1. It's going to be difficult to tax the internet very effectively for technical reasons. I think its more likely they will tax delivery systems such as FedEx and UPS.
Nope. A number of lead articles in Business 2.0 and various trade zines have explained that this is bogus. Many firms are already using software that can do this.
The point is that corporations don't want to do this.
2. It's going to be very difficult to regulate the internet effectively, again for technical reasons.
It is fairly simplistic to impose regulations on sections of the Net, especially the US portion or the EU portion. There are loopholes that one could use - this is where courts and jails come in. Which they will use. Whether that is right, is besides the point. The governments will still do it.
3. The main impetus for regulation will be to enforce taxation. If we pay close attention to both of these issues, we can probably forstall either one from happening
No, the main impeti are as follows:
A. to eliminate x-rated spam - waste of time
B. to eliminate Net fraud - partial waste of time
C. to enforce privacy rights (mostly by the EU, eventually by the US) - good use of time
D. to enforce taxation (by all governments) - note this is a minor reason and is not critical
4. The longer we delay, the harder it will be for governments to step in and change everything.
Sadly, this is bogus. Governments will impose order and control, whether you like it or not. If we are not part of the direction, the end result will be disasterously bad for us.
I think that the "they" he was referring too was the corporations inverting heavily in the net. The reference to Libertarians, I think, was to indicate that the corporations were going to have things their way, opposite to what Libertarians would like.
Exactly. My point is the depiction of the reality as it will exist, not a slam against libertarians. I did predict (rightly) that I'd be flamed for posting the truth, and by libertarians. I pay attention to behaviour, not theory.
So, given that I believe that corporations will influence the debate - my point is that we need to proactively guide the debate, not let corporations define it for us.
One way is to realize that regulations and taxation will exist and then figure out how to craft these into slashdot-friendly forms. Because if we don't, the corporations will impose their vision of the future, not ours.
I'm not going to differentiate bricks and mortar from e-commerce. We have tax people who do things like that. The exact flavor I'm not predicting, just that it will be in the form I'm describing.
Yes, this means catalog sales will be taxed. Oh well.
I'm not arguing the right or the propriety of imposing taxes, I'm just saying the political deals will be made. And it will be feds, state, county, and municipality. They will determine the splits and the maximums.
Uh. how much of your taxes do you really think goses to infrastructure? Less than 5%. Your supporting social programs, bud.
Wrong. At the municipal and county levels, about half goes to courts, police, and jails. At state levels, about half to courts, police, jails, and eductation. Of course, I live in Washington State - your mileage may vary.
An interesting aside. I believe that New Hampshire will have no state, county, or municipal taxes, but only a national Net tax. I could be wrong, but think this is highly likely.
You mean like the 6.5% use tax on amounts over $700 spent online or outside of the state for Minnesotans? Or the 0.5% on top of that for residents of Minneapolis?
I think we're more likely to see some kind of national clearinghouse system, which allocates all such taxes and distributes the taxes collected. Some taxes will be found to be unconstitutional, some will be superceded by national or state taxes. There may be a maximum amount imposed, even, such as a 10% limit for total taxes. There will be a lot of fuss about the terms of it, probably lasting until about 2005. By 2010 it will all be transparent and noone will think much about it, just as most consumers have no idea where the money they pay at the pump goes.
What exactly leads you to this analysis? I think that it is ludicrous to think that any kind of legislation that specifically targets big business for higher taxes is likely to fly.
Sorry. Meant the lower tax rate of about 50 percent for e-commerce and catalog was the analysis. The 25 percent for small business was my idea of how it could be made even better, as was the idea that the first $50,000 be exempted to help out startups.
So how exactly are you going to change the corporations? By writing angry posts to/. discussion? Yeah, I can hear the mighty corporations quivering in their boots... The community will be more effective if it uses the mechanisms our society already has in place to achieve its end, rather than trying to ferment some sort of revolution that isn't going to happen and isn't supported by the majority of your fellow countrymen.
Myself, I buy stock and influence things on the corporate level. Most people can influence the regulatory debates through online and in-person feedback and through media attention. This is the most effective method for the average/. denizen.
If they do add a net sales tax, will they add a mail order tax as well? If not, I'll bet a lot of sites will offer a "Call our 800 number to order with no net tax" option, which means they will most likely add a mail order sales tax as well...
This is what the corporations pay lawyers for. And what the IRS will enforce. But I do beleive that there will exist a two-tier tax system, with full taxes on bricks and mortar and lower taxes (maybe half the rate) on both catalog and e-commerce sites.
I think they should just tax the companies, as they already do, instead of adding a whole new type of tax. Why make the system even more complex? Plus, it's already expensive for small business to sell on the net, do they really want to make it moreso?
That's a good belief, but not likely to continue for long. I still bet $10 that a system similar to the one I mention will exist by 2010. Your point about small business is good - I think that companies with sales below a million dollars should get a special lower tax rate (maybe a quarter of the bricks and mortar) and exemption for the first $50,000.
Again, this is not what I desire, but what my analysis indicates will happen.
addressed by my proposal that we use 'jury duty'-style draftings from people in the industry the patent would affect
The major problem with such juries would be that we need to ensure it's not the executives, but the engineers that serve on these. And perhaps, existing patent holders (people) should be half of this pool.
But it needs to be not just Web people, but computer people. Many bogus patents are for Web implementations that are obvious from prior computer work. A code segment that is just the Web implementation of code from a non-web app is bogus.
until then, nobody can prevent me from publishing everything I want on a server in Europe.
The US will ensure that it's laws are enforced, no matter where in the world you are. You seem to think that the US does not have a long history of arresting people in other countries who break it's laws, spiriting them back to the US, and imprisoning them.
I don't agree with these actions, but I do believe they will happen.
I've been on the Net since 1980. I remember when 300 baud was fast, and only universities had 1200. I've been on BBS since the dawn of time.
And the reality is that there will be governmental regulation. Too many corporations are spending way too much money for this not to happen.
We can either influence this debate, and keep these regulations to the minimum necessary, always fighting back against censorship and in favor of open access, or we can rail against the wind.
OK, I'm sure I'll get flamed by all the Libertarians, but I'm going to tell you the truth.
First of all, grok this: there is too much money invested in the Net by big players and too many newbies who think they actually have privacy on the Net. I own shares in a number of corporations which are investing heavily in the Net, and they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws. This is a done deal. One can complain about it, but it will happen.
Secondly, the growth of the Net implies the existence of many more clueless newbies. They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen. We can shape this debate or we can fight the valiant fight against it and lose. And we will lose if we choose to fight instead of mold it in a better form.
Taxes are also inevitable. They should be lower than for bricks and mortar, but they are necessary for cities, counties, and states to pay for basic services such as roads (used by UPS to deliver your goods), rail (ditto), airports (ditto), police (to arrest the fraud mongsters), jails (to lock up the Free Net activists in), and courts (to find them guilty and protect the monied interests from having their credit cards stolen). They should be really low for small business and startups, to encourage creation of new things, but not for big companies.
This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010. And there will be regulations.
We can help ensure that only the good regulations survive - such as requiring open access to broadband pipes. Or we can rail against the wind and lose.
If we revise the patent system, I think that Web patents should be in web-time. In other words, a Web patent is for 3 years. A Net patent (non-hardware) should be for 5 years at most.
The other thing is the lack of expert review of patent applications, by real code gurus who've been around since the dawn of time.
But my main problem is that patents for Web implementations of existing real-world systems should not exist. Granting a patent for a web button that sends two messages to two objects should be denied, in that code which does this existed in the non-Web sense for a long time. Just because it's new on the Web doesn't make it new. And they don't get this.
... an internet radio broadcaster might be able to avoid paying the higher royalties by licensing and setting up a small, low power radio station out in the middle of nowhere, and broadcasting the program to the local cows.
Cool concept! How about Montana, which has a dearth of Techno and Rave stations? And just think of the lucky cows in KMOO's reach, able to bop to the trance beats of euro sounds!
They can take our milk, they can turn us into hamburgers, they can herd us, but they can never take our Freedom!
Now, it looks like net access could come to be controlled by the broadband network owners. This would be bad. This is not what helped the net grow and thrive. This is why we need regulation of the broadband providers, just as we had regulation of the phone companies. The benefits would seem to greatly outweigh the cost.
Exactly. I own stock in many of the companies which would like to control it. I get nice reports in the mail about how they will control it. They spend a lot of money trying to do this.
We need to realize that our own freedom depends on them not limiting access to broadband, or the Net, or the main trunks. We need to be sure that corporate customers in downtown urban centers don't get cheaper service for massive bandwidth than residential customers with minimal bandwidth. We all need both upload and download bandwidth and we need to be sure that all of us have the same basic opportunity to get a certain basic level of it. We need to be sure that corporations don't get installations with same day service, while suburban residential customers order installation and are not told that it will take them three months to get around to installing it.
Be serious. Of course they will impose regulations. Why ? Because they have the power to do it.
Exactly my main point. People have got to stop thinking that they will actually stop regulation of the Net or the imposition of taxes on e-commerce. Both are already happening in other countries and laws are already being written in the US as well. Wishing for a perfect free world won't make it happen.
Furthermore, the main internet providers are in US. Which gives the US govt the possibility of gaining a real control over an international system. Impressive, isn't it ? Does the word manipulation mean anything to you ? And it's even cheaper than all the more or less visible agencies. Not to mention military actions.
Which is why it will happen.
Is this moral ? Probably not. Are we going to gain something from this ? Yeah, right !
And then you point out that government actually affects both MSFT and IBM before it.
Regulations can be good, if they stay out of the censorship aspect and they work on providing a basic level of service requirement, as well as a basic level of access. Beyond this, they probably will cause more harm then good.
I've had a lot of posters post negative comments over my viewpoint that these will happen. I am willing to bet money on it. And I will win.
My point is, one can help ensure that the resulting regulations are mostly beneficial and promote competition. Or one can waste time pretending it won't happen.
Saying this is like saying, "I live in a remote part of America. There is no pizza place that will deliver to me. So tax the people that live in highly populated ares that have many pizza delivery options so I can have pizza delivery too."
Except we're not talking about pizza. We're talking about telecom, and we tax telephone service to provide basic telephone service to rural areas and to retirees who don't make poverty level incomes. In this day and age, the Net is the barrier to poor people improving their skills - if they don't have it, they can't participate.
I have a DSL line into my apartment. I pay more than a dialup line because I have more bandwith. I am paying more for more. I shouldn't have to pay more (for more) and more (taxes so someone remote can have it too). That is the Robin Hood mentatility. Rob from the rich to give to the poor. That is socalist to the extreme. Kinda like America's tax system.
I have DSL in two houses, cable modem as well, and a cell phone with a high minute allowance. I pay these taxes too. And if you don't like America's tax system, live somewhere else like Britain. I think you'll find they tax you more in almost any other country.
Actually, his point seemed to be that we're all up a creek unless we can figure out a way to get the government to keep broadband as open as the internet has been up to now.
Right. And, contrary to certain people, who seem never to have run a business (which I have), government does nothing for free. I don't disagree with attempts to minimize the impact of regulatory authorities, or their scope, but if they do it for free, some other taxpayer is paying for it. And if you don't like it, this has been the case for millennia.
Guarantees on services means more regulation not less. If the government keeps to just making sure there is open access, then free market principles will ensure that service is up to par. If I can have my choice of providers then the one I choose will have to keep me happy.
An interesting concept, but not true in an oligopolic situation such as exists nowadays. Service guarantees, such as those used for phone service (where they have to install your phone and get it working in 10 days or give you a free cell phone until they do), work quite well. These are enforced by the government regualators.
For someone in a city, your idea sounds good. But this is only some of the population. Those in suburbs have no services to choose from, and those in rural areas have even less choice (e.g. none).
Regulation is not always bad. Regulations should be minimal and should not get into the specifics of the technology, but require that advertised services are installed and functional in a realistic working time. We depend on these for things such as the pump at a gas station delivering the gas at the price marked, in the quantity you pay for - before we had fake pump prices and pumps that delivered less than they said. The same goes for electrical and many other services. You just don't notice these, because you take them for granted.
Mr Lessig writes as if the Internet and any broadband access to it is owned, situated in and controlled entirely by Americans, under US law.
It might as well be. If it isn't, our government will act as if it is, so it really doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, we'll do it anyway...
If his arguments were phrased to start with "The UK, Germany and Japan will have an economic advantage over us if they have end-to-end and we don't, because..." I'm sure the legislators will listen up!
No, they won't. You forget that the US has always been, by default, isolationist. It's only recently that we got any world news here at all, and it's still US-centric in reporting. If you don't impact the US, you might as well not exist from our elected officials' viewpoint.
Zero regulation and zero taxation? What makes you so special? When you buy something in person, you pay taxes. When you buy it on the net, you should also pay taxes. Maybe lower taxes (a good idea), but where do you think roads, schools, jails, courts, and looney bins get paid from?
If you don't like it, move to another country. And start paying higher taxes...
2. Regulation of Internet Access is Good. We need Open Competition between providers. We don't need restrictions on this. We also need guarantees that when we order DSL or Cable Modems, they'll be installed in 10 working days (or less), and that outages are fixed promptly. Beyond that, the government should butt out. [note - I own shares in AT&T, Cisco, AOL, Cox, a bunch more - and I'm hurting my profit picture by saying this]
3. Taxation is still inevitable. Stop whining.
4. Censorship is Bad. Information to permit consumers to know which spam or web site is X-rated or has violent images is ok, but not if Congress decides which is which. Multiple rating services should be permitted, so consumers can choose which (if any) they wish to use. I'm going to choose one for my son that bans violence and sex with violence (and until he's older, sex). And maybe right-wing loonies.
5. The Internet Will Be Taxed. Get a life...
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this. Yeah, it's taxes. Deal with it.
I've written programs, as well as the User Manuals and Technical Docs and Online Help, both in English and French myself. I used to get into arguments with some of the translators over which words to use - the "official" word (thought up by some bureaucrat and way too long to remember), or the "common usage" word. Some of the computer words in French, for example, are way to long, and most French speaking users don't use those words.
But Stock Options might be cool. Any project needs writers, who should be on par with coders. A good technical writer understands the code, while being apart from it that they can explain it simply in a few short descriptive action phrases.
I've been meaning to look into doing docs, since that is the area I think Open Source projects are weakest on, and it's easy for me to gen words.
But first, I've got some boxes to unpack and servers to nail down. Then I'll try to help out. After all, Open Source has been very, very good to me, in terms of IPOs.
Just finished reading the article. As with the house that routes all calls to voice mail when you're in the toilet area, there should be a privacy switch in the bedroom. For those times when you don't want the phone to ring, for any reason. It should be a light plate, light green for OK To Bug Me, light amber for Only For Urgent Calls (e.g. certain preprogrammed numbers or parents in same house), and light red for No, Not Even Urgent Calls (be nice if the door could lock if you had kids).
And when Urgent Calls do come through, the picture phone should be sound only at that point.
Slashdot Mirror
1. It's going to be difficult to tax the internet very effectively for technical reasons. I think its more likely they will tax delivery systems such as FedEx and UPS.
Nope. A number of lead articles in Business 2.0 and various trade zines have explained that this is bogus. Many firms are already using software that can do this.
The point is that corporations don't want to do this.
2. It's going to be very difficult to regulate the internet effectively, again for technical reasons.
It is fairly simplistic to impose regulations on sections of the Net, especially the US portion or the EU portion. There are loopholes that one could use - this is where courts and jails come in. Which they will use. Whether that is right, is besides the point. The governments will still do it.
3. The main impetus for regulation will be to enforce taxation. If we pay close attention to both of these issues, we can probably forstall either one from happening
No, the main impeti are as follows:
A. to eliminate x-rated spam - waste of time
B. to eliminate Net fraud - partial waste of time
C. to enforce privacy rights (mostly by the EU, eventually by the US) - good use of time
D. to enforce taxation (by all governments) - note this is a minor reason and is not critical
4. The longer we delay, the harder it will be for governments to step in and change everything.
Sadly, this is bogus. Governments will impose order and control, whether you like it or not. If we are not part of the direction, the end result will be disasterously bad for us.
I think that the "they" he was referring too was the corporations inverting heavily in the net. The reference to Libertarians, I think, was to indicate that the corporations were going to have things their way, opposite to what Libertarians would like.
Exactly. My point is the depiction of the reality as it will exist, not a slam against libertarians. I did predict (rightly) that I'd be flamed for posting the truth, and by libertarians. I pay attention to behaviour, not theory.
So, given that I believe that corporations will influence the debate - my point is that we need to proactively guide the debate, not let corporations define it for us.
One way is to realize that regulations and taxation will exist and then figure out how to craft these into slashdot-friendly forms. Because if we don't, the corporations will impose their vision of the future, not ours.
I'm not going to differentiate bricks and mortar from e-commerce. We have tax people who do things like that. The exact flavor I'm not predicting, just that it will be in the form I'm describing.
Yes, this means catalog sales will be taxed. Oh well.
I'm not arguing the right or the propriety of imposing taxes, I'm just saying the political deals will be made. And it will be feds, state, county, and municipality. They will determine the splits and the maximums.
Uh. how much of your taxes do you really think goses to infrastructure? Less than 5%. Your supporting social programs, bud.
Wrong. At the municipal and county levels, about half goes to courts, police, and jails. At state levels, about half to courts, police, jails, and eductation. Of course, I live in Washington State - your mileage may vary.
An interesting aside. I believe that New Hampshire will have no state, county, or municipal taxes, but only a national Net tax. I could be wrong, but think this is highly likely.
You mean like the 6.5% use tax on amounts over $700 spent online or outside of the state for Minnesotans? Or the 0.5% on top of that for residents of Minneapolis?
I think we're more likely to see some kind of national clearinghouse system, which allocates all such taxes and distributes the taxes collected. Some taxes will be found to be unconstitutional, some will be superceded by national or state taxes. There may be a maximum amount imposed, even, such as a 10% limit for total taxes. There will be a lot of fuss about the terms of it, probably lasting until about 2005. By 2010 it will all be transparent and noone will think much about it, just as most consumers have no idea where the money they pay at the pump goes.
What exactly leads you to this analysis? I think that it is ludicrous to think that any kind of legislation that specifically targets big business for higher taxes is likely to fly.
Sorry. Meant the lower tax rate of about 50 percent for e-commerce and catalog was the analysis. The 25 percent for small business was my idea of how it could be made even better, as was the idea that the first $50,000 be exempted to help out startups.
So how exactly are you going to change the corporations? By writing angry posts to /. discussion? Yeah, I can hear the mighty corporations quivering in their boots... The community will be more effective if it uses the mechanisms our society already has in place to achieve its end, rather than trying to ferment some sort of revolution that isn't going to happen and isn't supported by the majority of your fellow countrymen.
/. denizen.
Myself, I buy stock and influence things on the corporate level. Most people can influence the regulatory debates through online and in-person feedback and through media attention. This is the most effective method for the average
If they do add a net sales tax, will they add a mail order tax as well? If not, I'll bet a lot of sites will offer a "Call our 800 number to order with no net tax" option, which means they will most likely add a mail order sales tax as well...
This is what the corporations pay lawyers for. And what the IRS will enforce. But I do beleive that there will exist a two-tier tax system, with full taxes on bricks and mortar and lower taxes (maybe half the rate) on both catalog and e-commerce sites.
I think they should just tax the companies, as they already do, instead of adding a whole new type of tax. Why make the system even more complex? Plus, it's already expensive for small business to sell on the net, do they really want to make it moreso?
That's a good belief, but not likely to continue for long. I still bet $10 that a system similar to the one I mention will exist by 2010. Your point about small business is good - I think that companies with sales below a million dollars should get a special lower tax rate (maybe a quarter of the bricks and mortar) and exemption for the first $50,000.
Again, this is not what I desire, but what my analysis indicates will happen.
addressed by my proposal that we use 'jury duty'-style draftings from people in the industry the patent would affect
The major problem with such juries would be that we need to ensure it's not the executives, but the engineers that serve on these. And perhaps, existing patent holders (people) should be half of this pool.
But it needs to be not just Web people, but computer people. Many bogus patents are for Web implementations that are obvious from prior computer work. A code segment that is just the Web implementation of code from a non-web app is bogus.
until then, nobody can prevent me from publishing everything I want on a server in Europe.
The US will ensure that it's laws are enforced, no matter where in the world you are. You seem to think that the US does not have a long history of arresting people in other countries who break it's laws, spiriting them back to the US, and imprisoning them.
I don't agree with these actions, but I do believe they will happen.
I've been on the Net since 1980. I remember when 300 baud was fast, and only universities had 1200. I've been on BBS since the dawn of time.
And the reality is that there will be governmental regulation. Too many corporations are spending way too much money for this not to happen.
We can either influence this debate, and keep these regulations to the minimum necessary, always fighting back against censorship and in favor of open access, or we can rail against the wind.
I choose to fight effectively.
OK, I'm sure I'll get flamed by all the Libertarians, but I'm going to tell you the truth.
First of all, grok this: there is too much money invested in the Net by big players and too many newbies who think they actually have privacy on the Net. I own shares in a number of corporations which are investing heavily in the Net, and they will zealously defend their interests, through the creation of regulations and laws. This is a done deal. One can complain about it, but it will happen.
Secondly, the growth of the Net implies the existence of many more clueless newbies. They will demand the regulation of the Net, they will insist on laws, and it will happen. We can shape this debate or we can fight the valiant fight against it and lose. And we will lose if we choose to fight instead of mold it in a better form.
Taxes are also inevitable. They should be lower than for bricks and mortar, but they are necessary for cities, counties, and states to pay for basic services such as roads (used by UPS to deliver your goods), rail (ditto), airports (ditto), police (to arrest the fraud mongsters), jails (to lock up the Free Net activists in), and courts (to find them guilty and protect the monied interests from having their credit cards stolen). They should be really low for small business and startups, to encourage creation of new things, but not for big companies.
This is the reality. If you want, I'll bet anyone $10 that there will be Net taxes (not on ISPs, but on sales and e-commerce) for municipal, county, and states, in existence by 2010. And there will be regulations.
We can help ensure that only the good regulations survive - such as requiring open access to broadband pipes. Or we can rail against the wind and lose.
If we revise the patent system, I think that Web patents should be in web-time. In other words, a Web patent is for 3 years. A Net patent (non-hardware) should be for 5 years at most.
The other thing is the lack of expert review of patent applications, by real code gurus who've been around since the dawn of time.
But my main problem is that patents for Web implementations of existing real-world systems should not exist. Granting a patent for a web button that sends two messages to two objects should be denied, in that code which does this existed in the non-Web sense for a long time. Just because it's new on the Web doesn't make it new. And they don't get this.
... an internet radio broadcaster might be able to avoid paying the higher royalties by licensing and setting up a small, low power radio station out in the middle of nowhere, and broadcasting the program to the local cows.
Cool concept! How about Montana, which has a dearth of Techno and Rave stations? And just think of the lucky cows in KMOO's reach, able to bop to the trance beats of euro sounds!
They can take our milk, they can turn us into hamburgers, they can herd us, but they can never take our Freedom!
Now, it looks like net access could come to be controlled by the broadband network owners. This would be bad. This is not what helped the net grow and thrive. This is why we need regulation of the broadband providers, just as we had regulation of the phone companies. The benefits would seem to greatly outweigh the cost.
Exactly. I own stock in many of the companies which would like to control it. I get nice reports in the mail about how they will control it. They spend a lot of money trying to do this.
We need to realize that our own freedom depends on them not limiting access to broadband, or the Net, or the main trunks. We need to be sure that corporate customers in downtown urban centers don't get cheaper service for massive bandwidth than residential customers with minimal bandwidth. We all need both upload and download bandwidth and we need to be sure that all of us have the same basic opportunity to get a certain basic level of it. We need to be sure that corporations don't get installations with same day service, while suburban residential customers order installation and are not told that it will take them three months to get around to installing it.
Be serious. Of course they will impose regulations. Why ? Because they have the power to do it.
Exactly my main point. People have got to stop thinking that they will actually stop regulation of the Net or the imposition of taxes on e-commerce. Both are already happening in other countries and laws are already being written in the US as well. Wishing for a perfect free world won't make it happen.
Furthermore, the main internet providers are in US. Which gives the US govt the possibility of gaining a real control over an international system. Impressive, isn't it ? Does the word manipulation mean anything to you ? And it's even cheaper than all the more or less visible agencies. Not to mention military actions.
Which is why it will happen.
Is this moral ? Probably not. Are we going to gain something from this ? Yeah, right !
And then you point out that government actually affects both MSFT and IBM before it.
Regulations can be good, if they stay out of the censorship aspect and they work on providing a basic level of service requirement, as well as a basic level of access. Beyond this, they probably will cause more harm then good.
I've had a lot of posters post negative comments over my viewpoint that these will happen. I am willing to bet money on it. And I will win.
My point is, one can help ensure that the resulting regulations are mostly beneficial and promote competition. Or one can waste time pretending it won't happen.
Saying this is like saying, "I live in a remote part of America. There is no pizza place that will deliver to me. So tax the people that live in highly populated ares that have many pizza delivery options so I can have pizza delivery too."
Except we're not talking about pizza. We're talking about telecom, and we tax telephone service to provide basic telephone service to rural areas and to retirees who don't make poverty level incomes. In this day and age, the Net is the barrier to poor people improving their skills - if they don't have it, they can't participate.
I have a DSL line into my apartment. I pay more than a dialup line because I have more bandwith. I am paying more for more. I shouldn't have to pay more (for more) and more (taxes so someone remote can have it too). That is the Robin Hood mentatility. Rob from the rich to give to the poor. That is socalist to the extreme. Kinda like America's tax system.
I have DSL in two houses, cable modem as well, and a cell phone with a high minute allowance. I pay these taxes too. And if you don't like America's tax system, live somewhere else like Britain. I think you'll find they tax you more in almost any other country.
Actually, his point seemed to be that we're all up a creek unless we can figure out a way to get the government to keep broadband as open as the internet has been up to now.
Right. And, contrary to certain people, who seem never to have run a business (which I have), government does nothing for free. I don't disagree with attempts to minimize the impact of regulatory authorities, or their scope, but if they do it for free, some other taxpayer is paying for it. And if you don't like it, this has been the case for millennia.
Guarantees on services means more regulation not less. If the government keeps to just making sure there is open access, then free market principles will ensure that service is up to par. If I can have my choice of providers then the one I choose will have to keep me happy.
An interesting concept, but not true in an oligopolic situation such as exists nowadays. Service guarantees, such as those used for phone service (where they have to install your phone and get it working in 10 days or give you a free cell phone until they do), work quite well. These are enforced by the government regualators.
For someone in a city, your idea sounds good. But this is only some of the population. Those in suburbs have no services to choose from, and those in rural areas have even less choice (e.g. none).
Regulation is not always bad. Regulations should be minimal and should not get into the specifics of the technology, but require that advertised services are installed and functional in a realistic working time. We depend on these for things such as the pump at a gas station delivering the gas at the price marked, in the quantity you pay for - before we had fake pump prices and pumps that delivered less than they said. The same goes for electrical and many other services. You just don't notice these, because you take them for granted.
As to local counties - I'm talking National.
Mr Lessig writes as if the Internet and any broadband access to it is owned, situated in and controlled entirely by Americans, under US law.
...
It might as well be. If it isn't, our government will act as if it is, so it really doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, we'll do it anyway
If his arguments were phrased to start with "The UK, Germany and Japan will have an economic advantage over us if they have end-to-end and we don't, because..." I'm sure the legislators will listen up!
No, they won't. You forget that the US has always been, by default, isolationist. It's only recently that we got any world news here at all, and it's still US-centric in reporting. If you don't impact the US, you might as well not exist from our elected officials' viewpoint.
It is because of people like you that UNFAIR taxation is inevitable -- commie.
People like me served in the Army. People like me pay taxes. People like me have built roads, airports. And people like me don't whine about it.
Shakespeare said there is nothing more certain than Death and Taxes. It's going to happen, no matter how much you complain. So get on with your life.
Zero regulation and zero taxation? What makes you so special? When you buy something in person, you pay taxes. When you buy it on the net, you should also pay taxes. Maybe lower taxes (a good idea), but where do you think roads, schools, jails, courts, and looney bins get paid from?
If you don't like it, move to another country. And start paying higher taxes...
OK, let's break it down:
...
1. Taxation is inevitable. Deal with it.
2. Regulation of Internet Access is Good. We need Open Competition between providers. We don't need restrictions on this. We also need guarantees that when we order DSL or Cable Modems, they'll be installed in 10 working days (or less), and that outages are fixed promptly. Beyond that, the government should butt out. [note - I own shares in AT&T, Cisco, AOL, Cox, a bunch more - and I'm hurting my profit picture by saying this]
3. Taxation is still inevitable. Stop whining.
4. Censorship is Bad. Information to permit consumers to know which spam or web site is X-rated or has violent images is ok, but not if Congress decides which is which. Multiple rating services should be permitted, so consumers can choose which (if any) they wish to use. I'm going to choose one for my son that bans violence and sex with violence (and until he's older, sex). And maybe right-wing loonies.
5. The Internet Will Be Taxed. Get a life
6. The only other regulation we need is guaranteed low-cost access for anyone, like basic telephone service. No matter where they live in rural or remote areas. Tax the high-speed access people for this. Yeah, it's taxes. Deal with it.
I think this is a very good idea.
I've written programs, as well as the User Manuals and Technical Docs and Online Help, both in English and French myself. I used to get into arguments with some of the translators over which words to use - the "official" word (thought up by some bureaucrat and way too long to remember), or the "common usage" word. Some of the computer words in French, for example, are way to long, and most French speaking users don't use those words.
But Stock Options might be cool. Any project needs writers, who should be on par with coders. A good technical writer understands the code, while being apart from it that they can explain it simply in a few short descriptive action phrases.
I've been meaning to look into doing docs, since that is the area I think Open Source projects are weakest on, and it's easy for me to gen words.
But first, I've got some boxes to unpack and servers to nail down. Then I'll try to help out. After all, Open Source has been very, very good to me, in terms of IPOs.
Just finished reading the article. As with the house that routes all calls to voice mail when you're in the toilet area, there should be a privacy switch in the bedroom. For those times when you don't want the phone to ring, for any reason. It should be a light plate, light green for OK To Bug Me, light amber for Only For Urgent Calls (e.g. certain preprogrammed numbers or parents in same house), and light red for No, Not Even Urgent Calls (be nice if the door could lock if you had kids).
And when Urgent Calls do come through, the picture phone should be sound only at that point.