Do you have an example of anything that is regulated "correctly"?
Admittedly there aren't many successful cases to point you towards. However I would say that mobile phones in the UK are a good example.
I'm not that knowledgeable about UK regulations (other than the occasional horror story that pops up around here periodically), so I can't speak to that specifically. You did touch primarily on the choice aspects of it, though, highlighting the network portability. Is the entire gamut of mobile regulation in the UK without issue?
But, to go back to your first sentence, what does that say about the nature of regulation? It seems that the inevitable conclusion is we can have things regulated or not regulated and big business is going to take advantage of it regardless. So, the real question is whether we're better off with the government being involved in market decisions or not. And, bearing in mind that the entire existence of corporations is due to government involvement in the market, it would appear that if the government gets completely out of the way, we no longer have the threat of big corporations taking advantage of people. We just have people that can be held liable if they violate someone's rights, rather than a non-person entity that just has to pay tribute to it's government creator.
This means that the argument that a lack of regulation is the same as a free system is a flat-out lie. It necessarily implies that corporations will never engage in monopolistic rent-seeking, which is clearly false.
You do realize that corporations are a creation of government, right? So, unless the government totally gets out of the market, meaning no more such thing as the artificial, government created entities called corporations, you are absolutely correct. We need more regulation because the government has already been too involved. But, where does that end? How much control would you like to give to someone so that they can take care of the problems that they keep creating with the control you give them?
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
In any case the answer is "NO!" Vital resources should be regulated by the government because the government, for all its flaws, is ultimately answerable to the people and private companies have shown again and again they put their profits first and do great harm to society in pursuit of that, whether it be by dumping poison in our nation's rivers, gouging individuals using monopolies, Misusing money put into banks with risky investments, or leveraging resources to influence politics for profit.
What evidence to you have that the government is ultimately answerable to the people and not their corporate donors? And, even with regulation all of those things have happened. So, what exactly are we getting with all this "regulation"?
A better question isn't if the government should regulate things, but "Why are we still letting private companies and foreign nations" influence our politics through campaign contributions, lobbying, and political adverts when the vast majority of individuals thing it should be illegal?"
Could the answer be that the government also has self-interest? Could it be that by capping individual donations and allowing corporations unlimited donations the government doesn't have to worry about individuals? Could it be that the assumption that the government can be accountable to individuals is virtually baseless in reality?
In an environment of "the customer is always right," the market can be trusted to deliver exactly what is in the customers' best interests without any form of outside interference.
In an environment of telco monopolies, multi-year contracts, terms which the provider can change at will, and more; it becomes necessary to restrict what providers can and cannot do because the customers are left powerless other than as voters who tell the government what they want.
But, the telcos are already heavily regulated. Why do we still have problems?
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
Profit never keeps anything in check. EVER. It drives people to do whatever they can to make money, regardless of who is getting screwed over.
Politician, ultimately, answer to us.
Seriously? Politicians answer to us? Maybe on an individual level. But, there are many of them in the government. If they do lose elections, they end up as appointees for one of the 90+% of incumbents that do win. So, on the aggregate, they don't.
And, you act like politicians aren't influenced by the profit motive. To quote, "wow, just... wow. Are you really that ignorant?"
But the problem with NOT having government regulation is that the monopolies fuck the consumer just as hard then.
Name a monopoly that isn't the result of government involvement. And, the problem with having government regulation is that the companies get to use the government to fuck the consumer even harder.
Look at all the places in the US where cable companies have a monopoly, simply because they managed to raise the barrier to entry high and entered into collusion agreements with other companies to pull out (my area used to have TW, Comcast, and Verizon for cable TV options, now we're stuck with Comcrap only because they ran Verizon out by running under cost and then TW "traded" us away by promising to pull out of our city if Comcrap pulled out of another city on the other side of the state).
The biggest barrier to entry in telco is government regulation. Period. Regulation entrenches the big guys and gives them the ability to monopolize. And, in many areas, it's agreements with government that has given them exclusive access.
Now look at what precisely Comcrap has been trying to do: block off streaming video from Youtube, Hulu, and Netflix to force people in their monopoly-areas to pay more for Comcrap's crappy shitty "video on demand" cable service instead.
No. In this case, we need government regulation. The trick is making sure it's the *right* regulation and properly enforced.
What has the government regulated that has been done with the *right* regulation and has been properly enforced? Why would this turn out any different?
Except none of the government plans are about regulating content...so your argument just kinda falls flat.
Simply stating that telcos can't treat content differently is regulating content. And, it gives them an important precedent when they want to.
Do you honestly believe the government won't push further later? Name one industry that has been lightly regulated and the regulations didn't expand for some "common good" or "for the children." It's pollyannaish to think it ends here.
It's not a choice: one is not "handing it over control to political appointees". It is simply saying not packet dicrimination. So yes there will be regulators but they do not have fiat control, just enforcement responsibilities.
Thus this discussion is starting out on a false premise.
It may just be a simple rule now, but how is that rule not arbitrary? What is the limiting principle to keep the government from shutting down things it doesn't like?
In China, the free Internet died because the government didn't want the users to watch Tiananmen videos. In the US, the free Internet will die because corporations don't want the users to watch content they're not getting paid for.
And, the US government won't use the power that people are wanting to give them to shut down what it doesn't like?
I'm sure our government is so much more benevolent than China's, though. So, we're probably ok, right?
US ISPs are doing their jobs properly, it's just that they define "doing their job properly" as maximizing profits. They don't actually need to serve the customer because there's almost no real competition.
And, where I'm at, that's because of government granted monopolies...
Exactly. And since having a truly free market for broadband is physically impossible (or at best, extremely infeasible) for the exact same reason it's impossible for electric and water providers, we have to go with government regulation.
Why is it impossible? Because the government is already involved and has pushed up the barriers to entry so high the big players in any of those areas get either explicit or de facto monopolies? We talk about the cost of running lines or pipes, but that's an easy thing to take care of. It's the uncertain and potentially huge cost of "regulation" that keeps competition out.
When someone invents a way to deliver broadband over wormholes, THEN we can think about having a free market in broadband service.
No, we can't. Since wormholes might cause cancer in California, they'll have to be regulated. So, you're stuck with the same big guys the government has chosen to be your monopolies.
In a truly "free market", private companies would have to own the telephone poles on which they run their lines, and to own the telephone poles, they'd probably have to own the sidewalks. So then they'd snap up sidewalks in walled-off shapes that keep anyone else from putting up poles or running wires into their fiefdom.
Yeah... because no one ever leases that kind of stuff.
Or the government would have to lease the right to run data lines on public property to anyone who asked. But then that government would have to set a price, which means the government is now in the internet business whether they like it or not.
Why does the government have to do it? I don't see the logic behind that assertion.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a "free market" for broadband cannot and will never exist.
But, you never got there. You made a couple of arbitrary statements based on vague assumptions. And, the best evidence to support your statement is that the government is already involved. So, you are correct that there will never be a free market for broadband. There never has been.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
In the mean time, what does a majority of the country do - since most of us do not have multiple options for broadband?
Where I am, the choices are limited because of government granted monopolies. And, a lot of other places don't have options because the amount of regulation and potential regulation pushes the costs too high for anyone to waste their money trying to offer something different.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
We have government oversight of business to curb the inevitable excesses of corporate behavior.
How's that working for you?
We allow corporations AND individuals to have a voice so that government does not abuse its power. We also have freedom of the press to keep both government and corporations (more) honest.
What recent government action was a result of individual voices and not corporations? What press is there that isn't owned by government or corporations that actually has some sort of influence?
Additionally your notion that there is always a choice with corporations simply isn't the case. I have precisely one choice of corporation when buying electricity, garbage disposal, natural gas, and mail delivery. I have precisely two choices for landline telecom services (a recent development from one) only one of which provides internet service to my address. Some businesses simply are natural monopolies and the only realistic way to keep them in check is through government oversight and regulation.
Every single industry you complain about there is something that's regulated or made a monopoly by government action. Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
I'm a little annoyed by conservatives treating regulation as some sort of sin. Regulation prevents corporations from putting melanine in our milk, or floor sweepings in our sausages (both have happened in the past). Regulation (in theory) keeps companies from ripping us off left and right, and encourages competition.
Regulation prevents oil spills? Regulation prevents big bank misdeeds? Regulation of food keeps us from getting tainted food that never needs to be recalled?
What industry has been regulated and competition increased? Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
Before government regulation began with Teddy Roosevelt in the twentieth century, we lived in what was known as the Gilded Age, where massive corporations stiffed competition and milked customers for money while giving little or nothing in return... sound familiar? We've been deregulating for thirty years, so it should come as little surprise we're entering a Second Gilded Age. We should have remembered that corporations can't regulate themselves; now we'll have to learn that lesson anew, or face the consequences.
It does sound familiar. It's not historically accurate, though. During that period, the standard of living for common people increased immensely. Of course, that doesn't stop the populist revisionism from claiming that a handful improved their lot at the expense of others. Did some get rich? Of course. Did some work hard for little in return? Relative to today, yes. But, relative to the squalor and frequent starvation of a completely agrarian society, they were much better off.
You can't compare people to people in different classes to determine how well they're doing. The richer have always been better off. They always will be. You have to look at their standard of living compared to someone of an equivalent social level prior to the time you're observing.
If someone has more resources, options and thus stability than before, they've benefitted. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone could have mansions and a Mercedes, but it's not practical or possible. So, unless we just want to bitch for the sake of bitching, we have to concentrate on improving people's lives at each level. And, as much as we might not like it, the rich are going to improve as well... and they will ahead of everyone else. But, history has demonstrated that over time everyone rises.
20 years ago, it was mostly people that were "rich" that had cell phones. If you saw someone with one, you thought of them as someone of means. Do you think the same thing when you see someone with a cell phone today?
I trust the government to regulate businesses to the extent necessary to make sure there is fair competition and the free market keeps on working. That's their job. If you believe the businesses will do it themselves -- will take actions specifically designed to ensure that new competitors can emerge and take customers away from them! -- then you are a fool.
What's a real world example that illustrates that happening? What industry has become regulated and more competition has emerged rather than power getting more concentrated into a handful of big players?
Of course businesses are going to try to eliminate the possibility of competition... That's why they're often the one's supporting regulation.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
The US government is refusing to regulate the internet correctly and big business is just waiting to turn it into cable tv.
Do you have an example of anything that is regulated "correctly"?
Unfortunately people seem to uninterested both sides will end up fucking it up completely.
And, this is the fundamental problem with government involvement. People care about something until a law is passed. But, the real rules are defined after that by the regulators. So, the people that advocated involvement are already placated and detach themselves because they got what they wanted... the government is involved. But, the guys with the money know that's when they can come in and get what they want.
Any regulation ends up protecting the big players in whatever industry. They get monopolies granted. They get immense barriers to entry for anyone that might like to come along and offer something better. And, the politicians and bureaucrats get their share of the pie. Meanwhile, we end up getting screwed worse than we were before.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
Here in the Americas, 90% of the populace is royally fucked for any sort of competition. We live in areas where even if there used to be competition, all the ISP's have gotten into little collusion agreements. My area used to have Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast all competing for cable service: TW and Comcrap both went into "charge under cost" to drive Verizon out, then entered into an agreement where TW agreed to pull out of half my state in exchange for Comcrap pulling out of the other half. End result: now TW and Comcrap, each in the other half of the state, rape the consumer up the ass with monopoly-level pricing.
I know around where I am the competition is limited because of government granted monopoly status to the telcos. Anyone that wants to try to do something better can't because the government won't allow it. And, since the regulations are so extensive, you need a team of lawyers to figure out what you must do to stay out of trouble. I suppose the answer is more government involvement... since it's done so much to improve the situation so far.
We've got a lot more influence over government than we do over the top two telcos.
Really? How? Elections? Is that how we get rid of Bush and get to have Obama do the same thing? How about last month's election? Is that the influence you're talking about?
I'm not saying we've got that much influence over the telcos, but the more the government "regulates" anything, the more power the large companies in those industries seem to get. Regulation is just another word for reducing the amount of people that need to be bought off to do whatever you want. Just take a look at the rule the FCC proposed. It didn't address the real potential problems, but made the big telco's harder to compete with for anyone that might want to try.
We bitch a lot about businesses being hard to deal with and unethical around here. But, all the industries that everyone bitches about tend to be the most regulated. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one that people consistently bitch about that isn't regulated. Coincidence?
However if you actually read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, the book that essentially defined modern capitalism, you will find that the free market ONLY works with small organisations. This is actually true regardless of the economic system you use.
EXACTLY!!! Small organizations are the only way to guarantee minimal corruption and minimal influence for what corruption there is. And, Adam Smith, like many true free market thinkers, was against the idea of corporations... which, are a creation of the government.
Socialism works, facisim works, capitalism works, feudalism works, true democracy works and anarchy even works... they all work, so long as the number of people is less than about 1000. Above 1000 each and every system breaks down very quickly and requieres outside influences, like government, to keep things working smoothly. Take away government and capitalism will break within 48 hours. Within a year we will all be effective slaves to our CEO Lords.
Well... we certainly just can't cut the cord, but an orderly exit wouldn't likely cause that much of an impact. And, we wouldn't be slaves to our CEO lords, because they only have their power due to government. Without government in the market, there's no such thing as a corporation. It's only individuals dealing with individuals. There's no laws to empower the existence of large organizations... no patents or copyrights to enforce... no concentration of wealth in the corporate, non-person entities because they don't exist... and, they can't exert influence if they don't exist or have resources.
I don't claim it would be utopia. There's no such thing possible. But, there's certainly a lot less power concentrated in government and its corporate proxies that it has created. And, that's always going to be better for the average Joe that doesn't have access in our current government/corporate system.
There is actual a real and measuable psycological reason for this which I won't go into.
It's called humanity. When you stop dealing with non-human entities, processes, procedures and regulations, all that you're left with is people. And, even the biggest assholes have a more difficult time dehumanizing someone face-to-face. And, once you recognize someone's humanity, you tend to be more fair. We can all rant about the rich, the deadbeats, the politicians and whatever else. But, how many of us actually know someone personally that fits in one of those groups that doesn't fit the standard profile.
Corporations and government don't have humanity. That's why they always create problems.
There is one reason why in general a US style federal government is "more trustworthy" than a mega corp. Elections. Every 2-6 years people can be replaced. They know this and while they may not listen to me, I can often get a conversation with my Rep or Senator. Plus my single vote is worth the same as the single vote of anyone else, regardless of how much money they have.
And, yet, over 90% of incumbents get re-elected. And, yet, the problems still exist despite government ever-growing to deal with more and more issues.
Sure, there's a mechanism in the system that could be used, but is it ever really used? And, if so, is it ever that effective? Are you thrilled with the November election results? Is that an example of the system working well?
Yes I know that corporations have board elections. However there is typically no way for to select an indvidual board member (no primaries) and it is usually a single vote for the boards recomendations. Plus, votes are based off of shares, not individuals. Therefore my vote does NOT count as much as someone else. Plus I may be a customer but own no shares and I have no vote. All this means that it is almost impossible to contact the C-level executives or even the direct
And neither has it been really regulated for the last 30 years.
Look at the FCC ruling yesterday. They barley passed weak Net Neutrality rules which are not likely to last more than 6 months when the new Republicans come into ofice.
Technically, the Teleco/Cableco system we have is NOT free market and it is NOT regulated. It is callen an Oligopy. There are about 6 large companies with very well established and stable geographic regions. These companies cooperate to maintain the status quo while marginally competing on the technical services offered at the perimeter.
Telecom companies are a power to themselves because the last 30 years moved to fast for government (and almost everyone else) to keep up and we also starved the regulators of the resources needed to actually regulate the giants.
Are there government rules that they must comply with? Can they get into trouble if they don't comply with the rules? If so, it's regulated... period.
Whether or not the regulation has been good is completely separate from whether it's market or government driven. You are complaining about poor regulation and blaming the market for the results of poor regulation. That assertion is completely without factual basis since it is and has been most certainly regulated.
And, honestly, where has government demonstrated good regulation? I hear lots of crying about how we need more regulation to solve problems. I'm just not aware of an instance where regulation itself hasn't created even more problems.
Having a neutral referee to make sure things are done properly is a tremendously attractive concept. But, I'm not aware of it ever working in practice. With regulation, we still got the BP oil spill. We still have food recalls due to tainted food being distributed despite passing USDA inspections. We see bridges collapse despite regulations being in place.
You can make the argument that the regulators are just under funded. But, looking at the federal budget, we're already spending trillions every year. How much is too much? Can we really do everything? And, if not, where's the non-arbitrary line defining what we do and what we don't do?
And, the even bigger question is, why is one large organization of people less prone to corruption than another? We dislike the big corporations, but celebrate government? Many make the claim that the government is more accountable to the people, and that's why it can be trusted. I'm just not aware of any evidence that would make that a true statement. We had an election a couple of years ago talking about "change." What we got was 3 times the troops in Afghanistan, continuation of patriot act type government activities and an extension and expansion of the Bush tax cuts.
How can anyone claim the government is accountable to the people? Reality shows it is most certainly not, no matter what theoretical ideas we may wish to be true.
Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen?
It goes like this...
A sufficient number of people make noise about X problem. Since people vote, politicians start echoing the noise about X problem. The politician noise is actually a mating call for campaign donors disguised as prudence. Political donors move in and do their best to make sure laws passed regarding problem X are as loosely defined as possible to give the people that make the actual regulations plenty of room to move. The law is passed and people screaming about X are passified that the government is doing their will. Then the regulators and donors get into a back room with the public pressure gone and figure out how to milk the most out of the new law and how to divide the money.
And, that's government regulation in a nutshell...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have an example of anything that is regulated "correctly"?
Admittedly there aren't many successful cases to point you towards. However I would say that mobile phones in the UK are a good example.
I'm not that knowledgeable about UK regulations (other than the occasional horror story that pops up around here periodically), so I can't speak to that specifically. You did touch primarily on the choice aspects of it, though, highlighting the network portability. Is the entire gamut of mobile regulation in the UK without issue?
But, to go back to your first sentence, what does that say about the nature of regulation? It seems that the inevitable conclusion is we can have things regulated or not regulated and big business is going to take advantage of it regardless. So, the real question is whether we're better off with the government being involved in market decisions or not. And, bearing in mind that the entire existence of corporations is due to government involvement in the market, it would appear that if the government gets completely out of the way, we no longer have the threat of big corporations taking advantage of people. We just have people that can be held liable if they violate someone's rights, rather than a non-person entity that just has to pay tribute to it's government creator.
This means that the argument that a lack of regulation is the same as a free system is a flat-out lie. It necessarily implies that corporations will never engage in monopolistic rent-seeking, which is clearly false.
You do realize that corporations are a creation of government, right? So, unless the government totally gets out of the market, meaning no more such thing as the artificial, government created entities called corporations, you are absolutely correct. We need more regulation because the government has already been too involved. But, where does that end? How much control would you like to give to someone so that they can take care of the problems that they keep creating with the control you give them?
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
In any case the answer is "NO!" Vital resources should be regulated by the government because the government, for all its flaws, is ultimately answerable to the people and private companies have shown again and again they put their profits first and do great harm to society in pursuit of that, whether it be by dumping poison in our nation's rivers, gouging individuals using monopolies, Misusing money put into banks with risky investments, or leveraging resources to influence politics for profit.
What evidence to you have that the government is ultimately answerable to the people and not their corporate donors? And, even with regulation all of those things have happened. So, what exactly are we getting with all this "regulation"?
A better question isn't if the government should regulate things, but "Why are we still letting private companies and foreign nations" influence our politics through campaign contributions, lobbying, and political adverts when the vast majority of individuals thing it should be illegal?"
Could the answer be that the government also has self-interest? Could it be that by capping individual donations and allowing corporations unlimited donations the government doesn't have to worry about individuals? Could it be that the assumption that the government can be accountable to individuals is virtually baseless in reality?
There is no such thing as total deregulation--the choice is about who gets to regulate and how much say you and I get in it.
So, you think big companies colluding with the government gives us more say? Name an example of a regulated industry where that has happened.
In an environment of "the customer is always right," the market can be trusted to deliver exactly what is in the customers' best interests without any form of outside interference. In an environment of telco monopolies, multi-year contracts, terms which the provider can change at will, and more; it becomes necessary to restrict what providers can and cannot do because the customers are left powerless other than as voters who tell the government what they want.
But, the telcos are already heavily regulated. Why do we still have problems?
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
wow, just ... wow. Are you really that ignorant?
Profit never keeps anything in check. EVER. It drives people to do whatever they can to make money, regardless of who is getting screwed over.
Politician, ultimately, answer to us.
Seriously? Politicians answer to us? Maybe on an individual level. But, there are many of them in the government. If they do lose elections, they end up as appointees for one of the 90+% of incumbents that do win. So, on the aggregate, they don't.
And, you act like politicians aren't influenced by the profit motive. To quote, "wow, just ... wow. Are you really that ignorant?"
Do you trust someone with a profit motive to screw with your connection, or someone with a political motive?
What's the difference?
But the problem with NOT having government regulation is that the monopolies fuck the consumer just as hard then.
Name a monopoly that isn't the result of government involvement. And, the problem with having government regulation is that the companies get to use the government to fuck the consumer even harder.
Look at all the places in the US where cable companies have a monopoly, simply because they managed to raise the barrier to entry high and entered into collusion agreements with other companies to pull out (my area used to have TW, Comcast, and Verizon for cable TV options, now we're stuck with Comcrap only because they ran Verizon out by running under cost and then TW "traded" us away by promising to pull out of our city if Comcrap pulled out of another city on the other side of the state).
The biggest barrier to entry in telco is government regulation. Period. Regulation entrenches the big guys and gives them the ability to monopolize. And, in many areas, it's agreements with government that has given them exclusive access.
Now look at what precisely Comcrap has been trying to do: block off streaming video from Youtube, Hulu, and Netflix to force people in their monopoly-areas to pay more for Comcrap's crappy shitty "video on demand" cable service instead.
No. In this case, we need government regulation. The trick is making sure it's the *right* regulation and properly enforced.
What has the government regulated that has been done with the *right* regulation and has been properly enforced? Why would this turn out any different?
Except none of the government plans are about regulating content...so your argument just kinda falls flat.
Simply stating that telcos can't treat content differently is regulating content. And, it gives them an important precedent when they want to.
Do you honestly believe the government won't push further later? Name one industry that has been lightly regulated and the regulations didn't expand for some "common good" or "for the children." It's pollyannaish to think it ends here.
It's not a choice: one is not "handing it over control to political appointees". It is simply saying not packet dicrimination. So yes there will be regulators but they do not have fiat control, just enforcement responsibilities.
Thus this discussion is starting out on a false premise.
It may just be a simple rule now, but how is that rule not arbitrary? What is the limiting principle to keep the government from shutting down things it doesn't like?
I'm equally unconvinced that getting AT&T or Comcast more involved will improve my life.
So, you'd rather have them working together?
I'm not aware of any regulation that doesn't end up with big companies gaining more power and politicians getting a bigger piece of that pie. Are you?
In China, the free Internet died because the government didn't want the users to watch Tiananmen videos. In the US, the free Internet will die because corporations don't want the users to watch content they're not getting paid for.
And, the US government won't use the power that people are wanting to give them to shut down what it doesn't like?
I'm sure our government is so much more benevolent than China's, though. So, we're probably ok, right?
US ISPs are doing their jobs properly, it's just that they define "doing their job properly" as maximizing profits. They don't actually need to serve the customer because there's almost no real competition.
And, where I'm at, that's because of government granted monopolies...
Exactly. And since having a truly free market for broadband is physically impossible (or at best, extremely infeasible) for the exact same reason it's impossible for electric and water providers, we have to go with government regulation.
Why is it impossible? Because the government is already involved and has pushed up the barriers to entry so high the big players in any of those areas get either explicit or de facto monopolies? We talk about the cost of running lines or pipes, but that's an easy thing to take care of. It's the uncertain and potentially huge cost of "regulation" that keeps competition out.
When someone invents a way to deliver broadband over wormholes, THEN we can think about having a free market in broadband service.
No, we can't. Since wormholes might cause cancer in California, they'll have to be regulated. So, you're stuck with the same big guys the government has chosen to be your monopolies.
In a truly "free market", private companies would have to own the telephone poles on which they run their lines, and to own the telephone poles, they'd probably have to own the sidewalks. So then they'd snap up sidewalks in walled-off shapes that keep anyone else from putting up poles or running wires into their fiefdom.
Yeah... because no one ever leases that kind of stuff.
Or the government would have to lease the right to run data lines on public property to anyone who asked. But then that government would have to set a price, which means the government is now in the internet business whether they like it or not.
Why does the government have to do it? I don't see the logic behind that assertion.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a "free market" for broadband cannot and will never exist.
But, you never got there. You made a couple of arbitrary statements based on vague assumptions. And, the best evidence to support your statement is that the government is already involved. So, you are correct that there will never be a free market for broadband. There never has been.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
In the mean time, what does a majority of the country do - since most of us do not have multiple options for broadband?
Where I am, the choices are limited because of government granted monopolies. And, a lot of other places don't have options because the amount of regulation and potential regulation pushes the costs too high for anyone to waste their money trying to offer something different.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
We have government oversight of business to curb the inevitable excesses of corporate behavior.
How's that working for you?
We allow corporations AND individuals to have a voice so that government does not abuse its power. We also have freedom of the press to keep both government and corporations (more) honest.
What recent government action was a result of individual voices and not corporations? What press is there that isn't owned by government or corporations that actually has some sort of influence?
Additionally your notion that there is always a choice with corporations simply isn't the case. I have precisely one choice of corporation when buying electricity, garbage disposal, natural gas, and mail delivery. I have precisely two choices for landline telecom services (a recent development from one) only one of which provides internet service to my address. Some businesses simply are natural monopolies and the only realistic way to keep them in check is through government oversight and regulation.
Every single industry you complain about there is something that's regulated or made a monopoly by government action. Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
I'm a little annoyed by conservatives treating regulation as some sort of sin. Regulation prevents corporations from putting melanine in our milk, or floor sweepings in our sausages (both have happened in the past). Regulation (in theory) keeps companies from ripping us off left and right, and encourages competition.
Regulation prevents oil spills? Regulation prevents big bank misdeeds? Regulation of food keeps us from getting tainted food that never needs to be recalled?
What industry has been regulated and competition increased? Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
Before government regulation began with Teddy Roosevelt in the twentieth century, we lived in what was known as the Gilded Age, where massive corporations stiffed competition and milked customers for money while giving little or nothing in return... sound familiar? We've been deregulating for thirty years, so it should come as little surprise we're entering a Second Gilded Age. We should have remembered that corporations can't regulate themselves; now we'll have to learn that lesson anew, or face the consequences.
It does sound familiar. It's not historically accurate, though. During that period, the standard of living for common people increased immensely. Of course, that doesn't stop the populist revisionism from claiming that a handful improved their lot at the expense of others. Did some get rich? Of course. Did some work hard for little in return? Relative to today, yes. But, relative to the squalor and frequent starvation of a completely agrarian society, they were much better off.
You can't compare people to people in different classes to determine how well they're doing. The richer have always been better off. They always will be. You have to look at their standard of living compared to someone of an equivalent social level prior to the time you're observing.
If someone has more resources, options and thus stability than before, they've benefitted. Sure, it'd be nice if everyone could have mansions and a Mercedes, but it's not practical or possible. So, unless we just want to bitch for the sake of bitching, we have to concentrate on improving people's lives at each level. And, as much as we might not like it, the rich are going to improve as well... and they will ahead of everyone else. But, history has demonstrated that over time everyone rises.
20 years ago, it was mostly people that were "rich" that had cell phones. If you saw someone with one, you thought of them as someone of means. Do you think the same thing when you see someone with a cell phone today?
I trust the government to regulate businesses to the extent necessary to make sure there is fair competition and the free market keeps on working. That's their job. If you believe the businesses will do it themselves -- will take actions specifically designed to ensure that new competitors can emerge and take customers away from them! -- then you are a fool.
What's a real world example that illustrates that happening? What industry has become regulated and more competition has emerged rather than power getting more concentrated into a handful of big players?
Of course businesses are going to try to eliminate the possibility of competition... That's why they're often the one's supporting regulation.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
The US government is refusing to regulate the internet correctly and big business is just waiting to turn it into cable tv.
Do you have an example of anything that is regulated "correctly"?
Unfortunately people seem to uninterested both sides will end up fucking it up completely.
And, this is the fundamental problem with government involvement. People care about something until a law is passed. But, the real rules are defined after that by the regulators. So, the people that advocated involvement are already placated and detach themselves because they got what they wanted... the government is involved. But, the guys with the money know that's when they can come in and get what they want.
Any regulation ends up protecting the big players in whatever industry. They get monopolies granted. They get immense barriers to entry for anyone that might like to come along and offer something better. And, the politicians and bureaucrats get their share of the pie. Meanwhile, we end up getting screwed worse than we were before.
Name an industry that you have problems with that isn't regulated. Why is it the industries that people continuously complain about are the one's that are the most regulated? Is that just a coincidence?
Here in the Americas, 90% of the populace is royally fucked for any sort of competition. We live in areas where even if there used to be competition, all the ISP's have gotten into little collusion agreements. My area used to have Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast all competing for cable service: TW and Comcrap both went into "charge under cost" to drive Verizon out, then entered into an agreement where TW agreed to pull out of half my state in exchange for Comcrap pulling out of the other half. End result: now TW and Comcrap, each in the other half of the state, rape the consumer up the ass with monopoly-level pricing.
I know around where I am the competition is limited because of government granted monopoly status to the telcos. Anyone that wants to try to do something better can't because the government won't allow it. And, since the regulations are so extensive, you need a team of lawyers to figure out what you must do to stay out of trouble. I suppose the answer is more government involvement... since it's done so much to improve the situation so far.
We've got a lot more influence over government than we do over the top two telcos.
Really? How? Elections? Is that how we get rid of Bush and get to have Obama do the same thing? How about last month's election? Is that the influence you're talking about?
I'm not saying we've got that much influence over the telcos, but the more the government "regulates" anything, the more power the large companies in those industries seem to get. Regulation is just another word for reducing the amount of people that need to be bought off to do whatever you want. Just take a look at the rule the FCC proposed. It didn't address the real potential problems, but made the big telco's harder to compete with for anyone that might want to try.
We bitch a lot about businesses being hard to deal with and unethical around here. But, all the industries that everyone bitches about tend to be the most regulated. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one that people consistently bitch about that isn't regulated. Coincidence?
The natural refferee is The Free Market
However if you actually read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, the book that essentially defined modern capitalism, you will find that the free market ONLY works with small organisations. This is actually true regardless of the economic system you use.
EXACTLY!!! Small organizations are the only way to guarantee minimal corruption and minimal influence for what corruption there is. And, Adam Smith, like many true free market thinkers, was against the idea of corporations... which, are a creation of the government.
Socialism works, facisim works, capitalism works, feudalism works, true democracy works and anarchy even works... they all work, so long as the number of people is less than about 1000. Above 1000 each and every system breaks down very quickly and requieres outside influences, like government, to keep things working smoothly. Take away government and capitalism will break within 48 hours. Within a year we will all be effective slaves to our CEO Lords.
Well... we certainly just can't cut the cord, but an orderly exit wouldn't likely cause that much of an impact. And, we wouldn't be slaves to our CEO lords, because they only have their power due to government. Without government in the market, there's no such thing as a corporation. It's only individuals dealing with individuals. There's no laws to empower the existence of large organizations... no patents or copyrights to enforce... no concentration of wealth in the corporate, non-person entities because they don't exist... and, they can't exert influence if they don't exist or have resources.
I don't claim it would be utopia. There's no such thing possible. But, there's certainly a lot less power concentrated in government and its corporate proxies that it has created. And, that's always going to be better for the average Joe that doesn't have access in our current government/corporate system.
There is actual a real and measuable psycological reason for this which I won't go into.
It's called humanity. When you stop dealing with non-human entities, processes, procedures and regulations, all that you're left with is people. And, even the biggest assholes have a more difficult time dehumanizing someone face-to-face. And, once you recognize someone's humanity, you tend to be more fair. We can all rant about the rich, the deadbeats, the politicians and whatever else. But, how many of us actually know someone personally that fits in one of those groups that doesn't fit the standard profile.
Corporations and government don't have humanity. That's why they always create problems.
There is one reason why in general a US style federal government is "more trustworthy" than a mega corp. Elections. Every 2-6 years people can be replaced. They know this and while they may not listen to me, I can often get a conversation with my Rep or Senator. Plus my single vote is worth the same as the single vote of anyone else, regardless of how much money they have.
And, yet, over 90% of incumbents get re-elected. And, yet, the problems still exist despite government ever-growing to deal with more and more issues.
Sure, there's a mechanism in the system that could be used, but is it ever really used? And, if so, is it ever that effective? Are you thrilled with the November election results? Is that an example of the system working well?
Yes I know that corporations have board elections. However there is typically no way for to select an indvidual board member (no primaries) and it is usually a single vote for the boards recomendations. Plus, votes are based off of shares, not individuals. Therefore my vote does NOT count as much as someone else. Plus I may be a customer but own no shares and I have no vote. All this means that it is almost impossible to contact the C-level executives or even the direct
And neither has it been really regulated for the last 30 years.
Look at the FCC ruling yesterday. They barley passed weak Net Neutrality rules which are not likely to last more than 6 months when the new Republicans come into ofice.
Technically, the Teleco/Cableco system we have is NOT free market and it is NOT regulated. It is callen an Oligopy. There are about 6 large companies with very well established and stable geographic regions. These companies cooperate to maintain the status quo while marginally competing on the technical services offered at the perimeter.
Telecom companies are a power to themselves because the last 30 years moved to fast for government (and almost everyone else) to keep up and we also starved the regulators of the resources needed to actually regulate the giants.
Are there government rules that they must comply with? Can they get into trouble if they don't comply with the rules? If so, it's regulated... period.
Whether or not the regulation has been good is completely separate from whether it's market or government driven. You are complaining about poor regulation and blaming the market for the results of poor regulation. That assertion is completely without factual basis since it is and has been most certainly regulated.
And, honestly, where has government demonstrated good regulation? I hear lots of crying about how we need more regulation to solve problems. I'm just not aware of an instance where regulation itself hasn't created even more problems.
Having a neutral referee to make sure things are done properly is a tremendously attractive concept. But, I'm not aware of it ever working in practice. With regulation, we still got the BP oil spill. We still have food recalls due to tainted food being distributed despite passing USDA inspections. We see bridges collapse despite regulations being in place.
You can make the argument that the regulators are just under funded. But, looking at the federal budget, we're already spending trillions every year. How much is too much? Can we really do everything? And, if not, where's the non-arbitrary line defining what we do and what we don't do?
And, the even bigger question is, why is one large organization of people less prone to corruption than another? We dislike the big corporations, but celebrate government? Many make the claim that the government is more accountable to the people, and that's why it can be trusted. I'm just not aware of any evidence that would make that a true statement. We had an election a couple of years ago talking about "change." What we got was 3 times the troops in Afghanistan, continuation of patriot act type government activities and an extension and expansion of the Bush tax cuts.
How can anyone claim the government is accountable to the people? Reality shows it is most certainly not, no matter what theoretical ideas we may wish to be true.
Before we get all burn-the-town-ey... why did this happen?
It goes like this...
A sufficient number of people make noise about X problem. Since people vote, politicians start echoing the noise about X problem. The politician noise is actually a mating call for campaign donors disguised as prudence. Political donors move in and do their best to make sure laws passed regarding problem X are as loosely defined as possible to give the people that make the actual regulations plenty of room to move. The law is passed and people screaming about X are passified that the government is doing their will. Then the regulators and donors get into a back room with the public pressure gone and figure out how to milk the most out of the new law and how to divide the money.
And, that's government regulation in a nutshell...