifies them that sites are being blocked for political reasons.
In my opinion, it would have been "evil" of Google to not comply with China's request. It would be the same as refusing to give food to North Korea because you do not like their government. I do not think letting millions of people starve would be the best approach to overthrowing the North Korean government. I also do not think the best way to liberate China from their oppressive regime is to isolate them even further.
Wait a minute, I read the article and didnt find what law Google is breaking here. I am not even close to being a privacy advocate, in fact I usually am on the side of the government in issues like these. But I do not see what law Google is breaking.
This must not have to do with the "War on Terror", because I thought that Google couldnt even notify the press if that was the case.
Does anyone know more about this than simply what this article is saying?
It seams to make sense that because Intel has the most money, that they can spend money on developing better manufacturing and engineering techniques than their competition. But with all of this extra money, and seamingly having better technological capabilities, AMD is still beating out Intel as far as performance.
Looks like Intel basically does all of the hard work figuring out how to do things for the first time, and AMD just has to wait until Intel is finished and then just learn from them. I of course know nothing about how to make processors, but it seams that this is the most plausible reason why Intel has trouble making chips that are as good as AMD.
This news about the 45nm manufacturing looks very bad for AMD, but I doubt it will matter very much. If Intel is doing it by the end of 2007, AMD will probably be doing it by first or second quarter 2008. And if history is any indicator, they will probably be doing it better. But I guess time will tell, maybe this 45nm technique really is too hard for a company without endless money to figure out. --
I like that Universities may now make it even easier to learn on your own instead of wasting your time in school. I routinely go to course websites at MIT, University of Illinois (I live in the state), and other colleges to basically take the classes along with the students.
They usually have quizes and homework posted along with solutions, and rarely have any passwords to get the information. I also can sometimes download blackboard screenshots, lecture notes, and even recordings of lectures. Sure beats sitting in class. And since I already run a company I dont need a peice of paper that says I am smart, so there is no need to go to college again.
I guess if I ever decided to do some kind of research I could go back to college and actually finish this time, but I am in no hurry. --
If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.
That's unnecessarily harsh and also unrealistic
While it may be a little harsh, I do not see why I was being unrealistic. It is true that many people are not suited for running a business. It could be lack of intelligence, lack of drive, innability to take risks, lack of initiative, or many other reasons. And a person can be very happy working for another company. But my point was that by working for someone else you are resigning yourself to the fact that you will probably never make the kind of money that you are "worth".
People have a very convoluted and innaccurate viewpoint about what people are worth. You are only worth (in the terms of dollars) what someone will pay you. I can say my rookie Micky Mantle baseball card is worth a certain amount that I read in a magazine, but until I find a buyer it isnt worth much at all. And when you are working for someone else, if they are a decent boss then they will never pay you what you are truly worth, because they need to make some kind of profit. In most cases, you will be paid FAR LESS than what you are worth.
Working for someone is a symbiotic relationship, you need skilled workers to run a business. These workers are the greatest asset that a company has, but they are an asset to the company's owner. The man running the show is the one who is going to reap the most benefits from their hard work. --
Wow. Do you realize how cocky and arrogant that sounds? You're "doing them a favor"?
Yes, I do believe that I am doing my workers a favor. Just like they are doing me a favor by doing work I do not want to do. Like you said, it is a symbiotic relationship. But my employees are all making more money doing an easier job than they were before working here. $10 an hour to sit down and read slashdot while taking breaks to answer tech support calls is pretty damn good for a kid with no college education or useful skill sets.
I make sure that I am doing a favor to all of my employees, that is why I can count on them sticking around. I was never condesending, I was being realistic. You may call it arrogant, but some people truly are smarter and/or more productive than others. And it is a good thing that those people have an easier time rising to the top, because we can then take the time to help out others who cannot do it for themselves. --
When ever you hear somebody say "Our employees are our greatest asset" they're lying
That is just plain wrong. In my company I have a few employees that truly are great assets. My software is still probably the greatest asset, but it wouldnt be worth much without the support staff.
My tech support staff is a great asset because they keep my customers happy. I want to work on the next peice of software that will make me even more money, not fix people's Windows ME problems. And the sales team is basically an ATM machine, I just have to release a new peice of software or an update and the phones get a workout.
If I did not have my employees then I would be a miserable man doing tech support and sales calls. I do not even have to train anyone, new employees are trained by current ones. I would hate having to waste my time training someone. --
what's your lifestyle advice ? How does a person make money while being employed by a corporation ?
While I do not agree with your parent's post, I think the answer to your question is to not work for a corporation. If you are working for someone else then you are making them rich. It is almost guaranteed that you arent being paid what you are worth, because then where is the profit for your employer?
The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place. I program small niche software, and make sure that there is some reason for the customers to have to keep paying (like updates). After launching and dealing with initial patching, it can run by itself with just the cost of a tech support guy making $10 an hour. Sell only 50 copies a month of a $100 program and you are making $5k a month, with only $2k going to employees. Keeping releasing a new peice of software every couple of years and you are soon a very rich man. And this does not count updates or tech support fees. Just find some way to make someone else's life easier and they will pay you for it.
Sure you are paying your employees alot less than they are making for you, but that is life. If they were smart enough to actually do something with their life other than working for someone else, then they would branch off and start their own company. If they arent smart enough, then I am doing them a favor by employing them and helping them feed themselves. Most of my employees are only treading water while finishing school or saving up some money to work on something they really want to do; and I wouldnt have it any other way. --
Sorry, you are write and I should have been more clear. I didnt mean use older/slower chips, I meant using new/slower chips that are slower mostly so that they save power. Such as Via chips or the low voltage versions of AMD chips.
How does reducing the Voltage in this way effect performance? If performance drops, then you could have just bought a computer with less processing power that also had lower power needs in the first place.
If there are no performance problems, then why dont all laptop manufacturers already do this?
You are paying for access to the internet, just like you pay the government taxes for access to the highway system. But companies still have to pay more money for real estate on a heavily trafficked section of the highway, just like the Telcos want to get more money from business running on their pipes.
I think it is funny that on Slashdot the government can do whatever it wants as long as it only hurts big companies. If it hurts small companies or the average person, then it is an outrage. But if a Telco or Microsoft or Amazon is hurt by unfair legislation or overabundant governmental control, it is okay or even welcomed.
I agree, internet sales and retail sales are two different types of business. But they are still both businesses, and similarities can be found between the two. American Football and soccer are two different sports, but punching opposing players is still illegal in both games.
While you made very good points on why Internet and Retail businesses are different, I didnt see anything that referred to why they shouldnt be treated the same when it comes to paying for their accessibility to customers.
Maybe I am being cynical but I suspect the Telco's involved would provide a better and quicker network for those customers paying them for the new service by degrading everyone who isn't paying.
This is a valid concern, but if this ended up being the case then that is a place for the government to step in. Just like any kind of unfair business practice, we have to rely on the government to govern that. But not letting the Telcos change their business practices out of fear of the possibility of malicious intent is no different than banning all guns because they might be used to kill people.
Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network
This is the exact place where I do not see the difference. Like I said before: consumers and businesses already pay taxes to use highways, just like you and businesses have paid for access to the network. But businesses then have to pay even more for a "premium" location.
Clearly any price increases faced by businesses will be met by corresponding price increases for those businesses customers
Is this really such a bad thing? Internet companys already have plenty of unfair advantages over retail stores, this would only help balance the playing field. I work at an internet company, so this will hurt me as much as anyone, but I still do not see why it is unfair.
The telco proposal is that if I want to go to a business they have a deal with, I get to use the highway. Otherwise, I can take the back roads through the industrial park
This is no different than paying for your business to be located on a major highway; I still do not see where the analogy falls apart. If you pay more money for real estate you will be in a better location. And then consumers are going to be led and "routed" to these businesses mostly because it is more convenient. They probably wont take the time to go through the back roads in an industrial park.
In the physical world both the businesses and consumers have paid taxes to use the roads, but the businesses still have to pay more to be located in "premium" spots.
Slashdot Mirror
the size of the IT employment market in the United States today is higher than it was at the height of the dot.com boom
The study is showing that the size of the IT employment market is higher than in the dot.com boom. It doesnt say that everyone is still making as much money, but people were making a rediculous amount of money at the time. We are finding that most people simply are not worth what they were being payed, thats why the bubble burst. It wasnt because of offshoring.
--
You talk about a bunch of things that you do not like, such as ID Cards and CCTV Cameras, but never make a compelling argument about why they are bad things. If you think so strongly that they are bad things then do something about it. Lobby your government or at least pay lobbiests to do it for you. Run for political office or at least help out a local politician with like minded ideals.
If you are not willing to do these sorts of things, then you really dont care all that much do you? If you dont have the money or power to do it, then do something to get more money and/or power. It is people like you that allow things like this to happen.
People get so used to all of the freedoms that we enjoy, that no one remembers that people have had to DIE for these freedoms in the past. That is why we have them, not because the world is a some wonderful place where everything is fair and people are treated equally. Do you want equality and justice? Then you better be ready and willing to die for it.
so please tell me the difference? [Between the West and China]
The difference is that if you actually want to go out there and make change; you are allowed to do it in the west. In countries such as the US, you can camp outside the President's house and protest without being shot or imprisoned indefinetly. You may not make a difference, but you are allowed to try.
And people do make a difference, just look at the progress made in women's rights and racial equality over the past 100 years. But it doesnt happen over night. Dont expect to start protesting against government power and have anything change within one administration. It takes decades for real and meaningful change to take place. But it is possible.
At least if you live in the "West" that is.
--
1) Admit that Israel has won territory in a war.
2) Redraw Israeli borders to include all of the west bank and gaza.
Wait a minute, every single country on this planet has won territory in a war. That is why they still exist today, because they have fought and won various wars since the dawn of mankind. Just because Israel won territory in a war does not mean they should give it back.
And Israel did not win this territory by simply invading innocent surrounding countries (like Iraq did to Kuwait). They attacked three countries that were manuevering themselves to destroy Israel. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had all been massing troops on the Israeli border, with men such as the Egyptian president claiming that if hostilities erupted their "basic objetive will be to destroy Israel." Iraq also joined up in a military alliance with these countries.
Israel fought a war against four countries that wanted Israel's destruction. And Israel won. I do not see any valid argument for why Israel should give any land back. I think we should applaud Israel for having so much restraint with the Palestinians. Most countries, including probably the US, would have resorted to genocide a long time ago.
--
I'm saying the government ought not to be able to declare us criminals based on our publicly stated OPINIONS on blogs and other web sites
I have yet to hear of 1 case like the one you mention here. I do not see the government outlawing our ability to complain about the government. I just see them outlawing our ability to blow up buildings.
Where did you read anything about the government searching the internet so that they could arrest everyone who thinks that Bush is an idiot?
--
How does the 4th Amendment have anything to do with this? When you put something on the internet, you are making it public. It is no different than putting up a poster on a tree outside your house, or printing something in the newspaper.
Are you saying that the government shouldnt be able to read publications such as magazines or newspapers without having probable cause and a warrant?
--
While it is true that these internet searching methods might not have much success, it doesnt mean that they will have no success. Terrorists make mistakes just like anyone else. They might accidentally send an unencrypted email, have an unsecured ftp site, or any number of other slip ups. There is no good reason for the government not to at least try to catch terrorists (or other criminals) in every legal way possible. And scanning the internet is very legal, just look at Google.
With all of the illegal acts that Al Capone committed, it was the simple crime of tax evasion that finally got him caught. If we can catch a terrorist whenever he does something stupid online, I think that is a good thing.
--
You also cannot blame Yahoo until you have some reason to believe that they knew why this person was being arrested. Reporters without Borders is quoted in the article as saying that Yahoo knew he wasnt an ordinary criminal, but doesnt say why. For all anyone knows they simply said that because they felt like it; wouldnt be the first time that a reporter put a spin on a story to make it more interesting.
I was an administrator at an ISP a few years back, and I was once subpoenaed to release information on our servers about web access. I had very little idea about what the information was being used for or what that person did wrong, I just knew what logs to pull from (although I believe it was a case of identity theft). I do not see anything that shows that Yahoo knew anything more than that. They may indeed have done something immoral, but it takes more than just blind accusations.
--
The law is that the government issued a subpoena, which is a court order, i.e., legal requirement to do something. Google said no because the subpoena essentially is not valid
Okay that makes sense, but I wonder what legal trouble Google could get into. I hope that fighting a subpeona is not illegal even if you do not win, expecially if you had a valid reason to fight it.
--
I hate how short sided people can be when they have their mind made up about something. Cooperating with the Chinese government was not as "evil" as the Slashdot crowd would like you to believe.
Google had two options:
1) Refuse China's request, therefore reducing the average Chinese citizen's access to information on the internet greatly.
2) Comply with China's request, therefore helping the average Chinese citizen access information while only restricting their access slightly. In addition, they can have a message that notifies them that sites are being blocked for political reasons.
In my opinion, it would have been "evil" of Google to not comply with China's request. It would be the same as refusing to give food to North Korea because you do not like their government. I do not think letting millions of people starve would be the best approach to overthrowing the North Korean government. I also do not think the best way to liberate China from their oppressive regime is to isolate them even further.
--
Wait a minute, I read the article and didnt find what law Google is breaking here. I am not even close to being a privacy advocate, in fact I usually am on the side of the government in issues like these. But I do not see what law Google is breaking.
This must not have to do with the "War on Terror", because I thought that Google couldnt even notify the press if that was the case.
Does anyone know more about this than simply what this article is saying?
--
It seams to make sense that because Intel has the most money, that they can spend money on developing better manufacturing and engineering techniques than their competition. But with all of this extra money, and seamingly having better technological capabilities, AMD is still beating out Intel as far as performance.
Looks like Intel basically does all of the hard work figuring out how to do things for the first time, and AMD just has to wait until Intel is finished and then just learn from them. I of course know nothing about how to make processors, but it seams that this is the most plausible reason why Intel has trouble making chips that are as good as AMD.
This news about the 45nm manufacturing looks very bad for AMD, but I doubt it will matter very much. If Intel is doing it by the end of 2007, AMD will probably be doing it by first or second quarter 2008. And if history is any indicator, they will probably be doing it better. But I guess time will tell, maybe this 45nm technique really is too hard for a company without endless money to figure out.
--
I like that Universities may now make it even easier to learn on your own instead of wasting your time in school. I routinely go to course websites at MIT, University of Illinois (I live in the state), and other colleges to basically take the classes along with the students.
They usually have quizes and homework posted along with solutions, and rarely have any passwords to get the information. I also can sometimes download blackboard screenshots, lecture notes, and even recordings of lectures. Sure beats sitting in class. And since I already run a company I dont need a peice of paper that says I am smart, so there is no need to go to college again.
I guess if I ever decided to do some kind of research I could go back to college and actually finish this time, but I am in no hurry.
--
If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place.
That's unnecessarily harsh and also unrealistic
While it may be a little harsh, I do not see why I was being unrealistic. It is true that many people are not suited for running a business. It could be lack of intelligence, lack of drive, innability to take risks, lack of initiative, or many other reasons. And a person can be very happy working for another company. But my point was that by working for someone else you are resigning yourself to the fact that you will probably never make the kind of money that you are "worth".
People have a very convoluted and innaccurate viewpoint about what people are worth. You are only worth (in the terms of dollars) what someone will pay you. I can say my rookie Micky Mantle baseball card is worth a certain amount that I read in a magazine, but until I find a buyer it isnt worth much at all. And when you are working for someone else, if they are a decent boss then they will never pay you what you are truly worth, because they need to make some kind of profit. In most cases, you will be paid FAR LESS than what you are worth.
Working for someone is a symbiotic relationship, you need skilled workers to run a business. These workers are the greatest asset that a company has, but they are an asset to the company's owner. The man running the show is the one who is going to reap the most benefits from their hard work.
--
Wow. Do you realize how cocky and arrogant that sounds? You're "doing them a favor"?
Yes, I do believe that I am doing my workers a favor. Just like they are doing me a favor by doing work I do not want to do. Like you said, it is a symbiotic relationship. But my employees are all making more money doing an easier job than they were before working here. $10 an hour to sit down and read slashdot while taking breaks to answer tech support calls is pretty damn good for a kid with no college education or useful skill sets.
I make sure that I am doing a favor to all of my employees, that is why I can count on them sticking around. I was never condesending, I was being realistic. You may call it arrogant, but some people truly are smarter and/or more productive than others. And it is a good thing that those people have an easier time rising to the top, because we can then take the time to help out others who cannot do it for themselves.
--
When ever you hear somebody say "Our employees are our greatest asset" they're lying
That is just plain wrong. In my company I have a few employees that truly are great assets. My software is still probably the greatest asset, but it wouldnt be worth much without the support staff.
My tech support staff is a great asset because they keep my customers happy. I want to work on the next peice of software that will make me even more money, not fix people's Windows ME problems. And the sales team is basically an ATM machine, I just have to release a new peice of software or an update and the phones get a workout.
If I did not have my employees then I would be a miserable man doing tech support and sales calls. I do not even have to train anyone, new employees are trained by current ones. I would hate having to waste my time training someone.
--
what's your lifestyle advice ? How does a person make money while being employed by a corporation ?
While I do not agree with your parent's post, I think the answer to your question is to not work for a corporation. If you are working for someone else then you are making them rich. It is almost guaranteed that you arent being paid what you are worth, because then where is the profit for your employer?
The only way to make what you are worth is to go into business for yourself. If you cannot hack it, then you were never worth that much in the first place. I program small niche software, and make sure that there is some reason for the customers to have to keep paying (like updates). After launching and dealing with initial patching, it can run by itself with just the cost of a tech support guy making $10 an hour. Sell only 50 copies a month of a $100 program and you are making $5k a month, with only $2k going to employees. Keeping releasing a new peice of software every couple of years and you are soon a very rich man. And this does not count updates or tech support fees. Just find some way to make someone else's life easier and they will pay you for it.
Sure you are paying your employees alot less than they are making for you, but that is life. If they were smart enough to actually do something with their life other than working for someone else, then they would branch off and start their own company. If they arent smart enough, then I am doing them a favor by employing them and helping them feed themselves. Most of my employees are only treading water while finishing school or saving up some money to work on something they really want to do; and I wouldnt have it any other way.
--
Sorry, you are write and I should have been more clear. I didnt mean use older/slower chips, I meant using new/slower chips that are slower mostly so that they save power. Such as Via chips or the low voltage versions of AMD chips.
How does reducing the Voltage in this way effect performance? If performance drops, then you could have just bought a computer with less processing power that also had lower power needs in the first place.
If there are no performance problems, then why dont all laptop manufacturers already do this?
--
but aren't the end users paying for these pipes?
You are paying for access to the internet, just like you pay the government taxes for access to the highway system. But companies still have to pay more money for real estate on a heavily trafficked section of the highway, just like the Telcos want to get more money from business running on their pipes.
-
I think it is funny that on Slashdot the government can do whatever it wants as long as it only hurts big companies. If it hurts small companies or the average person, then it is an outrage. But if a Telco or Microsoft or Amazon is hurt by unfair legislation or overabundant governmental control, it is okay or even welcomed.
Because it's not the same type of business.
I agree, internet sales and retail sales are two different types of business. But they are still both businesses, and similarities can be found between the two. American Football and soccer are two different sports, but punching opposing players is still illegal in both games.
While you made very good points on why Internet and Retail businesses are different, I didnt see anything that referred to why they shouldnt be treated the same when it comes to paying for their accessibility to customers.
--
Maybe I am being cynical but I suspect the Telco's involved would provide a better and quicker network for those customers paying them for the new service by degrading everyone who isn't paying.
This is a valid concern, but if this ended up being the case then that is a place for the government to step in. Just like any kind of unfair business practice, we have to rely on the government to govern that. But not letting the Telcos change their business practices out of fear of the possibility of malicious intent is no different than banning all guns because they might be used to kill people.
--
Even here, you are missing the real point. The business has paid for access to the network. I have paid for access to the network
This is the exact place where I do not see the difference. Like I said before: consumers and businesses already pay taxes to use highways, just like you and businesses have paid for access to the network. But businesses then have to pay even more for a "premium" location.
--
Clearly any price increases faced by businesses will be met by corresponding price increases for those businesses customers
Is this really such a bad thing? Internet companys already have plenty of unfair advantages over retail stores, this would only help balance the playing field. I work at an internet company, so this will hurt me as much as anyone, but I still do not see why it is unfair.
--
The telco proposal is that if I want to go to a business they have a deal with, I get to use the highway. Otherwise, I can take the back roads through the industrial park
This is no different than paying for your business to be located on a major highway; I still do not see where the analogy falls apart. If you pay more money for real estate you will be in a better location. And then consumers are going to be led and "routed" to these businesses mostly because it is more convenient. They probably wont take the time to go through the back roads in an industrial park.
In the physical world both the businesses and consumers have paid taxes to use the roads, but the businesses still have to pay more to be located in "premium" spots.
--