T Nation

Net Neutrality Gone

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Net neutrality forces carriers to provide equal and unfettered bandwidth to anyone with zero discretion on the part of the company. Even they are paying for technology, upgrades, etc. So that means they can’t turn down the speed of someone pirating tons of movies and destroying the bandwidth even if it is hurting its other customers. There are two sides to this tale.

My short feeling on it is that if the companies own the technology and hardware it is theirs to do with as they like. If it is my parking lot, that I paid for and built, why the hell should I NOT be able to charge people money to use it? It is not their right to park on it just because they really want to now that I built it and put a cool mall near it. [/quote]

What if I bought your parking lot and promised not to raise the prices?

Then I jacked them up to 100 dollars an hour, and effectively put your mall out of business, because it turns out I own a mall on the other side of town?

Is that perfectly acceptable, considering the effect on you, the businesses inside your mall, the people who work there, etc?

[/quote]

Then I will sue you ass for breach of contract, damages and your firstborn child.

If I was stupid enough to sign such a contract in the first place.

[/quote]

WHat if I offered you enough money that you could retire the next day with a “fuck everybody else” mentality, and we both knew the promise was bullshit and just a smokescreen on your part?
Should all the other people affected just be fucked?

Gas companies routinely buy up the rights to alternative power technology, and sit on them.

Perhaps allowing people to own things that allow them to control a market, when they have such an interest, should be restricted? Or should we just say “free market, everybody do whatever you want”[/quote]

Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on?

Also, yes, if its my building and I sell it to you just so that you can tear it down, have at it.

I do not know how that would help you to “control the market” since every Tom, Dick or Harry can build a new one, but why would I care, I would be fucking rich!

Plus, in the Caribean with my harem of nubile concubines.

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on? [/quote]

I’ve seen ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’, and that is exactly what happened to the electric car.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on? [/quote]

I’ve seen ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’, and that is exactly what happened to the electric car.[/quote]

You should not have been watching it then.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on? [/quote]

I’ve seen ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’, and that is exactly what happened to the electric car.[/quote]

You should not have been watching it then.

[/quote]

This exchange confuses me.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on? [/quote]

I’ve seen ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’, and that is exactly what happened to the electric car.[/quote]

You should not have been watching it then.

[/quote]

This exchange confuses me.

[/quote]

Well, if him watching this movie caused evil corporations to sit on the electric car, maybe he should not have watched it?

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Really, what alternative energy sources are they sitting on? [/quote]

I’ve seen ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?’, and that is exactly what happened to the electric car.[/quote]

You should not have been watching it then.

[/quote]

This exchange confuses me.

[/quote]

Well, if him watching this movie caused evil corporations to sit on the electric car, maybe he should not have watched it?

[/quote]

Where else should they sit? On their evil corporation ass?

Also, I tried to look up legit information on it, and found very little. So, I may have been wrong, but I doubt it, considering Mattys post. Either way, I’ll quit saying it.

A lot of the basics of economics are being wildly ignored here. To the wage issue- assuming EVERYONE was paid $4 dollars, all over the world, then the purchasing power of the $4 would be the equivalent of whatever the average wage is now (say for whimsy it is $1,000/hour). The quantity you are being paid does not matter, the PURCHASING POWER of the money you are paid is all that matters.

With telecoms, if you limit the amount of control over their lines (via rates or whatever), and thus how much they can profit particularly in a highly capital intensive profession like IT services, what is their incentive to invest (i.e. RISK) huge sums of capital to invest in lines they will have little control over? Even if the incentive is not decreased to 0 decreasing it AT ALL only makes the problem people are discussing here worse. If you want more technology and lines made available, you want to make the creation of those items as attractive as possible not the other way around. Does the idea of high risk/pretty good reward sound very attractive to you compared with high risk/high reward? That is what you are up against. Good intentions perhaps, terrible results.

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.

Just because someone has something you really want to use should not give you the right to legislate your use to it especially if you are not willing to take the same risks they were to get it. Assuming any rights exist outside of what the government opts to give you that is. If you believe the only rights you have are a result of the government’s current stance then we are arguing cross points.

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
A lot of the basics of economics are being wildly ignored here. To the wage issue- assuming EVERYONE was paid $4 dollars, all over the world, then the purchasing power of the $4 would be the equivalent of whatever the average wage is now (say for whimsy it is $1,000/hour). The quantity you are being paid does not matter, the PURCHASING POWER of the money you are paid is all that matters.

With telecoms, if you limit the amount of control over their lines (via rates or whatever), and thus how much they can profit particularly in a highly capital intensive profession like IT services, what is their incentive to invest (i.e. RISK) huge sums of capital to invest in lines they will have little control over? Even if the incentive is not decreased to 0 decreasing it AT ALL only makes the problem people are discussing here worse. If you want more technology and lines made available, you want to make the creation of those items as attractive as possible not the other way around. Does the idea of high risk/pretty good reward sound very attractive to you compared with high risk/high reward? That is what you are up against. Good intentions perhaps, terrible results.

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.

Just because someone has something you really want to use should not give you the right to legislate your use to it especially if you are not willing to take the same risks they were to get it. Assuming any rights exist outside of what the government opts to give you that is. If you believe the only rights you have are a result of the government’s current stance then we are arguing cross points.[/quote]

I have a problem with this viewpoint because it assumes any benefit to the firm will directly benefit the consumer. I disagree here.

What makes you think the higher revenue generated–and higher profit margins–will automatically mean the firms want to invest MORE in their infrastructure? Why not just use that to pad their profits? In the very long term, sure, they might invest a bit more in infrastructure, but then it would be to benefit the people contributing to that greater revenue–OTHER firms, whose content the telecoms are giving preference to in terms of bandwidth–at which point the telecoms become more B2B-centric and the C (consumers) become secondary to the telecom profit model.

The above assumes that consumers are still a majority chunk of the current profit model and, yes, I know telecoms make money off of other businesses. I’m saying the absence of net neutrality could lead to greater emphasis on other businesses because THAT’S where the “big money” will be.

The market does NOT always correct itself but that doesn’t mean that heavy handed regulation is needed, either. There is no such thing as a free market, anyway: tariffs, quotas, lobbyists…all those things mean that the true “market forces” are artificially influenced.

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.
[/quote]

Or I could support legislation that says no one can own public roads, so that people with lots of money cant buy them all up and start charging tolls.

I could support laws that limit the amount of housing, in a particular market, someone can own, so there is at least some competition in the marketplace rather than one monopoly in total control of everything.

I understand the issue of rights, I don’t like the idea of “Let the rich do whatever they want no matter how it affects anyone else – if anybody doesn’t like it, its their own damn fault for not bein rich!”

[quote]orion wrote:

I do not know how that would help you to “control the market” since every Tom, Dick or Harry can build a new one, but why would I care, I would be fucking rich!

Plus, in the Caribean with my harem of nubile concubines.
[/quote]

Exactly why I’m not sypathetic towards victims of “class warfare”.

You’d “care” quite a bit when all the people you put out of work decide to take a few crow bars to your “fucking rich” head.

Why dont we just get rid of all those pesky antitrust laws then? Or allow insider trading? (its my right to own whatever stocks I want, right??)

Why have any rules at all to govern behavior that can and will have devastating effects on the lives of others? How dare we take away the rights of rich people to do whatever they want whenever they want?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.
[/quote]

Or I could support legislation that says no one can own public roads, so that people with lots of money cant buy them all up and start charging tolls.

I could support laws that limit the amount of housing, in a particular market, someone can own, so there is at least some competition in the marketplace rather than one monopoly in total control of everything.

I understand the issue of rights, I don’t like the idea of “Let the rich do whatever they want no matter how it affects anyone else – if anybody doesn’t like it, its their own damn fault for not bein rich!”[/quote]

Is this fear grounded in reality though? For example, is the vast majority of housing in, say, San Francisco owned by just a small handful of super wealthy people? My guess would be no. Point out a major metropolitan area with a housing issue that exhibits these symptoms and you have a case. Otherwise it is simply a hypothetical danger that is never likely to ever play out in reality. Sort of like the “imminent” danger of terrorists to the US folks like the Bush administration sold us on.

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.
[/quote]

Or I could support legislation that says no one can own public roads, so that people with lots of money cant buy them all up and start charging tolls.

I could support laws that limit the amount of housing, in a particular market, someone can own, so there is at least some competition in the marketplace rather than one monopoly in total control of everything.

I understand the issue of rights, I don’t like the idea of “Let the rich do whatever they want no matter how it affects anyone else – if anybody doesn’t like it, its their own damn fault for not bein rich!”[/quote]

Is this fear grounded in reality though? For example, is the vast majority of housing in, say, San Francisco owned by just a small handful of super wealthy people? My guess would be no. Point out a major metropolitan area with a housing issue that exhibits these symptoms and you have a case. Otherwise it is simply a hypothetical danger that is never likely to ever play out in reality. Sort of like the “imminent” danger of terrorists to the US folks like the Bush administration sold us on. [/quote]

My point was simply that the “Let people do whatever they want” mentality isn’t always a good idea.

If it did become a problem, I would support laws to fix it.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

To the roads issue- sounds like you better take a risk and build your own damn road then. This is how any market works although you have added in the idea that there is a finite amount of roads that can be created which is not immediately obvious unless you are talking astronomical figures. Assume in a housing market everyone has bought all the available housing- what then? Legislate your use of one of their bedrooms free of charge? Or should you have to either a) pay rent OR b) find another place to live because you do not have the RIGHT (i.e. the ability to make someone else obligated to give you) to live in that city.
[/quote]

Or I could support legislation that says no one can own public roads, so that people with lots of money cant buy them all up and start charging tolls.

I could support laws that limit the amount of housing, in a particular market, someone can own, so there is at least some competition in the marketplace rather than one monopoly in total control of everything.

I understand the issue of rights, I don’t like the idea of “Let the rich do whatever they want no matter how it affects anyone else – if anybody doesn’t like it, its their own damn fault for not bein rich!”[/quote]

Is this fear grounded in reality though? For example, is the vast majority of housing in, say, San Francisco owned by just a small handful of super wealthy people? My guess would be no. Point out a major metropolitan area with a housing issue that exhibits these symptoms and you have a case. Otherwise it is simply a hypothetical danger that is never likely to ever play out in reality. Sort of like the “imminent” danger of terrorists to the US folks like the Bush administration sold us on. [/quote]

My point was simply that the “Let people do whatever they want” mentality isn’t always a good idea.

If it did become a problem, I would support laws to fix it.[/quote]

Have you ever looked into what it takes to buy a US congressman?

Pretty slanted reporting there. Keep the government off my interwebz. If I don’t like what my ISP is doing I can change.