If municipal GOVERNMENTS were banned from this practice, the ISPs wouldn't bother with bribing them.
yes but they'd still be monopolies, the natural monopoly/ network effect would still exist and no competitors would come. or they'd come, and since you have no regulations, the competitor would get destroyed, with this:
What's wrong and harmful is if you make the choice to buy it even if you can't afford it.
so your solution is people just should not get broadband and not use the internet?
The responsibility is with government, not with the people doing the asking.
you can buy regulators with revolving doors and with congressional election campaigns. in fact, they do. then those government figureheads are in effect owned by the corporation on that vested interest. this is not a mistake, and not a choice. it is called corruption. which is the actual fucking problem here. the entity doing the corrupting of your government... you see them as innocent?
Why do you believe that the people responsible for creating corrupt regulations in the first place would pass laws restricting their own ability to create corrupt regulation? How is that supposed to work?
by passing laws saying you can't get election funds from corporations?
like many countries do? and those other countries do not have high price/ low quality broadband problems
amazing huh?
the usa functions under a system of legalized corruption. are you not aware of this simple problem for some reason?
there's no strawman, there's simply a solid economic concept you fail to understand in the formation of your opinion: the natural monopoly. in fact this concept is pretty much fundamental to the problem here. if you call a fundamental concept on the topic a "strawman," you can't be considered a serious person on this topic, your opinion is an uneducated one
what does that mean to you, the concept of a natural monopoly. is it a joke? is it made up? does it only exist because of government? is government a more important factor?
the basics for you:
to compete in ANY market, you need to make an initial investment. you understand that, right?
ok, now going further: in some markets: hospitals, power plants, networks, etc., the initial investment before you ever begin receiving a return on your investment is so huge, that no one makes the investment after the first initial hospital/ power plant/ network/ etc.
this isn't nail salons or coffee shops we are talking about. to compete, you can't build one wire, or one pipe. you need to build thousands, millions, to even BEGIN to be considered a valid alternative. and then what? what if you get no customers because the other guy undercuts his prices so you can never see a return and then you go bankrupt? that happens to:
how do you fight predatory pricing? drum roll please... government. regulations
there is no such thing as a free and fair market in the entire world and all of history that did not exist without regulation (FAIR regulation, not corrupt regulation, which is a problem... so fight the corruption, not the regulation... right?) in fact, if you want competition in broadband, you have the government own and maintain the pipes, and then various companies LEASE bandwidth and offer services. that's real competition in broadband. only possible with government ownership/ heavy regulation of broadband (please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option)
do you understand the concept of the natural monopoly now? if so, then good for you, and understand your current opinion needs revision
once you consider the actual economic facts on a topic, THEN form an opinion. an educated, valid opinion
government is not the problem
the simple facts of the economic fundamentals are: the natural monopoly
the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
if you get rid of regulation, you still have the monopolies. except without regulations, now they screw you without even having to pretend to be following fake rules they paid for
the idea that less regulations is somehow better is fucking stupid
the idea that regulations are automatically corrupt is spineless cynicism
there are plenty of countries with effective regulations. they get those with strong rules against corruption
meanwhile, the usa has legalized corruption. buying congresscritters by funding their elections. owning regulators by giving them cushy jobs after government work. both should be illegal
but instead of a large grassroots movement against corruption, we have hordes of low iq propagandized douchebags against government
government is not wonderful. government does plenty of things wrong. but it's just that, on the issue of natural monopolies, government regulation is the only fucking solution, the least worst option
we have so many spineless, stupid people in the usa who think regulations are the problem and thereby support a horrible status quo with their ignorant, cynical inaction
*corrupt* regulations are the problem, not regulation, on the topic (only the topic, before i get accused of loving government which i don't) of natural monopolies
i'm not asking anyone to trust government
i'm asking people to see, on the *specific* topic of natural monopolies, the real culprit is plutocrats, not government, via corruption
fight corruption, not government
without government they will still screw you, but more happily, because now they don't even have to waste money on corruption. without government, the problems of natural monopolies don't just disappear in magic free market fairy farts. there are no free market solutions to natural monopolies. only (noncorrupt) government regulatory solutions
zero government regulation doesn't mean magic free market fairy makes everything fair. it means you still have a monopoly, because the barrier to entry is too high: no one has billions to invest in building more conduits. or they have the money, but it's not worth the risk to them to invest billions and they don't make enough back after years, the network effect works against them
google can compete, sure. so just wait for them to show up in your city in 40-50 years
meanwhile, you're still shafted in the ass with zero recourse whatsoever
government is not the problem
in fact, the ONLY solution you have to natural monopolies is government, via regulations
the problem we have in the usa is legalized corruption
corporations, by buying your congresscritters by funding their elections, and promising revolving door regulators a cushy job, *corrupt* your government
there are other countries, canada, the nordics, where corruption is greatly reduced (it will always exist, the point is to minimize it). these countries do not have the same problems we have (see also: healthcare as another example of where the usa is corrupted and we are financially shafted with low quality, and our social and economic peers don't have the same level of problem)
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government. you would be asking them to heavily regulate natural monopolies, especially in regards to profit taking. please note heavy regulation does not mean *corrupt* regulations, which of course have to be reversed
but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund. that makes them happy, and you get shafted even more in broadband (and healthcare)
and this is how the usa becomes like haiti, in the thinking of american douchebags like above
germany, japan, uk, australia, china.... they maintain infrastructure, commerce and industry grows there, happiness and quality of life is high
and we have morons who actually honestly advocate repairing car damage rather than building good roads. fucking incredible! you're trolling me right?
No, instead it is an incredibly rural area, with almost nothing to do, a very high unemployment rate, and a cost of living that exceeds the value of the area.
yes, created by losers who think just like you. self-fulfilling prophecy
you'll excuse us, but some of us americans don't just imagine this country is great (while doing our best to make it suck), but actually work for it to be great. kindly get the fuck out of our way. you're ignorant dead weight
as in "i'm exceptionally ignorant about how the world fucking works and resist all basic common sense needs like a stubborn toddler throwing a temper tantrum"
this apparently is how and why we are a great country according to some douchebags
when of course if such douchebags had their way, we'd be transporting turnips to bartering markets on oxcarts
so if lincoln or omaha don't get good infrastructure investments and continue to grow as heavily as they have been, then yeah, absolutely: traffic jams like in LA in a few decades
that's not bizarre nor far fetched, that's mundane reality
American infrastructure is deteriorating: that's not controversial nor inaccurate
the FUD would be in denying that fact. like the kind of FUD some uninformed/ irresponsible people and congresscritters use to deny the funding we need to keep our highways, tracks, and airstrips from crumbling
Slashdot Mirror
Internet service is NOT something that lends itself to natural monopolies.
i stopped reading there. willful ignorance
why are you changing the subject? do you not understand my point, or you do understand it and you are not being honest and conceding the point?
I'm just arguing that the ills that Title II purports to solve are all a result of government granting this monopoly.
you do understand this concept right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
so there are countries in the world that have outlawed the kind of corruption that is rampant in the usa
but the usa is not able to do that?
yes but they'd still be monopolies, the natural monopoly/ network effect would still exist and no competitors would come. or they'd come, and since you have no regulations, the competitor would get destroyed, with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
oh sure, you get a lower rate for awhile, then competition is destroyed and it's back to being the slowly boiled frog
what is the only solution to monopolistic dirty tricks like predatory pricing that prevents competition? government regulation is
the real purpose of these corrupt regulations is to prevent government itself from running the fiber
ironic, since the ISPs got their money to build the fiber from the government!
or, maddeningly, got money on the promise to build the fiber they never did
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
this is the problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
this is the solution:
http://www.chanute.org/index.a...
you don't have to read my comments
in fact, why don't you go and make sure never to read a comment of mine ever again
to prevent the government from doing the right thing and handling the fiber themselves
ideally the government would own the fiber, maintain it, and lease it to various companies for various services
that's actual capitalism and competition on a fair footing
what we have is a rent seeking parasite charging all of us for what our taxes already built
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
so your solution is people just should not get broadband and not use the internet?
you can buy regulators with revolving doors and with congressional election campaigns. in fact, they do. then those government figureheads are in effect owned by the corporation on that vested interest. this is not a mistake, and not a choice. it is called corruption. which is the actual fucking problem here. the entity doing the corrupting of your government... you see them as innocent?
by passing laws saying you can't get election funds from corporations?
like many countries do? and those other countries do not have high price/ low quality broadband problems
amazing huh?
the usa functions under a system of legalized corruption. are you not aware of this simple problem for some reason?
1. corrupt regulation: monopolies
2. no regulation: monopolies
3. fair regulation: broken monopolies
you think if you weaken government/ regulations, monopolies disappear like a fart in the wind?
explain how that happens
No one, except a couple fuckwits that mod you up, gives a rat's ass what the fuck you think.
oh, ok
so somebody does?
do you know what fascism means?
not a problem
feel free to never read or comment on a post of mine ever again
there's no strawman, there's simply a solid economic concept you fail to understand in the formation of your opinion: the natural monopoly. in fact this concept is pretty much fundamental to the problem here. if you call a fundamental concept on the topic a "strawman," you can't be considered a serious person on this topic, your opinion is an uneducated one
what does that mean to you, the concept of a natural monopoly. is it a joke? is it made up? does it only exist because of government? is government a more important factor?
the basics for you:
to compete in ANY market, you need to make an initial investment. you understand that, right?
ok, now going further: in some markets: hospitals, power plants, networks, etc., the initial investment before you ever begin receiving a return on your investment is so huge, that no one makes the investment after the first initial hospital/ power plant/ network/ etc.
this isn't nail salons or coffee shops we are talking about. to compete, you can't build one wire, or one pipe. you need to build thousands, millions, to even BEGIN to be considered a valid alternative. and then what? what if you get no customers because the other guy undercuts his prices so you can never see a return and then you go bankrupt? that happens to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
how do you fight predatory pricing? drum roll please... government. regulations
there is no such thing as a free and fair market in the entire world and all of history that did not exist without regulation (FAIR regulation, not corrupt regulation, which is a problem... so fight the corruption, not the regulation... right?) in fact, if you want competition in broadband, you have the government own and maintain the pipes, and then various companies LEASE bandwidth and offer services. that's real competition in broadband. only possible with government ownership/ heavy regulation of broadband (please note: i do not love government, government does plenty wrong. it's just that, on the specific concept of natural monopolies, uncorrupt regulation is the least worst option)
do you understand the concept of the natural monopoly now? if so, then good for you, and understand your current opinion needs revision
once you consider the actual economic facts on a topic, THEN form an opinion. an educated, valid opinion
government is not the problem
the simple facts of the economic fundamentals are: the natural monopoly
educate yourself
the idea is to pass laws against corrupt regulation
if you get rid of regulation, you still have the monopolies. except without regulations, now they screw you without even having to pretend to be following fake rules they paid for
the idea that less regulations is somehow better is fucking stupid
the idea that regulations are automatically corrupt is spineless cynicism
there are plenty of countries with effective regulations. they get those with strong rules against corruption
meanwhile, the usa has legalized corruption. buying congresscritters by funding their elections. owning regulators by giving them cushy jobs after government work. both should be illegal
but instead of a large grassroots movement against corruption, we have hordes of low iq propagandized douchebags against government
government is not wonderful. government does plenty of things wrong. but it's just that, on the issue of natural monopolies, government regulation is the only fucking solution, the least worst option
we have so many spineless, stupid people in the usa who think regulations are the problem and thereby support a horrible status quo with their ignorant, cynical inaction
*corrupt* regulations are the problem, not regulation, on the topic (only the topic, before i get accused of loving government which i don't) of natural monopolies
i'm not asking anyone to trust government
i'm asking people to see, on the *specific* topic of natural monopolies, the real culprit is plutocrats, not government, via corruption
fight corruption, not government
without government they will still screw you, but more happily, because now they don't even have to waste money on corruption. without government, the problems of natural monopolies don't just disappear in magic free market fairy farts. there are no free market solutions to natural monopolies. only (noncorrupt) government regulatory solutions
it's called a natural monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
zero government regulation doesn't mean magic free market fairy makes everything fair. it means you still have a monopoly, because the barrier to entry is too high: no one has billions to invest in building more conduits. or they have the money, but it's not worth the risk to them to invest billions and they don't make enough back after years, the network effect works against them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
google can compete, sure. so just wait for them to show up in your city in 40-50 years
meanwhile, you're still shafted in the ass with zero recourse whatsoever
government is not the problem
in fact, the ONLY solution you have to natural monopolies is government, via regulations
the problem we have in the usa is legalized corruption
corporations, by buying your congresscritters by funding their elections, and promising revolving door regulators a cushy job, *corrupt* your government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
there are other countries, canada, the nordics, where corruption is greatly reduced (it will always exist, the point is to minimize it). these countries do not have the same problems we have (see also: healthcare as another example of where the usa is corrupted and we are financially shafted with low quality, and our social and economic peers don't have the same level of problem)
if you were an intelligent person, you would be arguing for laws against corruption in your government. you would be asking them to heavily regulate natural monopolies, especially in regards to profit taking. please note heavy regulation does not mean *corrupt* regulations, which of course have to be reversed
but if you are a propagandized moron, you ask for a weakened government, which works for the plutocrats, because now there is no regulatory capture they have to engage in or corruption they have to fund. that makes them happy, and you get shafted even more in broadband (and healthcare)
we can very easily maintain our infrastructure, but we choose not to
it means we're stupider than our fathers and grandfathers, and don't deserve what they built for us
well, some of us
"my arm is infected so rather than cure the infection cut off the arm"
and this is how the usa becomes like haiti, in the thinking of american douchebags like above
germany, japan, uk, australia, china.... they maintain infrastructure, commerce and industry grows there, happiness and quality of life is high
and we have morons who actually honestly advocate repairing car damage rather than building good roads. fucking incredible! you're trolling me right?
yes, created by losers who think just like you. self-fulfilling prophecy
you'll excuse us, but some of us americans don't just imagine this country is great (while doing our best to make it suck), but actually work for it to be great. kindly get the fuck out of our way. you're ignorant dead weight
it's american exceptionalism
as in "i'm exceptionally ignorant about how the world fucking works and resist all basic common sense needs like a stubborn toddler throwing a temper tantrum"
this apparently is how and why we are a great country according to some douchebags
when of course if such douchebags had their way, we'd be transporting turnips to bartering markets on oxcarts
you commit to fix your roads and fund that. if it's too expensive or corrupt, you fix the corruption and unnecessary expenses
but you don't fucking deny the funds and let your own roads rot
your commerce and quality of life die
you understand that, right?
"i don't like corruption so i'll destroy my car with these potholes and let no deliveries make it to my supermarket"
where do you morons come from?
exactly
short sighted greed trumping long term investment that would actually pay higher dividends over a great amount of time
but fuck our children and grandchildren, apparently
it's about heavy growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
and they're talking about *2045*, not next year
so if lincoln or omaha don't get good infrastructure investments and continue to grow as heavily as they have been, then yeah, absolutely: traffic jams like in LA in a few decades
that's not bizarre nor far fetched, that's mundane reality
thanks for your pointless sophistry
the simple fact is we do not fund american infrastructure enough, and this hurts our economy in relation to places that do
it's not complicated nor difficult to understand
here, educate yourself:
http://www.economist.com/news/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fa...
http://www.infrastructurerepor...
after you have some actual understanding of a topic, only then should you speak on the topic
it's not FUD
American infrastructure is deteriorating: that's not controversial nor inaccurate
the FUD would be in denying that fact. like the kind of FUD some uninformed/ irresponsible people and congresscritters use to deny the funding we need to keep our highways, tracks, and airstrips from crumbling
i got the distinct impression on the trial i was in the jury on that the lawyer was driving things
i can see how it can work the other way though like you describe