There are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many in countries that that value free speech. Maybe what you meant to say was that terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qeda are incompatible with a society based on free speech.
Yes, there are Muslim immigrants to countries that currently enjoy free speech.
Those same countries are now seeing those free speech traditions become eroded by violent Muslims who attack citizens practicing free speech. Since dead people cannot practice their freedom of speech, this has the effect of reducing free speech.
Thus, my observation is correct, and you do not need to try to re-interpret my quote into something that it is not.
As for poking them to show who loves freedom and who does not, that sounds more like bullying versus exercising freedom.
Do you see Jews, Christians, or atheists shooting at people for religious mockery?
Muslims don't get special privileges just because they're willing to kill people.
If you want fewer extremists, integration is the best approach. By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve. This is true for any group of people, of course, not just Muslims, as we've recently seen. Oppressed groups tend to fight against oppression.
How'd that work out with Hitler?
You do not understand human nature or human history, and are thus unqualified to tell anyone what the best way to peace is.
War is part of the human problem solving toolset. Right now, Islam is making war on Western civilization and Freedom of Thought. All I'm hearing from you is to "Submit" to that violence to get less of it... which funnily enough is what "Islam" means - "Submission".
I was taught that a wounded animal is more dangerous than one that is not. There are people who are greatly offended (wounded) by the mockery of their strongly held beliefs. Why keep poking them with a stick and acting surprised when they strike back?
No one is surprised. This is just further evidence that Islam is incompatible with a society with Freedom of Speech.
So the important question is this: Would we rather have the religion of Islam and its followers, or keep our culture of Freedom of Speech?
If you have to pick one or the other... what is your choice?
Of course, even poked, that doesn't make their reaction acceptable (shootings), but then again, shooting somebody for their shoes or purse or wallet or color of their skin or what they believe in, etc. is hardly acceptable, either. Those acts of violence occur all the time and at a far greater statistical rate than over the this. It's just that the media doesn't fixate on them.
That is sufficient reason to poke them. To show who loves freedom, and who does not.
Your two quotes above are very different assertions. You never said anything about comparing buses to self-driving taxis. Once we get self driving taxis I think anyone would agree they would be more efficient than buses.
It's not obvious to me why self-driving taxis would be fundamentally different in energy efficiency compared to people driving their own cars.
Suppose some food manufacturer introduces a new additive that increases their production by a large amount. It's in their interest to not get it regulated out of existence, right? So they'll claim that any data from experiments performed to determine the safety of the additive is proprietary. Under the secret science bill, they could then prevent the FDA from even examining the additive to determine its safety...quote>
So the FDA withholds its approval for lack of data, and then competitors point out that their products have FDA approval...
Except Bethesda had to create the framework to sell the base game. They didn't make those tools to "generously give away", they had to make them so that they themselves could create regions / characters / items / etc.
So because Bethesda needed to create the framework for themselves... My claim that the framework has non-zero value is wrong?
If the framework is needed for the game to even exist, you've affirmed my point by saying the framework has a lot of value! (Skyrim has sold 20+ million copies, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars)
Now, if the framework has value, then access to the framework has value... and so getting compensated for providing access is in fact reasonable.
I'm remembering why I rarely go on Slashdot anymore, it's filled with incompetent people who lack even the most basic thinking / reasoning skills.
It's not too late for you to start paying attention and reducing that number.
And we pay how much money to Microsoft to run software on their framework?
So you accept that frameworks are valuable and worth money. Then how the framework owner is paid is up for negotiation.
You'll note that Valve and Apple get a cut of each game/app sold on their Steam/IOS store frameworks. Those aren't illegal, or even wrong. They're just different business models.
I think what Bethesda did is probably illegal. Violation of First Sale doctrine maybe?
Mods are derivative works of Bethesda's IP. When distributed for free, there are certain protections, and no harm is done. When sold for money, Bethesda's permission is needed, as that is what copyright does.
Yes and no, on the hand the statement is true. On the other hand Bethesda already got paid. If they had said at the outset we are going to use the Gillette model charge a minimal fee to recover our costs developing the game, and let the community produce a sell additional content for which we will take a cut, things might be different.
Beth got paid for the modder to play the game and enjoy the art. That would reasonably cover even the use of the game engine and art assets for the modder's personal projects.
Beth did not get paid for the modder to resell modified art assets to other gamers.
Some companies may decide that they would rather not take a cut to encourage a mod scene... but it is within their rights to charge paid mods whatever cut they want. Some desired percentages may be counter-productive, profit-wise, but no one has the right to force someone else to maximize for profit.
Which they were paid for when you bought the damn game. They did 0% of the work in making the mod and as such, even a 10% cut for the sake of "IP licensing" (used loosely) is being generous. The person doing all of the work should not be getting the smallest portion of the revenue.
0% of the work? So let the mod maker sell his mod without the base game, then.
You're putting 0 value on the framework, when frameworks are in fact valuable things.
People create software that runs on Linux or Windows precisely because they don't have the time/resources to roll their own OS.
That is a dangerous assertion. Why shouldn't Microsoft take a 40% cut of Zenimax profits because Skyrim runs on Windows? Why shouldn't Intel take a 40% cut of Microsoft since Windows runs on their processors?
It's not dangerous at all. Microsoft has the right to make that a condition of using/buying their OS, but they chose not to.
You'll note that they're a successful company worth billions with the alternative strategy they chose. An OS is nothing without its apps - and they made it attractive to develop on their OS.
Amusingly enough: Why shouldn't PC Gamers take a 40% cut of Intel profits since Intel processors run on the machines they build?
That doesn't even make sense. PC Gamers don't produce standards, or designs that make the use of an Intel CPU possible, whereas Intel creates reference designs for their products.
Intel doesn't need gamers to have a functional product.
It will be interesting to see at what point the government goes after them for predatory market practices if they're only sustainable because of massive revenue/profit from other divisions.
I'm not sure I'm interested in finding out how the government thinks it can fix Internet markets.
It'd be interesting, but I don't think it'd be a very fun experiment for us Internet users.
Among all the companies in that program the default rate was very low. Solyndra was the only noteworthy default. The DOE made a solid overall profit on the program. It was indisputably a successful program.
Every cent of money funding this loan program was taken from a US citizen who could have been using it for some superior performing personal investment.
Any loan program will have failures. I remember during the 2012 election Rupublicans said Obama was terrible, because fed loans made under him had a 20% bankruptcy rate. But hailed Romney as a business hero even though under his leadership Bain Capital had a 50% bankruptcy rate. The numbers aren't as bad as people make out for either; that's how these things work. We can't act like the sky is falling over some failures.
Taxpayer money, collected involuntarily... versus private capital, collected voluntarily from people who wanted to risk their money chasing profits.
Are you unable to notice a simple, fundamental difference in the source of money?
I'll also note that your metric of success for the loan program is simply wrong. It's not measured by bankruptcy rate... but net profit. Profit means that overall, the money was productive; bankruptcy in of itself is not relevant.
And the feds don't need to make back all their money via repayment. As the other poster said, Tesla is still paying US taxes and hiring US workers. The feds get money off that too. The feds didn't need to recoup all losses simply by repayment since they gain (maybe more so) by having a successful company.
It has not been shown that federal interference produced a better outcome than if Google had simply bought Tesla out.
If you want to justify federal loans, that's what you need to prove.
Getting taxpayers a profit proportional to the lending risk they assumed is not "fucking [Tesla] in the ass".
The loan program also lends money to epic failures like Solyndra - if they don't maximize their profits on the better investments, they won't cover the costs on the bad ones.
Federal tax money is not a personal piggy bank for your favorite CEO/corporation. "Socialized risk and privatized profit" ring a bell?
Comcasts customers are already paying to access Netflix. They are paying netflix and paying comcast. How comcast can not cope I do not know.
Yes, Comcast's customers paid for what they deserved.
The issue is that Netflix was failing to deliver as well as it could to them; and that was rooted in Netflix not paying its share of bandwidth costs.
Contrary to what you said earlier, there was no denial of access. There was degrading quality of access rooted in Netflix's continued growth in subscribers and bandwidth usage.
I know they have a big network but how did they not give netfix a chance.
What do you mean by "give Netflix a chance"?
This is business. You get what you pay for. Netflix got the bandwidth they paid for, and then they paid more to have the bandwidth to serve their growing number of subscribers on the Comcast network.
Not as much as they should but how can you deny them the access Paying for
Here's your error. Comcast subscribers are not paying for access to Netflix. They're paying for access to Comcast's network. When their download speed from Netflix dropped to a "measly" 1.5 Mbps, there has been no denial of access.
That did result in a worse user experience - and that's entirely due to Netflix's choice of ISP and network plus their continuously growing user-base. By creating an agreement with Comcast, they kept their existing ISP and bypassed the network bottlenecks, improving their users' experience and fixing the scaling of their bandwidth use.
Scaling up solutions cost money. When Netflix is using up the bandwidth with their content, it's correct for Netflix to pay.
Comcast customers pay for X Mbit access to Comcast's network. They got it.
Netflix did not have the upload to Comcast's network to handle all Netflix users on said network. That lack of upload is Netflix's problem, which is why the correct solution is for Netflix to pay Comcast to remedy this.
Failing that, they could have found a different ISP that had a better peering agreement with Comcast.
Netflix do not peer with comcast. Netflix demonstrably has enough bandwidth available to get the data out there (onto the pipes so to speak). Comcast refused to provide the bandwidth from the transit providers to their own network. You know the one that their customers pay for.
Netflix chose an ISP that did not have enough bandwidth to Comcast. Getting bandwidth "out there" is only half the problem.
Comcast's customers paid for X Mbits access from Comcast's network. It doesn't guarantee they get X Mbits access from some dinky server on the Internet that has 128 Kbps upload. Neither does it guarantee that all Y Netflix users on Comcast's network get Y*X Mbps access to Netflix content, when Netflix's network's connection to Comcast does not have that much bandwidth.
If Netflix was a customer of Comcast's network, that'd be one thing... but they weren't, at least until they created their agreement.
Netflix streaming is at times 30% of the Internet's total traffic. If they don't pay those bandwidth costs, then it's going to be paid by the people who aren't Netflix users... how is that a better solution?
Pay for what you use - meaning Netflix should pay.
"I view being beholden to the laws to be very different than being beholden to the people making the laws."
If you're going to include the courts as law interpreters, you have to include the lawmakers, who write the laws with an eye on how it will be interpreted, or modify laws in reaction to judge rulings.
we disagree on whether that fact is sufficient to make Congress the "boss" of the FCC, which is a matter of subjective opinion, since it comes down to our interpretation of what constitutes a boss and whether or not Congress is filling that role.
The debate is on whether the FCC answers to Congress. If you agree that the FCC can be dissolved at will by Congress - there is no question that the FCC does indeed answer to Congress. If Congress has an opinion on how the FCC conducts its activities, the FCC shuts up and listens.
I'm not all that concerned whether or not you have to use the word "boss" to describe that relationship, but your resistance to the word is an odd prejudice. The relationship does not have any of the complexities you're trying to read into it.
I disagree with your assertion that Congress is "continuing to delegate that authority". They delegated it. Past tense. It's gone. Unless they take it back, it remains gone. There is no continual reliance on Congress to continue delegating their authority. As such, I stand by my statement that there is no reliance on Congress at all. If Congress disappeared tomorrow, the FCC could continue its operation, which wouldn't be possible if there was a reliance on Congress.
You would have a point if and only if Congress was unable to take back that delegated authority.
If Congress made a territory into its own independent sovereign nation, that would be something along the lines of what you're talking about.
But that is not how the FCC is operating. The FCC operates within the United States of America according to US law, at the continued pleasure of Congress.
Revoke those laws, and the FCC has no authority to tell any US citizen or organization to do anything.
You know how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? It defines Congress, and the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. It does not define the FCC. The FCC exists because Congress created it, and it operates independently only because Congress allows it. If Congress doesn't like the job the FCC is doing, the FCC will comply or be dissolved.
If Congress disappears... so does the authority of the FCC.
After all, the same is true for everyone in the country, yet we wouldn't consider Congress to be our boss, even though we'd agree that the laws have authority over us.
Do you not know American History? That's because we're Congress's boss.
When we vote someone into office, the results of the vote are not a polite suggestion. The institution has been corrupted over time, but this is basic civics.
In terms of who I would say that the FCC is answerable to, I'd suggest it's to the laws establishing its mandate, the laws expanding its powers, and the courts who interpret those laws.
You left out an important and extremely relevant entity in that list - the group of people who write and repeal the laws establishing mandates and powers. Some might call those "lawmakers". In the US, that body is called "Congress".
I dunno...does that explain my stance a bit better? Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
You can be wrong if you want, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion.
Either the FCC answers to Congress, or it does not. The truth of the matter is obvious - what happens if the FCC tells Congress to take a hike because "hissy fit"?
Is it a contradiction that your parents aren't your bosses, despite establishing you and granting you life?
Inapplicable analogy. Parents aren't allowed to kill their children, because we actually do not consider parents the granter of life. (Can they restore the life of the children they kill? No.)
Likewise, just because Congress can dissolve the FCC, it doesn't make it the FCC's boss.
Nonsense. That is a boss, by definition.
The FCC is self-funded through regulatory fees, has been granted authority to act independently, and does not rely on Congressional support for any aspect of its continued operation.
False. It relies on Congress continuing to delegate that authority. The FCC's ability to collect fees is due to Congress continuously authorizing it to do so.
If and when Congress doesn't like how the FCC is using its delegated authority, it can take it back - even for no reason at all - and the FCC has no authority to override Congress's decisions.
The FCC exists because Congress passed a law. It will cease to exist if Congress repeals that law. The FCC exists at the whim of Congress.
Thank you for the response. That's the type of example I was looking for.
However a quick skim through the history brings up this: "In 1852 the Supreme Court declared the Bain telegraph an infringement on Morseâ(TM)s patent"
So there was vibrant competition in the 1850s... until the government stepped in with patent enforcement. (Patents are a government granted monopoly)
"Western Union faced three threats during this period: increased government regulation, new entrants into the field of telegraphy, and new competition from the telephone. The last two were the most important to the companyâ(TM)s future profitability"
So even as a monopoly - they were facing competition from other firms, and from new technology.
"The period from 1866 through the turn of the century was the apex of Western Unionâ(TM)s power. Yearly messages sent over its lines increased from 5.8 million in 1867 to 63.2 million in 1900. Over the same period, transmission rates fell from an average of $1.09 to 30 cents per message"
Due to the monopoly... users enjoyed lower and lower prices. (also, higher quality due to unified wire network)
Just what does government protect us from here? Why is it important is it to regulate "natural monopolies" when they bring lower prices and higher quality product, and dissolve when obsoleted?
natural monopolies exist whether government interferes or not.
that what makes them "natural".
That's what people like to say, but observation of the history of monopolies demonstrate that no such "natural" monopolies have ever existed. That's why you were asked to provide an example.
There are situations where one company gets a large amount of marketshare - but never one where only a single company is capable of surviving, or where it successfully kills all competitors... unless the government steps in.
You'll note that power, water,electrical, gas, all involve municipal monopolies. If your concept of natural monopoly is true, you should be able to provide a history where the monopoly existed before the government granted it.
Slashdot Mirror
There are something like 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Many in countries that that value free speech. Maybe what you meant to say was that terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qeda are incompatible with a society based on free speech.
Yes, there are Muslim immigrants to countries that currently enjoy free speech.
Those same countries are now seeing those free speech traditions become eroded by violent Muslims who attack citizens practicing free speech. Since dead people cannot practice their freedom of speech, this has the effect of reducing free speech.
Thus, my observation is correct, and you do not need to try to re-interpret my quote into something that it is not.
As for poking them to show who loves freedom and who does not, that sounds more like bullying versus exercising freedom.
Do you see Jews, Christians, or atheists shooting at people for religious mockery?
Muslims don't get special privileges just because they're willing to kill people.
If you want fewer extremists, integration is the best approach. By isolating them, belittling them, and then provoking them you're creating the problem you're pretending to solve. This is true for any group of people, of course, not just Muslims, as we've recently seen. Oppressed groups tend to fight against oppression.
How'd that work out with Hitler?
You do not understand human nature or human history, and are thus unqualified to tell anyone what the best way to peace is.
War is part of the human problem solving toolset. Right now, Islam is making war on Western civilization and Freedom of Thought. All I'm hearing from you is to "Submit" to that violence to get less of it ... which funnily enough is what "Islam" means - "Submission".
I was taught that a wounded animal is more dangerous than one that is not. There are people who are greatly offended (wounded) by the mockery of their strongly held beliefs. Why keep poking them with a stick and acting surprised when they strike back?
No one is surprised. This is just further evidence that Islam is incompatible with a society with Freedom of Speech.
So the important question is this: Would we rather have the religion of Islam and its followers, or keep our culture of Freedom of Speech?
If you have to pick one or the other ... what is your choice?
Of course, even poked, that doesn't make their reaction acceptable (shootings), but then again, shooting somebody for their shoes or purse or wallet or color of their skin or what they believe in, etc. is hardly acceptable, either. Those acts of violence occur all the time and at a far greater statistical rate than over the this. It's just that the media doesn't fixate on them.
That is sufficient reason to poke them. To show who loves freedom, and who does not.
Your two quotes above are very different assertions. You never said anything about comparing buses to self-driving taxis. Once we get self driving taxis I think anyone would agree they would be more efficient than buses.
It's not obvious to me why self-driving taxis would be fundamentally different in energy efficiency compared to people driving their own cars.
Suppose some food manufacturer introduces a new additive that increases their production by a large amount. It's in their interest to not get it regulated out of existence, right? So they'll claim that any data from experiments performed to determine the safety of the additive is proprietary. Under the secret science bill, they could then prevent the FDA from even examining the additive to determine its safety...quote>
So the FDA withholds its approval for lack of data, and then competitors point out that their products have FDA approval ...
So what?
Except Bethesda had to create the framework to sell the base game. They didn't make those tools to "generously give away", they had to make them so that they themselves could create regions / characters / items / etc.
So because Bethesda needed to create the framework for themselves ... My claim that the framework has non-zero value is wrong?
If the framework is needed for the game to even exist, you've affirmed my point by saying the framework has a lot of value! (Skyrim has sold 20+ million copies, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars)
Now, if the framework has value, then access to the framework has value ... and so getting compensated for providing access is in fact reasonable.
I'm remembering why I rarely go on Slashdot anymore, it's filled with incompetent people who lack even the most basic thinking / reasoning skills.
It's not too late for you to start paying attention and reducing that number.
And we pay how much money to Microsoft to run software on their framework?
So you accept that frameworks are valuable and worth money. Then how the framework owner is paid is up for negotiation.
You'll note that Valve and Apple get a cut of each game/app sold on their Steam/IOS store frameworks. Those aren't illegal, or even wrong. They're just different business models.
I think what Bethesda did is probably illegal. Violation of First Sale doctrine maybe?
Mods are derivative works of Bethesda's IP. When distributed for free, there are certain protections, and no harm is done. When sold for money, Bethesda's permission is needed, as that is what copyright does.
Yes and no, on the hand the statement is true. On the other hand Bethesda already got paid. If they had said at the outset we are going to use the Gillette model charge a minimal fee to recover our costs developing the game, and let the community produce a sell additional content for which we will take a cut, things might be different.
Beth got paid for the modder to play the game and enjoy the art. That would reasonably cover even the use of the game engine and art assets for the modder's personal projects.
Beth did not get paid for the modder to resell modified art assets to other gamers.
Some companies may decide that they would rather not take a cut to encourage a mod scene ... but it is within their rights to charge paid mods whatever cut they want. Some desired percentages may be counter-productive, profit-wise, but no one has the right to force someone else to maximize for profit.
Which they were paid for when you bought the damn game. They did 0% of the work in making the mod and as such, even a 10% cut for the sake of "IP licensing" (used loosely) is being generous. The person doing all of the work should not be getting the smallest portion of the revenue.
0% of the work? So let the mod maker sell his mod without the base game, then.
You're putting 0 value on the framework, when frameworks are in fact valuable things.
People create software that runs on Linux or Windows precisely because they don't have the time/resources to roll their own OS.
That is a dangerous assertion. Why shouldn't Microsoft take a 40% cut of Zenimax profits because Skyrim runs on Windows? Why shouldn't Intel take a 40% cut of Microsoft since Windows runs on their processors?
It's not dangerous at all. Microsoft has the right to make that a condition of using/buying their OS, but they chose not to.
You'll note that they're a successful company worth billions with the alternative strategy they chose. An OS is nothing without its apps - and they made it attractive to develop on their OS.
Amusingly enough: Why shouldn't PC Gamers take a 40% cut of Intel profits since Intel processors run on the machines they build?
That doesn't even make sense. PC Gamers don't produce standards, or designs that make the use of an Intel CPU possible, whereas Intel creates reference designs for their products.
Intel doesn't need gamers to have a functional product.
It will be interesting to see at what point the government goes after them for predatory market practices if they're only sustainable because of massive revenue/profit from other divisions.
I'm not sure I'm interested in finding out how the government thinks it can fix Internet markets.
It'd be interesting, but I don't think it'd be a very fun experiment for us Internet users.
Among all the companies in that program the default rate was very low. Solyndra was the only noteworthy default. The DOE made a solid overall profit on the program. It was indisputably a successful program.
No, it isn't "indisputably a successful program". http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
Every cent of money funding this loan program was taken from a US citizen who could have been using it for some superior performing personal investment.
Any loan program will have failures. I remember during the 2012 election Rupublicans said Obama was terrible, because fed loans made under him had a 20% bankruptcy rate. But hailed Romney as a business hero even though under his leadership Bain Capital had a 50% bankruptcy rate. The numbers aren't as bad as people make out for either; that's how these things work. We can't act like the sky is falling over some failures.
Taxpayer money, collected involuntarily ... versus private capital, collected voluntarily from people who wanted to risk their money chasing profits.
Are you unable to notice a simple, fundamental difference in the source of money?
I'll also note that your metric of success for the loan program is simply wrong. It's not measured by bankruptcy rate ... but net profit. Profit means that overall, the money was productive; bankruptcy in of itself is not relevant.
And the feds don't need to make back all their money via repayment. As the other poster said, Tesla is still paying US taxes and hiring US workers. The feds get money off that too. The feds didn't need to recoup all losses simply by repayment since they gain (maybe more so) by having a successful company.
It has not been shown that federal interference produced a better outcome than if Google had simply bought Tesla out.
If you want to justify federal loans, that's what you need to prove.
Getting taxpayers a profit proportional to the lending risk they assumed is not "fucking [Tesla] in the ass".
The loan program also lends money to epic failures like Solyndra - if they don't maximize their profits on the better investments, they won't cover the costs on the bad ones.
Federal tax money is not a personal piggy bank for your favorite CEO/corporation. "Socialized risk and privatized profit" ring a bell?
Thankfully I am not in the US so it does not affect me. And I do not subscribe to netflix
Then you are advised to learn more details about a dispute before taking a stance.
Especially when the outcome does not affect you.
Netflix did pay for their bandwidth. Comcasts customers also payed. Somewhere in the middle there was an argument.
Bandwidth is a quantity. The amount of bandwidth Netflix paid for is not equal to the amount of bandwidth Comcast's customers paid for.
Comcasts customers are already paying to access Netflix. They are paying netflix and paying comcast. How comcast can not cope I do not know.
Yes, Comcast's customers paid for what they deserved.
The issue is that Netflix was failing to deliver as well as it could to them; and that was rooted in Netflix not paying its share of bandwidth costs.
Contrary to what you said earlier, there was no denial of access. There was degrading quality of access rooted in Netflix's continued growth in subscribers and bandwidth usage.
I know they have a big network but how did they not give netfix a chance.
What do you mean by "give Netflix a chance"?
This is business. You get what you pay for. Netflix got the bandwidth they paid for, and then they paid more to have the bandwidth to serve their growing number of subscribers on the Comcast network.
Not as much as they should but how can you deny them the access Paying for
Here's your error. Comcast subscribers are not paying for access to Netflix. They're paying for access to Comcast's network. When their download speed from Netflix dropped to a "measly" 1.5 Mbps, there has been no denial of access.
That did result in a worse user experience - and that's entirely due to Netflix's choice of ISP and network plus their continuously growing user-base. By creating an agreement with Comcast, they kept their existing ISP and bypassed the network bottlenecks, improving their users' experience and fixing the scaling of their bandwidth use.
Scaling up solutions cost money. When Netflix is using up the bandwidth with their content, it's correct for Netflix to pay.
Comcast customers pay for X Mbit access to Comcast's network. They got it.
Netflix did not have the upload to Comcast's network to handle all Netflix users on said network. That lack of upload is Netflix's problem, which is why the correct solution is for Netflix to pay Comcast to remedy this.
Failing that, they could have found a different ISP that had a better peering agreement with Comcast.
Congress can't kill the FCC without passing a law. A law requires the president's signature. So the President is the boss of them both I guess?
Or maybe you just have no fucking clue how independent agencies work?
Do you even Constitution, bro?
Netflix do not peer with comcast. Netflix demonstrably has enough bandwidth available to get the data out there (onto the pipes so to speak). Comcast refused to provide the bandwidth from the transit providers to their own network. You know the one that their customers pay for.
Netflix chose an ISP that did not have enough bandwidth to Comcast. Getting bandwidth "out there" is only half the problem.
Comcast's customers paid for X Mbits access from Comcast's network. It doesn't guarantee they get X Mbits access from some dinky server on the Internet that has 128 Kbps upload. Neither does it guarantee that all Y Netflix users on Comcast's network get Y*X Mbps access to Netflix content, when Netflix's network's connection to Comcast does not have that much bandwidth.
If Netflix was a customer of Comcast's network, that'd be one thing... but they weren't, at least until they created their agreement.
Netflix streaming is at times 30% of the Internet's total traffic. If they don't pay those bandwidth costs, then it's going to be paid by the people who aren't Netflix users ... how is that a better solution?
Pay for what you use - meaning Netflix should pay.
"I view being beholden to the laws to be very different than being beholden to the people making the laws."
If you're going to include the courts as law interpreters, you have to include the lawmakers, who write the laws with an eye on how it will be interpreted, or modify laws in reaction to judge rulings.
we disagree on whether that fact is sufficient to make Congress the "boss" of the FCC, which is a matter of subjective opinion, since it comes down to our interpretation of what constitutes a boss and whether or not Congress is filling that role.
The debate is on whether the FCC answers to Congress. If you agree that the FCC can be dissolved at will by Congress - there is no question that the FCC does indeed answer to Congress. If Congress has an opinion on how the FCC conducts its activities, the FCC shuts up and listens.
I'm not all that concerned whether or not you have to use the word "boss" to describe that relationship, but your resistance to the word is an odd prejudice. The relationship does not have any of the complexities you're trying to read into it.
I disagree with your assertion that Congress is "continuing to delegate that authority". They delegated it. Past tense. It's gone. Unless they take it back, it remains gone. There is no continual reliance on Congress to continue delegating their authority. As such, I stand by my statement that there is no reliance on Congress at all. If Congress disappeared tomorrow, the FCC could continue its operation, which wouldn't be possible if there was a reliance on Congress.
You would have a point if and only if Congress was unable to take back that delegated authority.
If Congress made a territory into its own independent sovereign nation, that would be something along the lines of what you're talking about.
But that is not how the FCC is operating. The FCC operates within the United States of America according to US law, at the continued pleasure of Congress.
Revoke those laws, and the FCC has no authority to tell any US citizen or organization to do anything.
You know how the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? It defines Congress, and the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. It does not define the FCC. The FCC exists because Congress created it, and it operates independently only because Congress allows it. If Congress doesn't like the job the FCC is doing, the FCC will comply or be dissolved.
If Congress disappears ... so does the authority of the FCC.
After all, the same is true for everyone in the country, yet we wouldn't consider Congress to be our boss, even though we'd agree that the laws have authority over us.
Do you not know American History? That's because we're Congress's boss.
When we vote someone into office, the results of the vote are not a polite suggestion. The institution has been corrupted over time, but this is basic civics.
In terms of who I would say that the FCC is answerable to, I'd suggest it's to the laws establishing its mandate, the laws expanding its powers, and the courts who interpret those laws.
You left out an important and extremely relevant entity in that list - the group of people who write and repeal the laws establishing mandates and powers. Some might call those "lawmakers". In the US, that body is called "Congress".
I dunno...does that explain my stance a bit better? Again, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
You can be wrong if you want, but it's not a matter of subjective opinion.
Either the FCC answers to Congress, or it does not. The truth of the matter is obvious - what happens if the FCC tells Congress to take a hike because "hissy fit"?
Is it a contradiction that your parents aren't your bosses, despite establishing you and granting you life?
Inapplicable analogy. Parents aren't allowed to kill their children, because we actually do not consider parents the granter of life. (Can they restore the life of the children they kill? No.)
Likewise, just because Congress can dissolve the FCC, it doesn't make it the FCC's boss.
Nonsense. That is a boss, by definition.
The FCC is self-funded through regulatory fees, has been granted authority to act independently, and does not rely on Congressional support for any aspect of its continued operation.
False. It relies on Congress continuing to delegate that authority. The FCC's ability to collect fees is due to Congress continuously authorizing it to do so.
If and when Congress doesn't like how the FCC is using its delegated authority, it can take it back - even for no reason at all - and the FCC has no authority to override Congress's decisions.
The FCC exists because Congress passed a law. It will cease to exist if Congress repeals that law. The FCC exists at the whim of Congress.
Thank you for the response. That's the type of example I was looking for.
However a quick skim through the history brings up this: "In 1852 the Supreme Court declared the Bain telegraph an infringement on Morseâ(TM)s patent"
So there was vibrant competition in the 1850s ... until the government stepped in with patent enforcement. (Patents are a government granted monopoly)
"Western Union faced three threats during this period: increased government regulation, new entrants into the field of telegraphy, and new competition from the telephone. The last two were the most important to the companyâ(TM)s future profitability"
So even as a monopoly - they were facing competition from other firms, and from new technology.
"The period from 1866 through the turn of the century was the apex of Western Unionâ(TM)s power. Yearly messages sent over its lines increased from 5.8 million in 1867 to 63.2 million in 1900. Over the same period, transmission rates fell from an average of $1.09 to 30 cents per message"
Due to the monopoly ... users enjoyed lower and lower prices. (also, higher quality due to unified wire network)
Just what does government protect us from here? Why is it important is it to regulate "natural monopolies" when they bring lower prices and higher quality product, and dissolve when obsoleted?
natural monopolies exist whether government interferes or not. that what makes them "natural".
That's what people like to say, but observation of the history of monopolies demonstrate that no such "natural" monopolies have ever existed. That's why you were asked to provide an example.
There are situations where one company gets a large amount of marketshare - but never one where only a single company is capable of surviving, or where it successfully kills all competitors ... unless the government steps in.
You'll note that power, water ,electrical, gas, all involve municipal monopolies. If your concept of natural monopoly is true, you should be able to provide a history where the monopoly existed before the government granted it.