RE: J Thompson "How many of the posters are willing to assign all rights
to the government in exchange for an Internet movie without paying the full
price of that service?"How many of us will stand for an ISP
charging much more than the cost of providing that movie? Are you familiar with
the term "market power?" In economics it means a provider can dictate
price. Firms have market power when there is insufficient competition. That is
what we are into with ISP's. Other countries are getting much better
deals, because of more competition or better regulation.
to J ThompsonParaphrasing the Bard; whose giving away their kingdom
for a horse?Seriously (?), They (Gov't & Global Corps) are
slowly reassembling another Ma Bell like Leviathan. Can't stop it. Might as
well be entertained.
How many of the posters are willing to assign all rights to the government in
exchange for an Internet movie without paying the full price of that service?
That is opposite to what our Country stands for. We are free citizens who tell
the government what it can do, but too many are demanding that the government
intervene when they don't want to pay their fair share for bandwidth on the
Internet. They want unlimited access without paying for that access. They
think that somehow they own the connections between their homes, the ISPs that
serve them and their favorite service. They are just like labor unions who
demand that the owners give them equity in the business because they were hired
to do a job - without ever risking a nickle to build that company or ever taking
a risk.Shame on those who are so willing to give away their freedoms
for a movie. Is that all that freedom means to them? They want government
censorship so that they can watch their movies at a price that they are
unwilling to pay. How foolish. How childish.
On one side, the argument is that private business is becoming monopolistic,
needs controlling and the government should control the private businesses, the
infrastructure and the terms of service offered to the consumers. On
the other side, the argument is that the government is, or quickly becomes, too
controlling, restricts market freedoms and that private businesses should be
free of government regulation and be able to do as they see fit with their own
property and services. Neither one is right, at least, not
completely. The ideal choice is for business to just do what's
right - is fair to consumers, allows for technological advancement and does not
restrict competition. If men and women running the businesses did that, there
would be no need for any gov't intervention. Since these people do not
always choose what is right and fair, etc., then gov't needs to step in to
ensure that newcomers can enter the market, that consumer choices are maintained
and that consumers are not gouged or taken advantage of financially, etc. The
gov't, imho, should rarely, if ever, control what is currently private
infrastructure, its content or terms of service.
And I hope it’s clear from some of the other comments that ideology gets
us nowhere as it provides “answers” before we examine the facts
& evidence (boy, is this applicable across a wide range of current political
debates).I reject the unanalytical maxim that “government
never helps” as much as I reject its evil twin “government always
helps.” Both positions are IMO held strongly by those who are too lazy to
think through situations where each may apply depending on circumstances.
In this case, it should not be a preconceived ideology that drives the
decision, but rather an agreed to outcome of results (i.e., a more free and
competitive online environment). It should go without saying that
scare tactics like “our government wants to be like China” are not
only not helpful but display a prideful fascination with media tactics (meant to
bypass the frontal cortex and go straight to the limbic brain) that hopefully
our society is growing tired of and will soon reject en masse.
Mr. Richards - I find it alarming that when you are addressing the
monopolization of ISPs you only respond in a manner pertaining to yourself.
This may come as a shock but just because Mike Richards of South Jordan does not
have Comcast does not mean that Comcast's market share is not charting at
dangerously high levels. And that isn't even necessarily the heart of the
issue, the problem is that if a company with a dominant market share such as
Comcast has the ability to dictate download speeds, content costs, etc... then
we have a less free, less informed society. Further, if you see net
neutrality as a means of controlling the internet and the content produced
thereon then either you have egregiously misunderstood the very premise of this
issue or are so far out of touch you're beyond saving. Finally,
given Comcast and other major ISPs' progressive slant, get ready to pay a
premium if you want to read anything on the Blaze or DesNews. I certainly hope
you're ready to live in a world where all online content is actually
controlled by the liberal media.
My knowledge on this topic is limited so appreciate any information people are
willing to provide. Although as a caution, if you are going to educate us please
remember the (hilarious) dictum – eschew obfuscation (i.e., no ubiquitous
name dropping… if you have a point to make, just make it).That
said, with ISP’s consolidating and more importantly buying content, they
appear to be moving in monopolistic directions, so let’s not assume that
just because this is the private sector it is a competitive utopia.Also, with the infrastructure needed to provide cable services to individuals,
cable companies typically fall under the definition of a “natural
monopoly” which is only partially mitigated by dish providers.Bottom line – anything that makes this industry more competitive will be
good for consumers.
Who needs censorship when some people already think that the government paid for
the Internet? ARPANET was taken down in 1990. The military created its own
"internet" independent of the Internet. ARPANET was a small project
that is to the Internet what smoke-signals are to TV broadcasting. Four
universities were connected, including the University of Utah. Speed was
extremely slow. Can anyone remember 300-baud modems? The only concept that is
still being used is packet-switching. Before packet switching was developed by
BBN, only one conversation at a time could travel over any two-wired connection
between phones or other electronic devices. Packet switching allowed data to be
broken up into small numbered packets. Even if the packets traveled different
routes or arrived at different times, the numbering allowed the data to be
"put back together".The Government wants to control the
Internet, just like China controls the Internet in China. Government want to
limit what is tranmitted. As usual, they are using dupes to rile up the masses,
demanding "government help". When will we ever learn that government
does not "help" us.
As you may recall, Mike, the Carter and Reagan administrations saw fit to break
up AT&T (a good idea in my opinion). I assume you were against that, and
that you would be perfectly happy with an AT&T monopoly. From
the very beginning we have practiced varying brands of socialism - private and
public working together, and then contesting, back and forth. This has been
especially true in Utah where are pioneer agriculture was communistic (yes it
was). The interesting thing about America is the intervention by
government to CREATE self-regulating markets. That's what the AT&T
breakup was about.In this regard, if ISP's have too much market
power, government must step in to restore a competitive market - assuming you
believe in self-regulating markets. Labyrinthian isn't it?
per Stalwart SentinelAgreed. Name dropping with a side of alphabet
soup.Mike; Arapnet was funded by Arpa later Darpa i.e. the Dept of
Defense. So, it was (gasp) a partnership between the public & private
sectors. This "conversation" is already devolving like in
the 1st Iron Man where RDJ is teeing off on the reporter who criticizes Stark
Stalwart Sentinel,I don't have Comcast. I won't have
Comcast. I don't need Comcast. If you've hired Comcast, then YOU are
responsible for that decision. No one forced you to select Comcast from all of
the providers. No one gave Comcast a monopoly. If the government intervenes,
then your choice will be limited to hiring the company that they chose or to do
without. When you understand that simple concept, you'll understand why no
regulation is needed or wanted.America was not built by the
government; it was built by the people. The taxes paid by private enterprise
has made this country what it is. Government can do nothing until it first
takes something from those who produce. America has been the home of almost all
computer/Internet innovation. That happened because we have a free market where
people are rewarded for taking a risk. Government takes from those who have
taken a risk. Now, it's trying to gain control of the Internet. Can
anyone say "censorship"?
Mr. Richards - You have demonstrated you can google things, well done. Please
google the "united states of comcast" and tell us again that
"[t]here is enough competition that no one company can have a monopoly."
I like fiction.
Those who never knew J. C. R. Licklider, Paul Baran, Donald Davies, Robert
Taylor, Vint Cerf and most importantly, Tim Berners-Lee, who never understood
PSINet, UUNET, Netcom, and Portal Software, who don't understand or know
about InterNIC, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, and ICANN will jump on the
bandwagon led by those in the government who claim that THEY invented the
Internet. That is pure hogwash. The government needed a secure method for the
military to communicate when telephone service was disrupted by war. The
government paid a few people to look at the possibilities and a few Universities
to experiment with some protocols. That was not the Internet. That would be
the same as saying that the Ox Cart is today's automobile. ARPANET is not
the Internet, no matter how those in politics claim. Anyone who has studied the
history of computers knows that conniving politicians have always laid claim to
the Internet, but they will also know that those conniving politicians have lied
and have taken credit for things that PRIVATE COMPANIES developed. We all drink water. Should the ICC tell us how much water should cost or
where we have to buy it?
But, Mike... The Gov't should have no say over something it (for all
intents) created?Something used by the masses that definitely falls
under the interstate commerce aegis, really?
Mr. Richards - "If you understood how the Internet operates..." - Based
on your "explanation" above, I cannot convey how hilarious it is to hear
you accuse me of not understanding the functionality of the internet.
Never gonna happen. Too much lobbying money to buy too many legislators.What this country really needs right now is good ol' Teddy and his
monopoly busting big stick.
Stalwart Sentinel,You've jumped to conclusions. I object to
government control of the Internet. Private companies own and operate the DNS
servers. Private companies own the infrastructure. Private companies can
control what goes over their private infrastructure. There is enough
competition that no one company can have a monopoly. If government intervenes,
government will dictate who provides what, at what cost and what content can be
sent of that infrastructure.What is being proposed in the letter is
the opposite of a free market. If you understood how the Internet operates, you
would know why your assumption is exactly opposite of what you should have
assumed.The only thing that government did was to allow the Internet
to contain commercial content. Before that was changed, the Internet was a
place to share ideas. It still is a place to share ideas, but it also allows
commerce. I support a free Internet market WITHOUT government
licensing and interference.
Mr. Richards - Given your apparent opposition to net neutrality, it is safe to
say that you, in no way, support a free market.
What is the difference between a Radio or TV network and the Internet? There is
a limited amount of "bandwidth" available for Radio and TV. In other
words, if 10,000 p;eople wanted to own a radio station, there would not be
enough frequencies available to satisfy all of their "wants". On the
other hand, there is no practical limit on ISPs. Sure, some ISPs use radio
type signals as part of their service, but most operate on a physical cable or
set of wires that go directly to the customer. As long as those carriers are
willing to lay more wire or cable, they can expand forever. The backbone
between ISPs can also be extended, although at much greater expense. The backbone is becoming the problem. With many of us using Netflix or some
other streaming video service, those backbones are being heavily used. The
solution is simple. If Netflix can make a profit with one-million customers at
$8 per month, they can afford to pay to beef up the backbone routes that they
need to grow their business to one-hundred million customers.