Who pays for the interstates? Taxpayers who don't want and won't drive from state to state shouldn't be made to pay.
Users pay, that's who. Fuel taxes are supposed to pay for roads, though they don't. Even the neoconservative Weekly Standard published an article, The Net-Zero Gas Tax advocating raising fuel taxes. While I consider that a start I'd go further. When People renew their license plate tags, I'd have them pay a fee on how many miles they drove. I'd then require the fees to be high enough to pay for the roads. However like the article says, I'd cut income taxes. If by raising the fuel tax the average fuel bill goes up $10 a week I'd cut income tax by $10 a week.
What incentive is there to upgrade the network now?
That's part of the problem, there is no competition now. So if one provider won't upgrade it's infrastructure a customer can't switch to another provider. Of course with one entity owning the infrastructure but not selling services it can deliver there's still no competition. I see 3 possible partial solutions. One since everyone uses the same infrastructure they have more of a voice in demanding upgrades, if they don't vote them out of office. The second option is to move to someplace with better access. And the third is wireless. Open up the airwaves, which I have supported here and elsewhere, and let wireless broadband thrive. Heck that's something I'd love to have and would be willing to pay for both fiber to the curb and lower speed wireless broadband.
If you set it up correctly--as a government-run nonprofit with a separate funding pool--then the money has to get spent somewhere because otherwise it just sits there doing nothing, so there's no incentive not to upgrade the infrastructure. A great example of this in action is TVA. They provide some of the cheapest power in the country, their lines are generally well maintained, their infrastructure gets regular upgrades... everybody wins.
I followed you until you brought up TVA. Some lost when that TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill happened. TVA also operates nuclear power plants and those like the Navajo have had to pay, for accidents, mining, and spills.
This makes changing ISPs as simple as changing long distance providers is now, which is why there *is* competition in that space (though much less now that cell phones offer free long distance; the point is that there was a lot of competition before something free came along).
Cellphones are more competition. As you say cellphone service plans include long distance. The only phone service I have is cellphone service, and I pay less than I did when I had a landline. Now notice above I said I'd be willing to pay for both fiber and wireless. I'd have my server connected to fiber and would use wireless broadband with my laptop. Of course it would have to be mobile, and not fixed, wireless. I love hiking and photography. With mobile broadband I could be out hiking then when my memory cards got full I could upload them to my server.
follow the money. Who's going to benefit from Cap and Trade? Who's already benefiting from Carbon Offsetting?
Yea, who's going to benefit by denying Climate Change is real. Coal, National Gas, Petroleum, and other fossil fuels. Ending on 30 June 2009 Exxon had 3 month profits of 21,019.00 billion, BP had 12,457.00 billion and Chevron had 11,583.00 billion. Do any scientists come close to making that much? If all scientists care about is money why aren't they working for oil companies?
There were reports at the time, that the recent Station Fire (the one that threatened Mount Wilson Observatory) put our more CO2 every two to three days as all the cars in the US do in a year. Of course, the AGW people either ignore or deny this because it doesn't fit their dogma.
And how was the fire started? By humans? Indonesia became the third largest CO2 emitter, after China who passed the US last year, and the US. How did they do it? By burning down forests and draining wetlands so that oil palm tree plantations could be planted. They want to feed Europe's biofuels hunger. All Europe did was shift production of GHGs. And by doing so they are endangering Orangutans in Borneo. And of course I expect others to deny that because it doesn't fit their dogma.
You can sit there on your armchair and poo poo why anyone would build a city in such a hurricane ridden place, but the fact is that there were people living there and that it would cost a hell of a lot more than that to move them than it did to help them afterwards.
I have to disagree with this. There isn't just the cost of building, as there would be anywhere else, there's also the cost of cleanup and of taking measures to try to prevent it from happening again. And Katrina wasn't the first and won't be the last hurricane to hit New Orleans. New Orleans was hit by the 1915 New Orleans hurricane, and there have been others.
Not only has New Orleans been hit and will be hit again by hurricanes, but not just New Orleans but all of southern Louisiana is subsiding or sinking. People are asking why rebuild New Orleans at all, I certainly wouldn't. I don't care if others do but I don't want federal tax dollars to be used to do so. As much as Bourbon Street and Mardi Gras would be missed I don't think it should be rebuilt where it is, I'd rebuild on higher ground.
You go on about how scientists will do anything to get more grants, will you now admit fossil fuel industries, such as the oil companies, have deep pockets and can buy research themselves? Despite their deep pockets they have not yet produced peer reviewed studies showing Climate Change or ocean acidification is not happening. On one side there's science and on the other there's nothing but hot air.
That you dribble while spouting such nonsense without providing your own science reveals to me with some clarity that you have fallen passionately for deniers propaganda.
When the power goes out, I'm betting you'll be the first to fire up his diesel generator in order to continue posting such drivel to these forums.
Can you grow, gather, or hunt for your own food? If not you'll be depending on those who can, like me. I've hunted with nothing but a knife, can weave a net, and know where to look for drinking water. I have also preserved my own food, by canning, dehydrating or drying, and by smoking it.
Legally, those monopolies were all voided thirteen years ago with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
So, if I had a billion dollars I could lay my own fiber? That is without greasing palms? If I were able to talk most of the people in my neighborhood to support it I could connect fiber to a tier 1 or 2 provider and offer fiber connections to everyone willing to buy it from me?
In practice, the political power structures in large urban areas tend to have, ahem, "mutually beneficial financial relationships" with the local cable providers.
I didn't find a reference to it but I once read where there were parts of New York City that still could not get broadband, either cable, DSL, or fiber so what you say above doesn't explain that.
There can be no free market in these services until government lays down the cable itself and leases it in a nondiscriminatory fashion to any ISP that wants to set up shop in a community.
A free market wouldn't require government to build and own the infrastructure. If government does though I'd rather it be local and regional government working on local stuff, the state doing state wide stuff, and the feds doing interstate connections.
Only when the colossal startup infrastructure cost is taken out of the picture completely can competition be even slightly practical outside of large cities.
Who pays though, taxpayers? Taxpayers who don't want and won't use the infrastructure shouldn't be made to pay, in which case how does government pay for it? Also if there's no competition what incentive does the government have to upgrade the systems? In a really free market cable operators would be compeating with each other and with DSL and fiber. It would be insane to have taxpayers stuck paying for all these.
Yes nuclear is a good idea if they can figure out how to make the entire life cycle work in the United States. Solar and Wind are also good ideas, but have to be coupled with more efficient devices since it will initially cost more to produce the electricity.
You say nuclear is a good idea and in the next breath say solar and wind are more expensive. In fact the Nuclear industry is Hooked on Subsidies. Without subsidies Wall Street would not invest in nuclear power.
Falcon
Oh, notice the link is to a free market think tank which reprinted a "Forbes" article. It is not from any sort of anti-nuke group.
We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.
I agree here.
So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.
Here I disagree. There should be no subsidies. Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they're more likely to be conservative.
The problem is that the greenies block everything.
What's with the FUD?
greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.
Here is one who supports geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. And most of those I know also support them. Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site:slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy. For instance with the " Wind Could Provide 100% of World Energy Needs" thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy. I have also posted the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States which details the wind potential of various parts of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power. In some of my posts I posted I supported the Solar Grand Plan. In it they conclude solar energy could "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."
Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.
So change that. Just don't let access providers charge different rates depending on the originations and destinations. If I wanted VoIP phone service, not that I do, and I got it from one company why should my ISP be able to charge the ViOP service when it offers a compeating service? The compeating service still pays for it's access and I pay for my access.
Or say you're a Republican but your ISP supports Democrats, would you want your ISP to say what you can and can not access? That Republican website you want to visit is blacklisted, what would you think of that?
And don't forget, most broadband service areas do not have competition for broadband. Broadband is provided by 1 cable company or 1 phone company.
Why should I invest my money to build out a broadband network when I can just wait a few years until Congress forces them to let me use it?
How can you roll out broadband when the incumbents enjoy a monopoly. How many people have a choice as to whom they get cable or landline phone service from? Governments granted these companies monopolies so even if a compeating cable, phone company, or combined company wanted to they could not install their own cable or fiber.
Quite simply there is no free market in these services and until there is the incumbents should be regulated.
This means that only the subscribers the ISPs that agree to pay ESPN360 get to view the content.
Okay, but when ESPN360's audience drops it's only their own fault. They shouldn't be stopped from only allowing visitors from ISPs who pay. At the same tyme ESPN shouldn't be bailed out when their business model fails. Equality of outcome has never worked and never will.
I would hate to be unable to read Slashdot because only customers on certain ISPs were allowed access without an option to pay directly for the content.
I would hate it too but if Slashdot's owner wanted to try it they should be allowed to. Then when Slashdot goes down the tube while competitors' offerings grow it'll be their own fault. And I'll clap for the lesson in economics some people will have. After all why do you think online services AOL, CompuServe, GEnie, and Prodigy are no longer around? They could not compeat with the internet. The WELL however is still online because it offers what people are willing to pay for. Actually The WELL could be one of those competitors of Slashdot. Though technically not strictly for nerds The WELL was founded by and has as members computer pioneers.
I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.
That wouldn't work, it's those who have the bandwidth now that can afford to be the highest bidders. The Mom and Pop ISP willing to provide broadband certainly couldn't afford to pay. The answer to expanding broadband penetration is to take away the incumbents's monopolies.
"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"
Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.
Except it is true. The third paragraph says this "Although the Congressional Black Caucus isn't traditionally against government regulation, some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks." They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband. I say this is hogwash. In a free market, which we do not have, businesses would be compeating with each other for customers. Instead of people not having broadband access they'd have choices as to whom they get it from.
they are the ones that are in a position to pick winners and losers.
Government pout them in that position, and can take their advantage away.
If this behavior is allowed, we will see the ISPs picking winners and losers amongs websites as well.
Which is why under the current circumstances I support net neutrality. Under a free market thought it would not be needed.
We can see this starting to happen already with ESPN360.
Isn't ESPN360 a content provider and not an ISP? I don't know, I don't watch sports and would rather be active instead of passive, but if ESPN charges for access to some content that is no different than any other content provider that charges for some content. The "Wall Street Journal" charges for some content as does "The Economist" and I have no problem with ESPN doing it. Heck Slashdot has subscribers paying.
If you get rid of stockholders there won't be many investments made. Who would invest without a possibility of some payback? How much did the Soviet Union invent, without forced labor camps?
It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.
Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also. That I know of, there may of been some earlier, the earliest network I known of was setup in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc. by an insurance company. After the birth of homebrew computers or microcomputers in the 1970s bulletin board systems or BBSes started cropping up. People, especially here on slashdot, complain how made up Mathew Broderick's "WarGames" was but back then there were BBSes and people did wardial looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines. (Okay I know some people's complaint is about a thinking WOPR.)
Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed.
Slashdot Mirror
Who pays for the interstates? Taxpayers who don't want and won't drive from state to state shouldn't be made to pay.
Users pay, that's who. Fuel taxes are supposed to pay for roads, though they don't. Even the neoconservative Weekly Standard published an article, The Net-Zero Gas Tax advocating raising fuel taxes. While I consider that a start I'd go further. When People renew their license plate tags, I'd have them pay a fee on how many miles they drove. I'd then require the fees to be high enough to pay for the roads. However like the article says, I'd cut income taxes. If by raising the fuel tax the average fuel bill goes up $10 a week I'd cut income tax by $10 a week.
What incentive is there to upgrade the network now?
That's part of the problem, there is no competition now. So if one provider won't upgrade it's infrastructure a customer can't switch to another provider. Of course with one entity owning the infrastructure but not selling services it can deliver there's still no competition. I see 3 possible partial solutions. One since everyone uses the same infrastructure they have more of a voice in demanding upgrades, if they don't vote them out of office. The second option is to move to someplace with better access. And the third is wireless. Open up the airwaves, which I have supported here and elsewhere, and let wireless broadband thrive. Heck that's something I'd love to have and would be willing to pay for both fiber to the curb and lower speed wireless broadband.
If you set it up correctly--as a government-run nonprofit with a separate funding pool--then the money has to get spent somewhere because otherwise it just sits there doing nothing, so there's no incentive not to upgrade the infrastructure. A great example of this in action is TVA. They provide some of the cheapest power in the country, their lines are generally well maintained, their infrastructure gets regular upgrades... everybody wins.
I followed you until you brought up TVA. Some lost when that TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill happened. TVA also operates nuclear power plants and those like the Navajo have had to pay, for accidents, mining, and spills.
This makes changing ISPs as simple as changing long distance providers is now, which is why there *is* competition in that space (though much less now that cell phones offer free long distance; the point is that there was a lot of competition before something free came along).
Cellphones are more competition. As you say cellphone service plans include long distance. The only phone service I have is cellphone service, and I pay less than I did when I had a landline. Now notice above I said I'd be willing to pay for both fiber and wireless. I'd have my server connected to fiber and would use wireless broadband with my laptop. Of course it would have to be mobile, and not fixed, wireless. I love hiking and photography. With mobile broadband I could be out hiking then when my memory cards got full I could upload them to my server.
Falcon
Briffa's "hockey stick" turned out to have been generated from a whole 12 tree cores
Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong.
follow the money. Who's going to benefit from Cap and Trade? Who's already benefiting from Carbon Offsetting?
Yea, who's going to benefit by denying Climate Change is real. Coal, National Gas, Petroleum, and other fossil fuels. Ending on 30 June 2009 Exxon had 3 month profits of 21,019.00 billion, BP had 12,457.00 billion and Chevron had 11,583.00 billion. Do any scientists come close to making that much? If all scientists care about is money why aren't they working for oil companies?
Falcon
There were reports at the time, that the recent Station Fire (the one that threatened Mount Wilson Observatory) put our more CO2 every two to three days as all the cars in the US do in a year. Of course, the AGW people either ignore or deny this because it doesn't fit their dogma.
And how was the fire started? By humans? Indonesia became the third largest CO2 emitter, after China who passed the US last year, and the US. How did they do it? By burning down forests and draining wetlands so that oil palm tree plantations could be planted. They want to feed Europe's biofuels hunger. All Europe did was shift production of GHGs. And by doing so they are endangering Orangutans in Borneo. And of course I expect others to deny that because it doesn't fit their dogma.
Oh, and from 2007: "Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years".
Falcon
You can sit there on your armchair and poo poo why anyone would build a city in such a hurricane ridden place, but the fact is that there were people living there and that it would cost a hell of a lot more than that to move them than it did to help them afterwards.
I have to disagree with this. There isn't just the cost of building, as there would be anywhere else, there's also the cost of cleanup and of taking measures to try to prevent it from happening again. And Katrina wasn't the first and won't be the last hurricane to hit New Orleans. New Orleans was hit by the 1915 New Orleans hurricane, and there have been others.
Not only has New Orleans been hit and will be hit again by hurricanes, but not just New Orleans but all of southern Louisiana is subsiding or sinking. People are asking why rebuild New Orleans at all, I certainly wouldn't. I don't care if others do but I don't want federal tax dollars to be used to do so. As much as Bourbon Street and Mardi Gras would be missed I don't think it should be rebuilt where it is, I'd rebuild on higher ground.
Falcon
You go on about how scientists will do anything to get more grants, will you now admit fossil fuel industries, such as the oil companies, have deep pockets and can buy research themselves? Despite their deep pockets they have not yet produced peer reviewed studies showing Climate Change or ocean acidification is not happening. On one side there's science and on the other there's nothing but hot air.
That you dribble while spouting such nonsense without providing your own science reveals to me with some clarity that you have fallen passionately for deniers propaganda.
When the power goes out, I'm betting you'll be the first to fire up his diesel generator in order to continue posting such drivel to these forums.
Can you grow, gather, or hunt for your own food? If not you'll be depending on those who can, like me. I've hunted with nothing but a knife, can weave a net, and know where to look for drinking water. I have also preserved my own food, by canning, dehydrating or drying, and by smoking it.
Falcon
And no-one has considered that fishing with explosives or cyanide on coral reefs could be causing a problem? Interesting.
I acknowledge that does happen, however do you have evidence it happens in the Maldives?
Falcon
If they need a new homeland they shouldn't have to pay for it. Those who took their land from them should be forced to pay.
Falcon
Legally, those monopolies were all voided thirteen years ago with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
So, if I had a billion dollars I could lay my own fiber? That is without greasing palms? If I were able to talk most of the people in my neighborhood to support it I could connect fiber to a tier 1 or 2 provider and offer fiber connections to everyone willing to buy it from me?
In practice, the political power structures in large urban areas tend to have, ahem, "mutually beneficial financial relationships" with the local cable providers.
I didn't find a reference to it but I once read where there were parts of New York City that still could not get broadband, either cable, DSL, or fiber so what you say above doesn't explain that.
Falcon
There can be no free market in these services until government lays down the cable itself and leases it in a nondiscriminatory fashion to any ISP that wants to set up shop in a community.
A free market wouldn't require government to build and own the infrastructure. If government does though I'd rather it be local and regional government working on local stuff, the state doing state wide stuff, and the feds doing interstate connections.
Only when the colossal startup infrastructure cost is taken out of the picture completely can competition be even slightly practical outside of large cities.
Who pays though, taxpayers? Taxpayers who don't want and won't use the infrastructure shouldn't be made to pay, in which case how does government pay for it? Also if there's no competition what incentive does the government have to upgrade the systems? In a really free market cable operators would be compeating with each other and with DSL and fiber. It would be insane to have taxpayers stuck paying for all these.
Falcon
I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs, nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.
The Nuclear industry is Hooked on Subsidies.
Falcon
Yes nuclear is a good idea if they can figure out how to make the entire life cycle work in the United States. Solar and Wind are also good ideas, but have to be coupled with more efficient devices since it will initially cost more to produce the electricity.
You say nuclear is a good idea and in the next breath say solar and wind are more expensive. In fact the Nuclear industry is Hooked on Subsidies. Without subsidies Wall Street would not invest in nuclear power.
Falcon
Oh, notice the link is to a free market think tank which reprinted a "Forbes" article. It is not from any sort of anti-nuke group.
Eventually you get to a point where more efficiency becomes prohibitively expensive. Tree huggers for the most part don't seem to believe that.
Stereotypers can't see the trees for the forest.
Falcon
The main thing I hate about liberalism is that it assumes we are all stupid up front.
You hate the wrong thing about liberalism. It does not assume people are stupid, it assumes they are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
Falcon
We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.
I agree here.
So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.
Here I disagree. There should be no subsidies. Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they're more likely to be conservative.
The problem is that the greenies block everything.
What's with the FUD?
greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.
Here is one who supports geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. And most of those I know also support them. Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site:slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy. For instance with the " Wind Could Provide 100% of World Energy Needs" thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy. I have also posted the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States which details the wind potential of various parts of the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power. In some of my posts I posted I supported the Solar Grand Plan. In it they conclude solar energy could "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."
Falcon
California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant,
This is simple, make Californians pay for the new power plants needed to feed their TVs.
Falcon
Under the current proposals all ports and message types have to be treated at the same priority, so DoS attack would have the same priority as E-mail.
So change that. Just don't let access providers charge different rates depending on the originations and destinations. If I wanted VoIP phone service, not that I do, and I got it from one company why should my ISP be able to charge the ViOP service when it offers a compeating service? The compeating service still pays for it's access and I pay for my access.
Or say you're a Republican but your ISP supports Democrats, would you want your ISP to say what you can and can not access? That Republican website you want to visit is blacklisted, what would you think of that?
And don't forget, most broadband service areas do not have competition for broadband. Broadband is provided by 1 cable company or 1 phone company.
Falcon
Why should I invest my money to build out a broadband network when I can just wait a few years until Congress forces them to let me use it?
How can you roll out broadband when the incumbents enjoy a monopoly. How many people have a choice as to whom they get cable or landline phone service from? Governments granted these companies monopolies so even if a compeating cable, phone company, or combined company wanted to they could not install their own cable or fiber.
Quite simply there is no free market in these services and until there is the incumbents should be regulated.
Falcon
This means that only the subscribers the ISPs that agree to pay ESPN360 get to view the content.
Okay, but when ESPN360's audience drops it's only their own fault. They shouldn't be stopped from only allowing visitors from ISPs who pay. At the same tyme ESPN shouldn't be bailed out when their business model fails. Equality of outcome has never worked and never will.
I would hate to be unable to read Slashdot because only customers on certain ISPs were allowed access without an option to pay directly for the content.
I would hate it too but if Slashdot's owner wanted to try it they should be allowed to. Then when Slashdot goes down the tube while competitors' offerings grow it'll be their own fault. And I'll clap for the lesson in economics some people will have. After all why do you think online services AOL, CompuServe, GEnie, and Prodigy are no longer around? They could not compeat with the internet. The WELL however is still online because it offers what people are willing to pay for. Actually The WELL could be one of those competitors of Slashdot. Though technically not strictly for nerds The WELL was founded by and has as members computer pioneers.
Falcon
I have no idea what would be as tantalizing as being able to auction off their bandwidth to the highest bidders.
That wouldn't work, it's those who have the bandwidth now that can afford to be the highest bidders. The Mom and Pop ISP willing to provide broadband certainly couldn't afford to pay. The answer to expanding broadband penetration is to take away the incumbents's monopolies.
Falcon
"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"
Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality.
Except it is true. The third paragraph says this "Although the Congressional Black Caucus isn't traditionally against government regulation, some members are concerned that many African-Americans and other ethnic minorities lack access to broadband networks." They are concerned that if net neutrality becomes enforcable broadband provider will not build out broadband. I say this is hogwash. In a free market, which we do not have, businesses would be compeating with each other for customers. Instead of people not having broadband access they'd have choices as to whom they get it from.
Falcon
It amazes me none of these people mention the root cause of the lack of broadband, there is no competition!
Falcon
they are the ones that are in a position to pick winners and losers.
Government pout them in that position, and can take their advantage away.
If this behavior is allowed, we will see the ISPs picking winners and losers amongs websites as well.
Which is why under the current circumstances I support net neutrality. Under a free market thought it would not be needed.
We can see this starting to happen already with ESPN360.
Isn't ESPN360 a content provider and not an ISP? I don't know, I don't watch sports and would rather be active instead of passive, but if ESPN charges for access to some content that is no different than any other content provider that charges for some content. The "Wall Street Journal" charges for some content as does "The Economist" and I have no problem with ESPN doing it. Heck Slashdot has subscribers paying.
Falcon
stock holders
If you get rid of stockholders there won't be many investments made. Who would invest without a possibility of some payback? How much did the Soviet Union invent, without forced labor camps?
Falcon
Capitalism does not route around the damage, it INSTALLS the damage. A monopoly is damage.
A monopoly is not capitalism, and capitalism does try to route around damage.
Falcon
It continually amazes me how people who know little about the Internet, or just got on it recently, have rewritten its history to such an extent.
Net history has been rewritten but to say without that without the government there would not be a network like the internet is to ignore or be ignorant of history also. That I know of, there may of been some earlier, the earliest network I known of was setup in 1969 as Compu-Serv Network, Inc. by an insurance company. After the birth of homebrew computers or microcomputers in the 1970s bulletin board systems or BBSes started cropping up. People, especially here on slashdot, complain how made up Mathew Broderick's "WarGames" was but back then there were BBSes and people did wardial looking for BBSes and any other computer connected to the phone lines. (Okay I know some people's complaint is about a thinking WOPR.)
Without government it would have taken longer but a network of networks would still have been developed.
Falcon