If phone lines were government-owned you would have no DSL, VOIP or Fax lines.
Consider one of the examples you gave: the Postal System. If you were to pick an Express Mail service would choose FedEx, UPS, Airborne or USPS? Chances are, it's something other than USPS.
Now, the government does not allow anyone other than USPS to run postage mail. Do you honestly think that FedEx couldn't compete with USPS, if it was the other way around?
I'll agree with you that some (but very few) things should be paid for with our taxes - for instance the roads. But why phone service? Is there anything inherently specific about it that private companies can't provide it better than the government?
While this is another controversial topic, I fail to see how "harmful" monopolies come into play here? Do you think that the your local government would provide you with better phone service than your local telco? And wouldn't your local government qualify as monopoly then?
Perhaps if the local telcos weren't mandated to grant access to their networks to competitors at below-market prices, removing any incentive for telcos to upgrade their networks, you would've gotten DSL 5 years ago. Who knows.
When people talk in terms like that ($10B company, etc.) they're usually talking about annual revenue, not market cap. Stock price fluctuates a lot - depending on market's mood Apple could have $10B market cap tomorrow. Revenue, however, takes a while to catch up.
Apple's revenue for 2003 was $6.7 B, so the company has to grow 50% to get $10B mark.
The United States position, formed at the behest of the Business Software Alliance, CompTIA, and other organizations dedicated to maintaining the status quo and curtailing the growth of free software, is that no software development methodology -- closed and proprietary versus open source -- be recommended over any other.
This is a far cry from torpedoing open-source. This is the way it should be done, regardless of whether it's UN or not.
Why can't other firms open up to make boats?
Can you name one industry, which is not regulated by the government, in which there is a monopoly because of foreign government's subsidies?
I didn't say that the U.S. trade policy is absolutely fair - the recent steel tariff dispute, and other such issues come to mind. That still does not change the fact that fair trade leaves participants better off than protectionism.
If they raise prices, you can freely compete with them again.
Look, I'm not saying that China is right in the ways it conducts its business, but their not playing by the rules does not justify us not playing by the rules, neither ethically, nor economically. If you believe that China is better off because of their unreasonable trade policy, then why not compare quality of life over there and here in the U.S.?
In international trade, you win by playing fair, even if everyone else is not.
Consider the example you just gave: if a country gives subsidies to a domestic industry, they're simply giving YOU money for buying their product.
The traditional telcos get taxed because they use copper wires that are buried in the ground - a resource that is sparse, hence making them monopolies. As such they SHOULD be regulated. Vonage, on the other hand, is not a natural monopoly, as anyone with the proper equipment and a phat pipe can enter the business (see Packet8 and such). Vonage already pays income taxes, what else do you think they should get taxed on? (I'm assuming they also pay 1-800 line charge, 911 charge, etc., but those are most likely built into the phone bill).
In downtown Washington, somewhere around Hotel Washington. It wasn't red, white and blue though, just black and white. I thought it was a joke and painted on recently. I guess I was wrong.
I live in Philly myself, but never saw one around here.
That's what the INCOME taxes are for. Both Vonage and its customers pay income taxes. There's not need to add fees associated specifically with land-line carriers to a Vonage bill.
Studies by industry analysts forecast even greater demand for wireless and mobile devices, creating substantial opportunities for wireless device application and service providers.
I'd like to know which studies have shown that. Wasn't there a lot of "studies" that had shown that there would be a huge increase in demand for telecom equipment too? Everybody banked heavily on that, and got really burned.
Slashdot Mirror
If phone lines were government-owned you would have no DSL, VOIP or Fax lines. Consider one of the examples you gave: the Postal System. If you were to pick an Express Mail service would choose FedEx, UPS, Airborne or USPS? Chances are, it's something other than USPS. Now, the government does not allow anyone other than USPS to run postage mail. Do you honestly think that FedEx couldn't compete with USPS, if it was the other way around? I'll agree with you that some (but very few) things should be paid for with our taxes - for instance the roads. But why phone service? Is there anything inherently specific about it that private companies can't provide it better than the government?
While this is another controversial topic, I fail to see how "harmful" monopolies come into play here? Do you think that the your local government would provide you with better phone service than your local telco? And wouldn't your local government qualify as monopoly then?
Umm, and Canadians pay higher taxes. Your point?
Sure it can change. Thankfully, the majority of Americans are not stupid enough to allow it.
Perhaps if the local telcos weren't mandated to grant access to their networks to competitors at below-market prices, removing any incentive for telcos to upgrade their networks, you would've gotten DSL 5 years ago. Who knows.
The government's purpose is not to provide you with cheap utilities.
Ironically, Apple's Market Cap has just hit $10B. Wonder how long it will last, though. :)
When people talk in terms like that ($10B company, etc.) they're usually talking about annual revenue, not market cap. Stock price fluctuates a lot - depending on market's mood Apple could have $10B market cap tomorrow. Revenue, however, takes a while to catch up. Apple's revenue for 2003 was $6.7 B, so the company has to grow 50% to get $10B mark.
If it was that simple, we would hardly have any outsourcing at all. Surely, money is a very big factor as well.
The United States position, formed at the behest of the Business Software Alliance, CompTIA, and other organizations dedicated to maintaining the status quo and curtailing the growth of free software, is that no software development methodology -- closed and proprietary versus open source -- be recommended over any other.
This is a far cry from torpedoing open-source. This is the way it should be done, regardless of whether it's UN or not.
Why can't other firms open up to make boats?
Can you name one industry, which is not regulated by the government, in which there is a monopoly because of foreign government's subsidies?
I didn't say that the U.S. trade policy is absolutely fair - the recent steel tariff dispute, and other such issues come to mind. That still does not change the fact that fair trade leaves participants better off than protectionism.
If they raise prices, you can freely compete with them again. Look, I'm not saying that China is right in the ways it conducts its business, but their not playing by the rules does not justify us not playing by the rules, neither ethically, nor economically. If you believe that China is better off because of their unreasonable trade policy, then why not compare quality of life over there and here in the U.S.?
In international trade, you win by playing fair, even if everyone else is not. Consider the example you just gave: if a country gives subsidies to a domestic industry, they're simply giving YOU money for buying their product.
Are you suggesting that Japan is geographically challenged?
The traditional telcos get taxed because they use copper wires that are buried in the ground - a resource that is sparse, hence making them monopolies. As such they SHOULD be regulated. Vonage, on the other hand, is not a natural monopoly, as anyone with the proper equipment and a phat pipe can enter the business (see Packet8 and such). Vonage already pays income taxes, what else do you think they should get taxed on? (I'm assuming they also pay 1-800 line charge, 911 charge, etc., but those are most likely built into the phone bill).
In downtown Washington, somewhere around Hotel Washington. It wasn't red, white and blue though, just black and white. I thought it was a joke and painted on recently. I guess I was wrong. I live in Philly myself, but never saw one around here.
That's what the INCOME taxes are for. Both Vonage and its customers pay income taxes. There's not need to add fees associated specifically with land-line carriers to a Vonage bill.