"How again did either of these two companies cause pain in the market?"
Neither of those two companies own the roads you use to get to either them or their competitors. They can't force you away from their competitor if they wanted to.
What we're talking about is akin to Wal-Mart lobbying Congress so that they can set up their own toll booths on Interstate Highways and charging trucks bound for other stores higher tolls.
"SEC guidelines have made it easier to pay corporate managers profits rather than pass them on as dividends. You can blame SEC regulations for this one (I know, I used to consult to some of the biggest broker dealers in the world).
In a free market, competitive companies that realize cost savings pass on these savings as increased profits. When the trend of increased profits stays stable, competition always causes companies to try to low ball their competitors -- decreasing prices to consumers."
Logical inconsistency. Customers see neither executive incomes nor stock dividents. Customers are not investors.
Regulation or not, there is nothing in your vision to prevent an oligopoly, a price-fixing cartel.
"And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys?"
How many new tier 1 providers popped up in the past year?
"They are only bad if they're given the ability to use force, and only government can grant that ability."
Your calls for deregulation are nothing more than allowing those companies to continue to reap the benefits of government force (namely, all those wires run through eminent domain) without having to abide by any of the stipulations through which they gained access to that force to begin with (the requirement to be a common carrier).
The only fair way to deregulate is to tear up the network entirely and let these people build without the advantages of government forcing property owners to sell easements or keep the radio spectrum clear. This is not something I see you supporting.
"True deregulation means getting rid of ALL laws that affect communication, including ones that were set up over a hundred years ago that we still have to follow."
Including ones that say I have to sell easements to telephone and cable companies and including ones saying I can't operate multiple spark gap transmitters blocking effective radio communications.
You're not interested in deregulating what I can do with my property or to the electromagnetic spectrum, you're only interested in "deregulating" networks that could only be built through eminent domain (and yet keeping the advantages of said eminent domain). You want to have your cake and eat it too, instead of acceping the truly double-edged sword (at best!) that you claim to support.
"It was intended to prevent taxation and tariffs"
No, Section 10, clause 2 is what prevented state taxation and tariffs. The Interstate Commerce Clause (Section 8, clause 3) expressly gave the power to create such taxation and tariffs, with the only stipulation being that the money went to the general, federal treasury. If it was to prevent Congress from doing something, it'd be in Section 9 with all the other prohibitions.
Trying to change the meaning of the Constitution to suit your whims while decrying others who do so smacks of hypocrisy.
"we saw an unregulated quantity of computers magically connect without major subsidies"
You're conveniently ignoring the "major subsidies" used to create the telephone network used by most of those computers to get online. If the Internet were as entirely abstract as you seem to pretend it is, none of us would be able to get online.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Letting network providers pick and choose favored speech on networks paid for by Congress would be a violation of that article. If the telephone companies wish to be anything other than a common carrier, they should build their own networks and run their own wires from scratch, with no government assistance at all, and especially no eminent domain.
Congress cannot grant power to others to do what it itself cannot do.
"We choose ISps that meet our needs."
You completely ignore how your ISP chooses their service provider. The vast, vast majority of all internet communications runs over Bell wires, and yes, that even includes your precious cable TV providers.
"I think we'll see lowered costs for corporate WANs,"
Apples and oranges. Coroporate WANs are private networks, not the Internet. If anyhing, the proposal will drive up the price of corporate WANs, because IP tunneling over the Internet will no longer be a viable option (in other words, there will be no alternative to the expensive networks of the past).
"Every dollar saved is some money passed on to the consumer."
Every dollar saved is some money passed on to some executive's golden parachute, you mean. There is no reason to pass on any savings to the consumers if a lack of competition keeps prices artifically inflated.
"Instead of promoting more bandwidth between same-network customers, regulations will push less bandwidth for different-network customers."
Nothing prevents providers from doing this with their own wires, bought without government money or government force.
In absolutely none of your analogies do you need to seek permission from your neighbors before making your purchase. Interntet access requires that somebody set up a communications link across property you do not own. Without some sort of regulated cooperation between both providers and property owners, the only viable network will be the one provided by one with the financial clout to browbeat any and all property owners into giving up their easements.
"I foresee a frenzy of electronics sales around ($DATE + 11_months)."
You mean like what didn't happen for the broadcast bit?
If you stepped away from Slashdot every once in a while, you'd realize that nobody actually cares about this stuff. So long as they can watch their precious Disney DVDs, they're fat and happy.
OK, so the people that could and should be pursuing articles of impeachment against President Bush for his illegal domestic wiretaps are instead spending their time whoring themselves out to the MPAA?
Maybe they should look into enforcing existing laws every once in a while instead of writing new and needless laws.
They are an "investment" in getting further into the game, being able to kill tougher monsters, etc. It seems you're the one here seeing everything in a financial light.
Considering the police are some of the loudest proponents of the USA PATRIOT Act, I'm thinking "no." The military hasn't fucked over the citizenry as much as law enforcement in recent years, and that will continue to be so at least so long as the Posse Comitatus Act stands.
And what of the time and effort he put into his character before the change in control interface? About all he can do now is sell it on eBay, but we all know how publishers frown upon that.
"Squaresoft gave us Rosa, Palom and/or Porom, and Relm long before that."
Porom was the boy.
And I wasn't trying to say that Yuffie were Rikku were useless whiners like Toriyama's women, they were annoying in an entirely different way, a squealing 14-year-old girl way.
And I'm not saying that Toriyama's women are useless in a logistical/capable sense (even Bulma makes the Dragon Radar), they're useless via sitting on their asses all day. I'm in the middle of Dragon Warrior VII, and Maribel's entire witty dialog consists of "I'm tired of walking, carry my stuff" and "Are we there yet?"
Remember the first scene where Kefka is introduced, walking through the desert and complaining that there's sand on his shoes, demanding that it be brushed off? He's got the same attitude as each and every one of Toriyama's women. And I'm supposed to symapthize with them?
"If you played the japanese versions you would know that DQ1 also featured a confusing password system."
That confusing password system was the save function. It was there because the Japanese version came out before they started putting batteries into Famicom games. It's no worse than what we got with Metroid and Kid Icarus (though those passwords weren't clever little haikus).
Enix nor Nintendo toned down the length of the game, the complexity, the difficulty, and they sure as hell didn't give us "Dragon Warrior--Mystic Quest."
"...and meet head on with US forces. Which gives the US a reason to enter the fray without actually entering the fray."
Yay, a three-front war! And one of our enemies has nuclear weapons! What could go wrong with that?
"I seriously doubt it would take very long for Israel to claim responsibility for the attack."
Whether or not it was Israel doesn't matter: if it came from Iraqi airspace, US forces occupying Iraq gave them aid and comfort (by allowing them overflight), making them complicit in the attacks.
"Iran could persecute the US for it, but that would only galvanize US citizens into defending ourselves against "those middle east nuts"."
With all our forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing left to galvanize.
"Iran wouldn't last long under US siege, regardless of our history with the occupation of Iraq."
It's not history, it's current events. We can have soldiers in:
"The US would just say that Israel worked out something with the Iraqi government, and feign complete innocence."
You're humorously short-sighted. If an Israeli attack hits Iran from Iraqi airspace, Iran will cross the border into Iraq.
"Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming."
Stuff blows up. People look up, see planes flying south by southwest. Iranians put 2 and 2 together, invade Iraq.
Heck, that's even worse: it allows the Iranians to assume the planes were US forces.
(By the way, if you're jamming radar, you are the exact opposite of stealth.)
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Slashdot Mirror
"and changing phrasing describing Bomis.com, another of Wales' sites, as a pornography site" /em types "bomis.com" into Firefox.
Aw, man...
"They should be honored that Pokemon was chosen as a name."
Dude! CANCER! Radiation! Chemotherapy! Dying bald kids! Their name would be tied to fewer deaths if somebody built the Pokemon Death Camp!
Alright, Slashdotters, which will come first?
Then Star Wars Galaxies can't be far behind! According to SOE, they'll probably hit the 5 million mark themselves next week.
6- Industry Fat Cats
"The New York Times is reporting"
Ah yes, that fine purveyor of last year's news. Or do they only sit on stories to save incumbents' elections?
(Yes, I'm trolling, mod me down.)
"How again did either of these two companies cause pain in the market?"
Neither of those two companies own the roads you use to get to either them or their competitors. They can't force you away from their competitor if they wanted to.
What we're talking about is akin to Wal-Mart lobbying Congress so that they can set up their own toll booths on Interstate Highways and charging trucks bound for other stores higher tolls.
"SEC guidelines have made it easier to pay corporate managers profits rather than pass them on as dividends. You can blame SEC regulations for this one (I know, I used to consult to some of the biggest broker dealers in the world).
In a free market, competitive companies that realize cost savings pass on these savings as increased profits. When the trend of increased profits stays stable, competition always causes companies to try to low ball their competitors -- decreasing prices to consumers."
Logical inconsistency. Customers see neither executive incomes nor stock dividents. Customers are not investors.
Regulation or not, there is nothing in your vision to prevent an oligopoly, a price-fixing cartel.
"And this is why new companies show up every year that compete just fine with the big guys?"
How many new tier 1 providers popped up in the past year?
"They are only bad if they're given the ability to use force, and only government can grant that ability."
Your calls for deregulation are nothing more than allowing those companies to continue to reap the benefits of government force (namely, all those wires run through eminent domain) without having to abide by any of the stipulations through which they gained access to that force to begin with (the requirement to be a common carrier).
The only fair way to deregulate is to tear up the network entirely and let these people build without the advantages of government forcing property owners to sell easements or keep the radio spectrum clear. This is not something I see you supporting.
"True deregulation means getting rid of ALL laws that affect communication, including ones that were set up over a hundred years ago that we still have to follow."
... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."
Including ones that say I have to sell easements to telephone and cable companies and including ones saying I can't operate multiple spark gap transmitters blocking effective radio communications.
You're not interested in deregulating what I can do with my property or to the electromagnetic spectrum, you're only interested in "deregulating" networks that could only be built through eminent domain (and yet keeping the advantages of said eminent domain). You want to have your cake and eat it too, instead of acceping the truly double-edged sword (at best!) that you claim to support.
"It was intended to prevent taxation and tariffs"
No, Section 10, clause 2 is what prevented state taxation and tariffs. The Interstate Commerce Clause (Section 8, clause 3) expressly gave the power to create such taxation and tariffs, with the only stipulation being that the money went to the general, federal treasury. If it was to prevent Congress from doing something, it'd be in Section 9 with all the other prohibitions.
Trying to change the meaning of the Constitution to suit your whims while decrying others who do so smacks of hypocrisy.
"we saw an unregulated quantity of computers magically connect without major subsidies"
You're conveniently ignoring the "major subsidies" used to create the telephone network used by most of those computers to get online. If the Internet were as entirely abstract as you seem to pretend it is, none of us would be able to get online.
"Congress shall make no law
Letting network providers pick and choose favored speech on networks paid for by Congress would be a violation of that article. If the telephone companies wish to be anything other than a common carrier, they should build their own networks and run their own wires from scratch, with no government assistance at all, and especially no eminent domain.
Congress cannot grant power to others to do what it itself cannot do.
"We choose ISps that meet our needs."
You completely ignore how your ISP chooses their service provider. The vast, vast majority of all internet communications runs over Bell wires, and yes, that even includes your precious cable TV providers.
"I think we'll see lowered costs for corporate WANs,"
Apples and oranges. Coroporate WANs are private networks, not the Internet. If anyhing, the proposal will drive up the price of corporate WANs, because IP tunneling over the Internet will no longer be a viable option (in other words, there will be no alternative to the expensive networks of the past).
"Every dollar saved is some money passed on to the consumer."
Every dollar saved is some money passed on to some executive's golden parachute, you mean. There is no reason to pass on any savings to the consumers if a lack of competition keeps prices artifically inflated.
"Instead of promoting more bandwidth between same-network customers, regulations will push less bandwidth for different-network customers."
Nothing prevents providers from doing this with their own wires, bought without government money or government force.
In absolutely none of your analogies do you need to seek permission from your neighbors before making your purchase. Interntet access requires that somebody set up a communications link across property you do not own. Without some sort of regulated cooperation between both providers and property owners, the only viable network will be the one provided by one with the financial clout to browbeat any and all property owners into giving up their easements.
Instant monopoly.
"I foresee a frenzy of electronics sales around ($DATE + 11_months)."
You mean like what didn't happen for the broadcast bit?
If you stepped away from Slashdot every once in a while, you'd realize that nobody actually cares about this stuff. So long as they can watch their precious Disney DVDs, they're fat and happy.
"US House Judiciary Committee"
OK, so the people that could and should be pursuing articles of impeachment against President Bush for his illegal domestic wiretaps are instead spending their time whoring themselves out to the MPAA?
Maybe they should look into enforcing existing laws every once in a while instead of writing new and needless laws.
They are an "investment" in getting further into the game, being able to kill tougher monsters, etc. It seems you're the one here seeing everything in a financial light.
I'd write a clever response, but I'm too busy playing Animal Crossing on my DS.
Considering the police are some of the loudest proponents of the USA PATRIOT Act, I'm thinking "no." The military hasn't fucked over the citizenry as much as law enforcement in recent years, and that will continue to be so at least so long as the Posse Comitatus Act stands.
And what of the time and effort he put into his character before the change in control interface? About all he can do now is sell it on eBay, but we all know how publishers frown upon that.
"When you develop "true AI" you dont make a press release about it,"
It makes its own press release.
"Squaresoft gave us Rosa, Palom and/or Porom, and Relm long before that."
Porom was the boy.
And I wasn't trying to say that Yuffie were Rikku were useless whiners like Toriyama's women, they were annoying in an entirely different way, a squealing 14-year-old girl way.
And I'm not saying that Toriyama's women are useless in a logistical/capable sense (even Bulma makes the Dragon Radar), they're useless via sitting on their asses all day. I'm in the middle of Dragon Warrior VII, and Maribel's entire witty dialog consists of "I'm tired of walking, carry my stuff" and "Are we there yet?"
Remember the first scene where Kefka is introduced, walking through the desert and complaining that there's sand on his shoes, demanding that it be brushed off? He's got the same attitude as each and every one of Toriyama's women. And I'm supposed to symapthize with them?
"If you played the japanese versions you would know that DQ1 also featured a confusing password system."
That confusing password system was the save function. It was there because the Japanese version came out before they started putting batteries into Famicom games. It's no worse than what we got with Metroid and Kid Icarus (though those passwords weren't clever little haikus).
Enix nor Nintendo toned down the length of the game, the complexity, the difficulty, and they sure as hell didn't give us "Dragon Warrior--Mystic Quest."
"Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?"
Replace "suspected terrorists" with "a federal judge."
Yay, a three-front war! And one of our enemies has nuclear weapons! What could go wrong with that?
"I seriously doubt it would take very long for Israel to claim responsibility for the attack."
Whether or not it was Israel doesn't matter: if it came from Iraqi airspace, US forces occupying Iraq gave them aid and comfort (by allowing them overflight), making them complicit in the attacks.
"Iran could persecute the US for it, but that would only galvanize US citizens into defending ourselves against "those middle east nuts"."
With all our forces tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's nothing left to galvanize.
"Iran wouldn't last long under US siege, regardless of our history with the occupation of Iraq."
It's not history, it's current events. We can have soldiers in:
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
- Iran
Pick only two."The US would just say that Israel worked out something with the Iraqi government, and feign complete innocence."
You're humorously short-sighted. If an Israeli attack hits Iran from Iraqi airspace, Iran will cross the border into Iraq.
"Either that, or the Israelis will be flying F-22 stealth fighters with full radar jamming and supercruise capability. In which case you'd never even see them coming."
Stuff blows up. People look up, see planes flying south by southwest. Iranians put 2 and 2 together, invade Iraq.
Heck, that's even worse: it allows the Iranians to assume the planes were US forces.
(By the way, if you're jamming radar, you are the exact opposite of stealth.)
Your Rights Online. People tend not to get kidnapped and/or tortured over the Internet.