The failure on our part was to explain properly to them that the situation only exists because government regulation makes it very hard for anyone to compete with the big ISPs. If you made that clear it would change the context of the regulation to them and would sway some of them.
So you are saying that the fix to a lot of bad regulation is to add more regulations on top of it? That's supposed to convince Republicans? Or independents (like me)?
Net neutrality regulation has really wonderful goals and intentions, it always does. But after lobbyists are through with it, net neutrality regulation will just be another vehicle for harming competition and subsidizing special interests.
The problem isn't your failure to explain what net neutrality is supposed to achieve, the problem is that you think like a gambler with a gambling addiction: "just one more regulation, this time we're going to win; this time, it's finally going to do more good than harm". Thanks, but we don't want to partake in your madness.
Contrary to what people think, opinions expressed in comments submitted to the FCC are not the same as democratic majorities. Neither, for that matter, are preferences expressed in polls.
If you think that then you don't appreciate the size of the problem, nor the infinity of possible remedies.
Sorry, but there is simply no evidence that there is a problem that needs to be remedied. Go look at the actual data:
A more systematic analysis of the electoral fortunes of wealthy candidates found no significant association between electoral or fund-raising success and personal wealth.2 Related findings abound. For example, large campaign war chests carried over from the previous election do not deter challengers and confer no electoral advantage on incumbents. Similarly, large fund-raising windfalls attributable to changes in campaign finance laws have been shown to be unrelated to candidates’ subsequent electoral fortunes.3
Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.4
The last mile problem could be solved easily with wireless if the FCC opened up more spectrum and allowed more range for standards like WiMax and WiFi.
The second part is paying to go through all the regulations and easement payments setup by those pesky incumbents.
Precisely: most of the easements are for public roads, and most of the regulations have been lobbied for by incumbents. So why are you proposing more of that as the solution?
Exactly why the cables should be common carrier at a minimum, and municipality owned at best.
And how is that going to fix anything? If you make them common carriers, they are all going to charge even more money for even less service and create even bigger barriers to entry.
And if you make them municipally owned, the only upside is saving the commercial ISP's profit margin (realistically, maybe 10-20%); in reality, you are going to end up almost certainly with a horrifically inefficient monopoly.
That's not "conspiracy". It's just all-too-common, unethical, anti-competitive business practice. If you want to call lobbying and expensive presents "conspiracy", then you're saying that most of Congress are conspirators.
Yes, businesses try to gain monopolies, and they try to gain it by lobbying, and politicians let them succeed. That's obvious. Now what are you going to do about it?
You cannot fix that by railing at the businesses, they are never going to be any more ethical, and they don't give a f*ck what you think. You cannot fix it by voting better politicians into office; we tried that, and even Obama and Warren have succumbed (as have all previous politicians who have tried). And you cannot fix it by passing more regulation to punish businesses or politicians, because the new regulations will fall prey to regulatory capture just like the old ones.
What businesses fear most is competition and deregulation. Of course, even "deregulation" is subject to regulatory capture, in the sense that a lot of "deregulation" simply amounts to giving away public property at bargain basement prices without actually leading to more competition. But true deregulation is the only way we can fix regulatory capture; none of the other approaches work.
By surreptitiously "agreeing" to operate and different areas, they ARE suppressing competition. In most areas your "one" cable operator is the only game in town for broadband.
You make it sound like it's a conspiracy. But the current cable operators are simply consolidations of local operators that often already dominated individual markets. And there isn't much economic incentive for them to enter each other's territories: it means high capital expenditures and high risk with little expected return. Choosing not to invest in something isn't the same as suppressing it; businesses and investors don't owe you service.
The main thing that's actually "suppressing" competition is regulations, which make it costly and risky to create alternative Internet providers in an area. If you want more competition in Internet services, you need to figure out how to make it worth people's while to invest in creating that competition; strong-arm regulation by the FCC is doing the opposite.
By letting these two merge, they'll just have the ability to devote even more resources to crushing specific pockets of competition, including the local governments that just want to provide internet for all of their constituents.
Great idea! Customer service will be as good as the DMV! You get to pay for putting cables into the ground directly (whether you are a subscriber or not) because the city will simply pass "special assessments" to finance the infrastructure! And prices and innovation will be as good as they were back in the Ma Bell days!
"Admit" it? You make it sound they are under some obligation to invest in more infrastructure. Companies aren't Santa Claus; they make investments if they can expect a return, and under the current regulatory and intellectual property climate, there is no money in competing in markets with already established players.
If you want to change that, you need to change the regulatory environment. Oh, and simply mandating competition isn't going to work, because then investors are simply going to pull their money out of that market altogether.
Is it a good thing that the merger would raise the barrier to entry of any part of the larger market that Comcast would control?
Technically, starting up Internet service is really simple and doesn't cost much. Barriers to entry in land line, cable, and wireless service are almost completely due to government regulations and government monopolies.
But that's not the worst of it. The worst is exactly these discussions. Why would I risk my money on creating a new telecoms company when I know that if I succeed, regulators are going to come in and impose conditions on me because people like you aren't happy with my pricing?
Can you name any pros for consumers?
Which consumer? Rural? Urban? East Coast? West Coast? What about business owners or share holders, why don't their concerns and rights count?
How much service and competition do you think you're going to see if you make it unattractive to invest in this sectors through this kind of regulatory b.s.? Do you think corporations just spring into existence out of nowhere to satisfy your needs out of altruism?
At the core of the problem has always been Facebook's real name policy, plus the way they handle complaints by users against users. Reporting people violating Facebook's policy to Facebook isn't vigilantism; the responsibility for the policy and its enforcement still lies entirely with Facebook.
Although as a private institution, they can do what they want, maybe voluntarily respecting principles that work well in public life, namely free speech and due process, would perhaps be a good policy?
As I said it's a big topic - one we're not going to scratch the surface of here.
No, it's not a "big topic": what you advocate simply does not work, and no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.
The 2 big parties alternate incumbancy and already win 100% of elections so no change there.
So what? It's still an effective system for trading off the different political views of a large number of voting blocks and ideologies.
The idea (implicit in what you say) that each major political viewpoint should have its own political party and be represented in parliament works worse in practice than the US system.
"The Political Class" is everyone who is interested in politics.
No, you don't get to redefine terms. "The political class" has a well-defined meaning. Go look it up.
And "those that hold the purse strings over funding" is just a matter of getting the legislation right.
No, there is no way of "getting the legislation right". Public election funding is always decided by a small group of people subject to political control. No legislation is ever going to change that.
All three are better than the current situation of the American rich having nearly all the power in US politics.
The idea that "the American rich have nearly all the power in US politics" has no basis in reality.
I don't think that's even remotely true. In San Francisco, people are freaking out because the techies are making (what many consider) too much money and all sorts of financial types are abandoning Wall St. for Silicon Valley because tech is considered way cooler than finance.
People in SF are freaking out because they see techies make lots of money with a profession they also hold in low regard. That's the norm, not the exception: people also generally despise people working in finance and law.
Many intellectuals and artists believe both that their work is more valuable and that society isn't giving them enough money, and that drives both their politics and their attitudes.
How does "providing eco friendly and organic products to moms who desire an eco-conscious lifestyle for themselves and their children" amount to being a member of the "high tech community"? How does real estate development or running a barber shop make you a member of the high tech community? All these people are businessmen, and their troubles seem to be due to bad business decisions. No "high tech" involved, except perhaps that they were hoping that they could sell to "techies".
of making it difficult for homeowners to utilize this technology thanks to the regulatory capture of giant utility companies.
Hawaii's solar energy industry (like most) is in a "precarious situation" because they depend on regulatory capture for their survival.
Demanding the end of regulatory capture and subsidies isn't regulatory capture.
This along with downgrading of utilities stock by one of these banks or analysts
Why would banks or analysts give a f*ck whether people invest in green energy or purple energy?
Both utilities and green energy companies have underperformed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The idea that this is due to some grand conspiracy is ludicrous.
But if you think green energy companies are undervalued, why don't you open up an E-Trade account and put your money where your mouth is? If analysts mislead investors, you should be getting a bargain! Ultimately, what matters is whether companies deliver a competitive product, not what analysts say.
Is it not more useful to consider that than to call people who make your knee jerk fools?
Your foolishness is in believing that there are "deep pockets" anywhere other than customers. All net neutrality can do is shift money between Internet users. So, if your Internet service gets cheaper (either you pay less for the same service, or you get better service for the same money), someone else's Internet service necessarily gets more expensive. That's in the best case; chances are it will actually simply impose some degree of monopoly pricing on people.
What would happen in the absence of net neutrality? One possible outcome is that Internet access would just end up being free, but you pay for high volume service on a case-by-case basis. For example, you can get Virgin Mobile mobile phone service for $6.98 and add unlimited Facebook for $5. Under "net neutrality", all you're going to be able to buy is a full "neutral" data plan, which currently start at $35.
The only knee jerking here is the "stick it to the big corporations" kind of knee jerking. I'm saying: I don't see how net neutrality is going to be better than doing nothing; people haven't made a good case for it. Right now, it looks more like a big handout to geeks and big tech companies to me.
Having lived in several places in Western Europe, I can tell you from first hand experience that you're a bloody fool. Western Europe only got fast Internet because it massively deregulated its telecoms, Internet is expensive and slow in many places, and crony capitalism permeates the entire system.
You take a couple of isolated statistics from Europe that you happen to like and then use them to argue for US policies completely out of context. It's utter foolishness.
Markets are never completely free; that's not justification for piling even more bad regulation on top of already bad regulation.
There might well be regulation of the telecom market that helps consumers. Your folly is assuming that Democrats or the FCC are going to pass such regulation. Look at their donors: Democrats are going to corrupt "net neutrality" until it makes their own donors and constituents happy. Between the harmful faux "net neutrality" that Democrats are going to pass and no net neutrality, no net neutrality is a better choice.
Absolutely not. Do you have anything other than strawmen?
It's not a "straw man", it's sarcasm, a reference to the fact (apparently unknown to you) that Democrats are massively in the hands of rich donors and corporations. Why do you think Democrats are pushing for campaign financing reforms, net neutrality, etc.? It's in their self-interest and the interest of their donors.
US Politics main form of corruption is favours done in response to donations.
Yes, that is the main form of corruption, as opposed to the forms of corruption that are present in other countries. Corruption is a fact of life in politics, the only choice we have is how to direct it.
The way forward is to remove most or all of this as a way of doing politics. It's a big topic, with many partial and complete solutions, for example making donations illegal, and instead financing modest campaigns from the public purse.
I have lived in several countries like that; it's a lousy "solution", because that massively favors incumbents, the political class, and the people who hold the purse strings over funding.
Rich people should not get an advantage in expressing their will in a healthy democracy
The only way to eliminate the advantages rich people enjoy is to eliminate rich people. But as a result, you simply end up with other forms of power that are even worse: nepotism, corruption, blackmail, etc.
you are intellectually incapable of understanding this issue.
You bet I'm intellectually incapable of understanding this issue: I have no idea what net neutrality rules will do to Internet speeds, costs, or investments in the US. And if you think you do, you're a bloody fool.
It's kind of pathetic that so many people would support the Koch brothers in their efforts to make sure that internet dissent finally stops screwing with their business model
In what way is net neutrality related to "their business model"? They are into chemicals, petroleum, and agriculture.
The "business model" that net neutrality relates to is companies like Verizon, companies that big Democratic donors like Buffett and Soros seem to have invested a lot of money in recently.
Free market my ass: the real goal of all these crony capitalist "conservatives" is rent-seeking
Rent seeking involves passing legislation and regulations restricting the free market to favor your business. Net neutrality is a restriction on the free market. And which of the Koch's businesses would benefit from this? How is opposing net neutrality "rent seeking"?
Oh, there are rent seekers involved in this: the super wealthy like Soros and Buffett, who have bought big stakes in companies like Verizon and donate massive amounts of money to Democrats. You can bet that whatever "net neutrality" rules the FCC will come up with will benefit them a great deal.
Are we really supposed to believe 814.000 Americans signed a petition to prevent them from using their internet as they see fit?
Maybe 814000 Americans have figured out that there is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
(1) Corporations never pay these costs; you aren't sticking it to Comcast or AT&T. Such regulations inevitably ultimately just shift money from some group of people to another group of people. In the case of net neutrality, nobody knows who it's going to shift money from and to because...
(2) There are a lot of different policies that could be called "net neutrality". You can be sure that when the lobbyists and corporations are through with this, the legislation will not accomplish at all what you may want, and a good chunk of money will simply get transferred by law from customers to corporate owners (shareholders). Most likely, "net neutrality" will simply be turned into corporate welfare and entrench big telecoms further.
I think net neutrality will probably result in higher prices overall (or rather, a slower decrease in prices) for Internet access, less investment in high speed Internet, and force low-volume users to subsidize high volume users. But it might be a lot worse. What it won't accomplish is giving you more freedom, lower prices, or more choices.
Do you seriously think that big Democratic donors like Buffett and Soros, people who have bought large stakes in Verizon, don't expect something for their money and don't have the administration's ear? There really is no point in participating in the farce of commenting on it. The administration is going to do whatever is in its political interest and the interests of its corporate masters, and it's going to use the public comments as a smokescreen.
Why bother with the QR code? The car has a unique identifier attached to the back bumper (as well as a globally unique one in the corner of the windshield). That can be looked-up to verify that the registration is valid, if need be.
A globally unique identifier requires verification in a central database. A digital signature can be verified offline without a central database. That's my point!
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying that the fix to a lot of bad regulation is to add more regulations on top of it? That's supposed to convince Republicans? Or independents (like me)?
Net neutrality regulation has really wonderful goals and intentions, it always does. But after lobbyists are through with it, net neutrality regulation will just be another vehicle for harming competition and subsidizing special interests.
The problem isn't your failure to explain what net neutrality is supposed to achieve, the problem is that you think like a gambler with a gambling addiction: "just one more regulation, this time we're going to win; this time, it's finally going to do more good than harm". Thanks, but we don't want to partake in your madness.
Contrary to what people think, opinions expressed in comments submitted to the FCC are not the same as democratic majorities. Neither, for that matter, are preferences expressed in polls.
Sorry, but there is simply no evidence that there is a problem that needs to be remedied. Go look at the actual data:
http://www.econlib.org/library...
The last mile problem could be solved easily with wireless if the FCC opened up more spectrum and allowed more range for standards like WiMax and WiFi.
Precisely: most of the easements are for public roads, and most of the regulations have been lobbied for by incumbents. So why are you proposing more of that as the solution?
And how is that going to fix anything? If you make them common carriers, they are all going to charge even more money for even less service and create even bigger barriers to entry.
And if you make them municipally owned, the only upside is saving the commercial ISP's profit margin (realistically, maybe 10-20%); in reality, you are going to end up almost certainly with a horrifically inefficient monopoly.
Yes, businesses try to gain monopolies, and they try to gain it by lobbying, and politicians let them succeed. That's obvious. Now what are you going to do about it?
You cannot fix that by railing at the businesses, they are never going to be any more ethical, and they don't give a f*ck what you think. You cannot fix it by voting better politicians into office; we tried that, and even Obama and Warren have succumbed (as have all previous politicians who have tried). And you cannot fix it by passing more regulation to punish businesses or politicians, because the new regulations will fall prey to regulatory capture just like the old ones.
What businesses fear most is competition and deregulation. Of course, even "deregulation" is subject to regulatory capture, in the sense that a lot of "deregulation" simply amounts to giving away public property at bargain basement prices without actually leading to more competition. But true deregulation is the only way we can fix regulatory capture; none of the other approaches work.
You make it sound like it's a conspiracy. But the current cable operators are simply consolidations of local operators that often already dominated individual markets. And there isn't much economic incentive for them to enter each other's territories: it means high capital expenditures and high risk with little expected return. Choosing not to invest in something isn't the same as suppressing it; businesses and investors don't owe you service.
The main thing that's actually "suppressing" competition is regulations, which make it costly and risky to create alternative Internet providers in an area. If you want more competition in Internet services, you need to figure out how to make it worth people's while to invest in creating that competition; strong-arm regulation by the FCC is doing the opposite.
Great idea! Customer service will be as good as the DMV! You get to pay for putting cables into the ground directly (whether you are a subscriber or not) because the city will simply pass "special assessments" to finance the infrastructure! And prices and innovation will be as good as they were back in the Ma Bell days!
"Admit" it? You make it sound they are under some obligation to invest in more infrastructure. Companies aren't Santa Claus; they make investments if they can expect a return, and under the current regulatory and intellectual property climate, there is no money in competing in markets with already established players.
If you want to change that, you need to change the regulatory environment. Oh, and simply mandating competition isn't going to work, because then investors are simply going to pull their money out of that market altogether.
Technically, starting up Internet service is really simple and doesn't cost much. Barriers to entry in land line, cable, and wireless service are almost completely due to government regulations and government monopolies.
But that's not the worst of it. The worst is exactly these discussions. Why would I risk my money on creating a new telecoms company when I know that if I succeed, regulators are going to come in and impose conditions on me because people like you aren't happy with my pricing?
Which consumer? Rural? Urban? East Coast? West Coast? What about business owners or share holders, why don't their concerns and rights count?
How much service and competition do you think you're going to see if you make it unattractive to invest in this sectors through this kind of regulatory b.s.? Do you think corporations just spring into existence out of nowhere to satisfy your needs out of altruism?
At the core of the problem has always been Facebook's real name policy, plus the way they handle complaints by users against users. Reporting people violating Facebook's policy to Facebook isn't vigilantism; the responsibility for the policy and its enforcement still lies entirely with Facebook.
Although as a private institution, they can do what they want, maybe voluntarily respecting principles that work well in public life, namely free speech and due process, would perhaps be a good policy?
No, it's not a "big topic": what you advocate simply does not work, and no amount of obfuscation on your part is going to change that.
So what? It's still an effective system for trading off the different political views of a large number of voting blocks and ideologies.
The idea (implicit in what you say) that each major political viewpoint should have its own political party and be represented in parliament works worse in practice than the US system.
No, you don't get to redefine terms. "The political class" has a well-defined meaning. Go look it up.
No, there is no way of "getting the legislation right". Public election funding is always decided by a small group of people subject to political control. No legislation is ever going to change that.
The idea that "the American rich have nearly all the power in US politics" has no basis in reality.
People in SF are freaking out because they see techies make lots of money with a profession they also hold in low regard. That's the norm, not the exception: people also generally despise people working in finance and law.
Many intellectuals and artists believe both that their work is more valuable and that society isn't giving them enough money, and that drives both their politics and their attitudes.
About 25% of AP computer science test takers are women, which is about representative of tech companies.
How does "providing eco friendly and organic products to moms who desire an eco-conscious lifestyle for themselves and their children" amount to being a member of the "high tech community"? How does real estate development or running a barber shop make you a member of the high tech community? All these people are businessmen, and their troubles seem to be due to bad business decisions. No "high tech" involved, except perhaps that they were hoping that they could sell to "techies".
Hawaii's solar energy industry (like most) is in a "precarious situation" because they depend on regulatory capture for their survival.
Demanding the end of regulatory capture and subsidies isn't regulatory capture.
Why would banks or analysts give a f*ck whether people invest in green energy or purple energy?
Both utilities and green energy companies have underperformed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The idea that this is due to some grand conspiracy is ludicrous.
But if you think green energy companies are undervalued, why don't you open up an E-Trade account and put your money where your mouth is? If analysts mislead investors, you should be getting a bargain! Ultimately, what matters is whether companies deliver a competitive product, not what analysts say.
Your foolishness is in believing that there are "deep pockets" anywhere other than customers. All net neutrality can do is shift money between Internet users. So, if your Internet service gets cheaper (either you pay less for the same service, or you get better service for the same money), someone else's Internet service necessarily gets more expensive. That's in the best case; chances are it will actually simply impose some degree of monopoly pricing on people.
What would happen in the absence of net neutrality? One possible outcome is that Internet access would just end up being free, but you pay for high volume service on a case-by-case basis. For example, you can get Virgin Mobile mobile phone service for $6.98 and add unlimited Facebook for $5. Under "net neutrality", all you're going to be able to buy is a full "neutral" data plan, which currently start at $35.
The only knee jerking here is the "stick it to the big corporations" kind of knee jerking. I'm saying: I don't see how net neutrality is going to be better than doing nothing; people haven't made a good case for it. Right now, it looks more like a big handout to geeks and big tech companies to me.
Having lived in several places in Western Europe, I can tell you from first hand experience that you're a bloody fool. Western Europe only got fast Internet because it massively deregulated its telecoms, Internet is expensive and slow in many places, and crony capitalism permeates the entire system.
You take a couple of isolated statistics from Europe that you happen to like and then use them to argue for US policies completely out of context. It's utter foolishness.
Markets are never completely free; that's not justification for piling even more bad regulation on top of already bad regulation.
There might well be regulation of the telecom market that helps consumers. Your folly is assuming that Democrats or the FCC are going to pass such regulation. Look at their donors: Democrats are going to corrupt "net neutrality" until it makes their own donors and constituents happy. Between the harmful faux "net neutrality" that Democrats are going to pass and no net neutrality, no net neutrality is a better choice.
It's not a "straw man", it's sarcasm, a reference to the fact (apparently unknown to you) that Democrats are massively in the hands of rich donors and corporations. Why do you think Democrats are pushing for campaign financing reforms, net neutrality, etc.? It's in their self-interest and the interest of their donors.
Yes, that is the main form of corruption, as opposed to the forms of corruption that are present in other countries. Corruption is a fact of life in politics, the only choice we have is how to direct it.
I have lived in several countries like that; it's a lousy "solution", because that massively favors incumbents, the political class, and the people who hold the purse strings over funding.
The only way to eliminate the advantages rich people enjoy is to eliminate rich people. But as a result, you simply end up with other forms of power that are even worse: nepotism, corruption, blackmail, etc.
You bet I'm intellectually incapable of understanding this issue: I have no idea what net neutrality rules will do to Internet speeds, costs, or investments in the US. And if you think you do, you're a bloody fool.
That is what many online petitions do these days; you get pestered by those petitions no matter whether you go to a progressive or conservative site.
Yes, because only wealthy Democratic donors should ever be allowed to spend money in politics, right?
In what way is net neutrality related to "their business model"? They are into chemicals, petroleum, and agriculture.
The "business model" that net neutrality relates to is companies like Verizon, companies that big Democratic donors like Buffett and Soros seem to have invested a lot of money in recently.
Rent seeking involves passing legislation and regulations restricting the free market to favor your business. Net neutrality is a restriction on the free market. And which of the Koch's businesses would benefit from this? How is opposing net neutrality "rent seeking"?
Oh, there are rent seekers involved in this: the super wealthy like Soros and Buffett, who have bought big stakes in companies like Verizon and donate massive amounts of money to Democrats. You can bet that whatever "net neutrality" rules the FCC will come up with will benefit them a great deal.
Maybe 814000 Americans have figured out that there is no tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
(1) Corporations never pay these costs; you aren't sticking it to Comcast or AT&T. Such regulations inevitably ultimately just shift money from some group of people to another group of people. In the case of net neutrality, nobody knows who it's going to shift money from and to because...
(2) There are a lot of different policies that could be called "net neutrality". You can be sure that when the lobbyists and corporations are through with this, the legislation will not accomplish at all what you may want, and a good chunk of money will simply get transferred by law from customers to corporate owners (shareholders). Most likely, "net neutrality" will simply be turned into corporate welfare and entrench big telecoms further.
I think net neutrality will probably result in higher prices overall (or rather, a slower decrease in prices) for Internet access, less investment in high speed Internet, and force low-volume users to subsidize high volume users. But it might be a lot worse. What it won't accomplish is giving you more freedom, lower prices, or more choices.
Do you seriously think that big Democratic donors like Buffett and Soros, people who have bought large stakes in Verizon, don't expect something for their money and don't have the administration's ear? There really is no point in participating in the farce of commenting on it. The administration is going to do whatever is in its political interest and the interests of its corporate masters, and it's going to use the public comments as a smokescreen.
A globally unique identifier requires verification in a central database. A digital signature can be verified offline without a central database. That's my point!