It is indeed hard to build infrastructure for a cable/phone/electric utility from the ground up. However, it is not impossible. It requires a lot of investment and dedication, but companies (including small-time operations) have done it in the past without the benefit of the monopoly power. As for wireless, the bandwidth used for Wi-Fi is not regulated currently, yet amazingly there are many commercial and non-commercial Wi-Fi providers all over the place.
What do I propose to do with the current infrastructure? That's a tough decision, and should be up to those who own it to decide. If it's the public who owns it, then it should be up to a vote. My personal preference would be to sell it to the highest bidder.
I've got a solution for you: if you want to be an ISP, build your own infrastructure. Do it with fiber, do it with wireless, do it however you want. If there are no regulations granting local monopolies to utilities, nobody will be able to stop you.
You're talking about the big vendors, who get a huge discount on Windows licensing in exchange for an exclusivity agreement. The small vendors don't care about that. Go down to your local computer shop and see how much they would charge you for a computer with Windows as opposed to one without.
Second, I base the claim of insurmountable friction in a pure caveat emptor on the fact that there is a baseline assumption that sellers will be prohibited from the government from engaging in truly rapacious and dangerous practices (e.g. sale of a "health tonic" containing lead paint chips), eliminating the requirement of careful research and reading thirty pages of fine print for most people.
Did I miss the headline about "Consumer Reports" and other similar publications being outlawed?
Well, think of it this way: if we didn't sponsor people living in rural areas (by way of cheap communications, highways, etc.) then there'd be less of them there to begin with. I mean, what next, should we pay for the museums in Boondocks, PA, just because they live too far from Philly?
First of all, it's not just "one PC vendor". There are literally millions of PC vendors everywhere, big and small, that will gladly sell you a Windows-less PC with an OS and an office suite to boot.
Second, on what do you base your claim that a caveat emptor system would be insurmountable?
I am saying that you, personally, do not have to buy a PC with Windows pre-installed. Therefore, if you DO buy a PC with Windows, you do so by choice. If you do it by choice, and not under duress, then you are in no way shape or form being price-gouged.
You think that Microsoft OS is "free?!" The cost is passed through, just like the taxes everyone hates so much. Except that Microsoft gets to collect the tax.
I said non-Microsoft. That would be Linux, FreeBSD, heck, even FreeDOS. There is nothing that Microsoft can do to stop you from getting those.
What justifies the government regulating companies with large market share is the overriding interest of the society (that's us) who elected that government in not being price gouged by companies that drive the vast majority of their competition out of business to gain the power to charge whatever they want when they're the only ones left.
How the hell are you being price-gouged by Microsoft when you don't even have to use their products? Nobody is forcing you with a gun to use Windows or Office; use WordPerfect, use Red Hat, use Apple Keynote, use whatever the hell you want.
For all intents and purposes, you can get a new computer with a FREE non-Microsoft OS (or you can pay for alternatives, if you want to), with the same kind of software, get the same job done, etc. What is it about Microsoft having a large market share that bugs you? And how does it justify you (through the government that represents you) fining them for having that largge market share?
I know full well what the Justice Department uses for a definition of monopoly.
Your point about economists, on the other hand, is lost on me. What kind of definition do you believe economists use to determine whether a company is a monopoly or not?
Is that so? Is Windows the only OS on the face of this planet? If you were buying a new computer, would you have no other choice other than to have Windows installed on it?
Is it even remotely challenging to get a computer without Windows on it?
Well, I trust the consumer to, at the very least, GLANCE at the contract with the ISP. If it's within the contract, then Comcast surely can block the access to the Verizon DSL website.
It's a nasty thing to do, and it would most likely backfire against Comcast (remember the MSN blocking Opera fiasco?), but it should be able to do so.
Well, as I commented earlier, the solution here is not to fight regulation with more regulation. What about the ISPs who are not local monopolies, such as Earthlink, etc.? Should they too be subject to regulation? What if I run a neighborhood mini-ISP and do not want all that traffic from Vonage from coming through? Am I subject to those regulations now too?
The real solution here is to get rid of local monopolies. Creating more red tape for companies to bother with won't help.
I never cared about Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. It's their business, not mine. That there is a law preventing Microsoft from doing whatever the hell it wants with their property is more of a reflection on the legal system we have, not on my choices as a consumer.
Sure, this libertarian BS sounds nice, but you have to factor in the fact that the major ISP's are not playing on a level playing field to begin with. If you really expect this approach to work then the government would have to completly remove itself from the equasion. Look at DSL vs. Cable today. ILECs are forced by regulatory agencies to allow competitive use of its networks, cable is not in any substative way. Fair market in action? NOT. Sure, you have a choice with DSL. You can see in the article that Qwest is more than happy to service raw bandwidth customers. Cable, which is able to handle a greater service are has no substantial competition.
So what's the problem here? It surely isn't my "libertarian BS"; it's your precious regulatory agencies giving out monopoly power out to providers. The solution here isn't more regulation.
If you really want fair market competition:
You have to allow any given provider to service an area. This is what the FCC USED to do before it got into censoring free speech- dole out spectrum to businesses. Since this is obviously not going to happen, becasue spectrum is limited, a simple solution would solve our problems. Force Cable to open their networks. The emperical evidence it there, US pays more per megabit than nearly every other first world country.
If I cared about "fair" and "competition", I would be giving out a dollar to every stranger on the street, just cause I'm a nice guy like that. I am not a nice guy; I'm a guy who doesn't want to be robbed by "fairness". The U.S. does not pay more per megabit than any other country, that's pure bullshit. But even if it wasn't, so what? Is it your god-given right to get "affordable" broadband out of another person's pocket? How can you justify it?
A) I can get cable or DSL - Whoopee! Cable blocks my Vonage, so I'm going with the Local DSL provider down the street. Ain't the free market grand??!??
B) Crap, I can only get cable, they block my Vonage, I have no option but to bend over and accept it.
So you can see that in a regulatory vaccum your theory might work, but we dont live in that world.
If the government wasn't in the business of giving out monopoly powers to local utilities none of what you're talking about would be an issue. The solution to this "problem" (and it ain't even a real problem anyway) is not more government regulation; it's the absence of regulation.
I suggest you point out to me one monopoly that was not created with government's intervention and was able to keep its monopoly share without the government helping it out.
It is definitely anti-competitive. Of course, I am of the opinion that just because something is anti-competitive doesn't mean it should be illegal; it's just good business sense.
I am usually a staunch supporter of Vonage and other VOIP providers to run their business without federal regulation and I admire the business that they built, but they should not be given the benefit of FCC shilling on their behalf. The ISP's are the owners of their networks and it is up to them whether or not they want to let Vonage through. On the other hand, it is up to Vonage to figure out ways to get around the limitations without the taxpayers' help - be it by way of exclusive agreements with the ISPs, informing consumers that their Internet use is being curtailed or simply by changing the ports it uses from time to time.
To reiterate my point, if Vonage wants to not be regulated, it should not expect others to be regulated for its benefit.
If you have cheap hardware, there is no guarantee that it will even run 1024x768 and even if it does, it will do so poorly. By merely giving users the option of changing resolution to something higher, you run into a chance of them having a nightmarish experience with the system. If you were developing software for entry-level users, would you be willing to take that chance?
As for the rest of your comment: XP Home and Pro simply won't run on 200-300 MHz machines with 64MB RAM. Yes, they want those people to eventually upgrade, but not on the same machines, but when they can afford something more expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I bet he has a low Slashdot user ID, though.
Is there a way to ensure integrity of the data with such a setup?
What do I propose to do with the current infrastructure? That's a tough decision, and should be up to those who own it to decide. If it's the public who owns it, then it should be up to a vote. My personal preference would be to sell it to the highest bidder.
I've got a solution for you: if you want to be an ISP, build your own infrastructure. Do it with fiber, do it with wireless, do it however you want. If there are no regulations granting local monopolies to utilities, nobody will be able to stop you.
Second, I base the claim of insurmountable friction in a pure caveat emptor on the fact that there is a baseline assumption that sellers will be prohibited from the government from engaging in truly rapacious and dangerous practices (e.g. sale of a "health tonic" containing lead paint chips), eliminating the requirement of careful research and reading thirty pages of fine print for most people.
Did I miss the headline about "Consumer Reports" and other similar publications being outlawed?
Well, maybe I chose a bad example, but my point still stands - it's only yours and the ISP's business what kind of service you get.
Well, think of it this way: if we didn't sponsor people living in rural areas (by way of cheap communications, highways, etc.) then there'd be less of them there to begin with. I mean, what next, should we pay for the museums in Boondocks, PA, just because they live too far from Philly?
Second, on what do you base your claim that a caveat emptor system would be insurmountable?
I am saying that you, personally, do not have to buy a PC with Windows pre-installed. Therefore, if you DO buy a PC with Windows, you do so by choice. If you do it by choice, and not under duress, then you are in no way shape or form being price-gouged.
Umm, why not exactly? What will be stopping them?
I said non-Microsoft. That would be Linux, FreeBSD, heck, even FreeDOS. There is nothing that Microsoft can do to stop you from getting those.
What justifies the government regulating companies with large market share is the overriding interest of the society (that's us) who elected that government in not being price gouged by companies that drive the vast majority of their competition out of business to gain the power to charge whatever they want when they're the only ones left.
How the hell are you being price-gouged by Microsoft when you don't even have to use their products? Nobody is forcing you with a gun to use Windows or Office; use WordPerfect, use Red Hat, use Apple Keynote, use whatever the hell you want.
For all intents and purposes, you can get a new computer with a FREE non-Microsoft OS (or you can pay for alternatives, if you want to), with the same kind of software, get the same job done, etc. What is it about Microsoft having a large market share that bugs you? And how does it justify you (through the government that represents you) fining them for having that largge market share?
Your point about economists, on the other hand, is lost on me. What kind of definition do you believe economists use to determine whether a company is a monopoly or not?
Is it even remotely challenging to get a computer without Windows on it?
It's a nasty thing to do, and it would most likely backfire against Comcast (remember the MSN blocking Opera fiasco?), but it should be able to do so.
The real solution here is to get rid of local monopolies. Creating more red tape for companies to bother with won't help.
I never cared about Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. It's their business, not mine. That there is a law preventing Microsoft from doing whatever the hell it wants with their property is more of a reflection on the legal system we have, not on my choices as a consumer.
Did you sign a contract with your ISP? What does it say about blocking content?
So what's the problem here? It surely isn't my "libertarian BS"; it's your precious regulatory agencies giving out monopoly power out to providers. The solution here isn't more regulation.
If you really want fair market competition: You have to allow any given provider to service an area. This is what the FCC USED to do before it got into censoring free speech- dole out spectrum to businesses. Since this is obviously not going to happen, becasue spectrum is limited, a simple solution would solve our problems. Force Cable to open their networks. The emperical evidence it there, US pays more per megabit than nearly every other first world country.
If I cared about "fair" and "competition", I would be giving out a dollar to every stranger on the street, just cause I'm a nice guy like that. I am not a nice guy; I'm a guy who doesn't want to be robbed by "fairness". The U.S. does not pay more per megabit than any other country, that's pure bullshit. But even if it wasn't, so what? Is it your god-given right to get "affordable" broadband out of another person's pocket? How can you justify it?
A) I can get cable or DSL - Whoopee! Cable blocks my Vonage, so I'm going with the Local DSL provider down the street. Ain't the free market grand??!?? B) Crap, I can only get cable, they block my Vonage, I have no option but to bend over and accept it. So you can see that in a regulatory vaccum your theory might work, but we dont live in that world.
If the government wasn't in the business of giving out monopoly powers to local utilities none of what you're talking about would be an issue. The solution to this "problem" (and it ain't even a real problem anyway) is not more government regulation; it's the absence of regulation.
I suggest you point out to me one monopoly that was not created with government's intervention and was able to keep its monopoly share without the government helping it out.
It is definitely anti-competitive. Of course, I am of the opinion that just because something is anti-competitive doesn't mean it should be illegal; it's just good business sense.
To reiterate my point, if Vonage wants to not be regulated, it should not expect others to be regulated for its benefit.
Nice to know you're still with us, Monsieur Bastiat.
If you have cheap hardware, there is no guarantee that it will even run 1024x768 and even if it does, it will do so poorly. By merely giving users the option of changing resolution to something higher, you run into a chance of them having a nightmarish experience with the system. If you were developing software for entry-level users, would you be willing to take that chance? As for the rest of your comment: XP Home and Pro simply won't run on 200-300 MHz machines with 64MB RAM. Yes, they want those people to eventually upgrade, but not on the same machines, but when they can afford something more expensive.
Comedy Central regulates it.