Should the US Regulate Broadband Internet Access as a Utility?

I see no mention of the British system. The benefits include being able to stop down at 7-11 and pick up a different ISP. The high level of competition has improved their national connectivity and data rates. We can have this too, but our ruling class (note: federal politicians are a totally different class from from you and me) is paid to frown on things that would cost them money. We would have to nationalize the telephone lines from distribution offices to homes and businesses, and lobbyists simply won't allow that.
 
I see no mention of the British system. The benefits include being able to stop down at 7-11 and pick up a different ISP. The high level of competition has improved their national connectivity and data rates. We can have this too, but our ruling class (note: federal politicians are a totally different class from from you and me) is paid to frown on things that would cost them money. We would have to nationalize the telephone lines from distribution offices to homes and businesses, and lobbyists simply won't allow that.

Yeah, something like that would be ideal, but it will never happen.

The talking heads on Fox would be red-faced, slamming their fists, screaming "communism" and the sheep that watch Fox would for some incomprehensible reason actually believe them...
 
property rights are a total fox viewer thing

totally

"Screw us today cause I'll be rich tomorrow" is certainly one.

Gov has power of eminent domain, but they only choose to exercise it on the second class citizens it seems. Corporations are supposed to be people right? Then they should play by the same rules:

You take funds (billions) and/or tax breaks for promises you don't/can't keep, you risk losing some property to pay it back, only fair.

Or is Comcast too big to fail?
 
There doesn't need to be direct government intervention. Just end the stranglehold on the infrastructure by the major providers that is being enforced by government themselves. I don't know how people can call the broadband industry free market when its such a distinctly monopoly driven economy. Especially when much of what built that monopoly was paid for by the very people its being forced on.
Can you expand on that underlined part? From what I understand, ATT owns most of the phone lines in the US. I don't know much about coaxial cable. I have heard that ATT has to lease some of those lines out, but that, ultimately, they are ATT's.
 
"Screw us today cause I'll be rich tomorrow" is certainly one.

Gov has power of eminent domain, but they only choose to exercise it on the second class citizens it seems. Corporations are supposed to be people right? Then they should play by the same rules:

You take funds (billions) and/or tax breaks for promises you don't/can't keep, you risk losing some property to pay it back, only fair.

Or is Comcast too big to fail?

I'm completely in favor of comcast being pulverized and reduced to ashes. Through the market. Government contracts are the reason for this colossal failure. Rewarding the federal government with more control won't fix existing government failures. Its all about control, and it always has been.

Eminent Domain is fucked, IP law is fucked, and limited liability is fucked. Let everyone fail. I believe in bringing the entire goddamned world down on corporations who trip over their dick. The government prevents this.
 
How to respond to front page HardOCP news that has anything to do with the government or regulations or includes words or anything really. Just do this anyway because it's what everyone here does now:

*Angryloud praxeological centuries-old outdated bullshit about free markets that I learned from youtube yet I have no real economics education to speak of and don't realize that my beloved Austrian School rejects experiential and empirical evidence and denies that mathematical models have any place in economics. Furthermore it requires absolute ideological purity or it crumbles. Must proselytize free markets at all costs. FREE MARKETS. FREE MARKETS. FREE MARKETS. If we're loud enough and shout everyone else down it'll come true!*
 
there is no mathematical model that truly justifies eminent domain.

its stealing.
 
No, but there is a split between the federal and individual states ... Our founding fathers added the 10th amendment for a reason ... ISP regulation is a matter for the states, not the federal government ... Let's not give the Feds more power than they are constitutionally entitled to ;)
Unless the transaction crosses state lines. I'm pretty sure Netflix isn't in Michigan.
 
I'm completely in favor of comcast being pulverized and reduced to ashes. Through the market. Government contracts are the reason for this colossal failure. Rewarding the federal government with more control won't fix existing government failures. Its all about control, and it always has been.

That's not how our understanding of it works. You saying it is so does not make it so either.

Thoma's area of study is the business cycle in macroeconomics under various market and regulatory conditions:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/06/18/7-Important-Examples-of-How-Markets-Can-Fail

He's probably the most easily-digested and clearest resource for general macroeconomics knowledge that relates to actual existing economies.
 
Unless the transaction crosses state lines. I'm pretty sure Netflix isn't in Michigan.

I would potentially support some form of net neutrality (if congress passes a law that allows it) ... However, the talk of regulating ISPs as utilities or treating them as monopolies is a state matter, not one for the Feds ... The states created local monopolies and it is for them to decide to end them
 
The business cycle is largely the market adjusting to malinvestment directly caused by government capital manipulation and regulation in the market, it is exacerbated by government.

Obama-Debt-Ceiling1-1.jpg
 
How would you do this legally without violating the rights of the States and cities though ... we can't arbitrarily make local ISPs the domain of the Federal government (and our constitution would certainly make this outside the domain of the Feds if it went to SCOTUS) ...

not making ISPs domain of the federal government, in the same way anti-trust violations would swing if a company went that direction, simply scale it down to the city level. If a company wants to build up an infrastructure that's fine, however coercion to gain a competitive advantage has always been a big no-no.
 
yes regulate and lower prices while increasing overall speeds and QOS by requiring reinvestment into infrastructure improvements.
BTW, LTE 4G does not replace copper/fiber in this equation!
 
The internet is a utility, no two ways about it. It's borderline impossible to function in modern society without it.
I somewhat disagree with this. I mean anybody who absolutely NEEDS internet for their job will likely live in an area that already has internet readily available. I mean, no computer engineer or computer scientist is going to get a job in the middle of a rural area of Wyoming or something. Besides, I would assume a lot of people in rural areas probably don't even watch television very often, let alone use the internet.
 
I somewhat disagree with this. I mean anybody who absolutely NEEDS internet for their job will likely live in an area that already has internet readily available. I mean, no computer engineer or computer scientist is going to get a job in the middle of a rural area of Wyoming or something. Besides, I would assume a lot of people in rural areas probably don't even watch television very often, let alone use the internet.
Yeah, and fuck those rural people's water and electricity, they build fires out there, right?
 
Zarathustra[H];1040824649 said:
You are both wrong.

Government doesn't entirely create wealth, nor do the entrepreneurs entirely on their own.

Both are required.

You need a government to keep the peace and provide the security, infrastructure, educated populace, etc. that creates an environment for those with the ideas and the willingness to take risks to succeed. Without this, no one (or every few) do succeed.

Once this environment is created and maintained, you need the entrepreneurs to come in, invest and create something out if it.

The concept isn't "you didn't build that" vs. "I built it!". That's just an insane argument, and mostly a straw man, as (apart from you) I've only heard the "you didn't build that" argument as a strawman.

As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Successful entrepreneurs are usually successful for a reason, they had a fantastic idea, worked hard at it and made it happen. But there is also a good amount of luck involved. The pieces falling into place in th eright place at the right time. And if there isn't a society backing up the good environment for business it will never succeed either.

So successful entrepreneurs SHOULD have their rewards. That is perfectly fair. At the same time it is also perfectly fair that they be asked to pay their share to maintain the society that allows them to go out there and be successful.

And yes, those who are successful SHOULD pay more for this society than those who aren't, as they have reaped the biggest benefits of the society.
The government is a parasite. They take and usually don't return, this is the opposite of barter, the basis of the economy, where you willingly exchange and get eomething you wanted/needed in return.

Being a parasite, the best hope is that they return some indirect benefit like the e. coli bacteria in your ass. Even then, e. coli gets out of hand and gives the host diarrhea. The host dies and the e. coli goes what happened? The government has reached that point they no longer return anything close to the economic harm they do. So it borrow, borrows and borrows making sure the end is quite final. There will be nothing for anyone in most of our lifetimes. It won't be a temporary thing.

I like the tortured speech on fairness when pulling back the vail, its really about envy. Somebody made some money. So you want some either for you own pocket or give it for some purpose so you feel good about yourself. Either way that guy isn't as better off than you as they were. Civilization is not possible for a system based on Envy.
 
The point they're making is electricity isn't essential to living, but it is in modern society. The same is true of the internet.
Most of the country is still on well water. When the electricity stops, toilets stop flushing and the water stops right away. In urban areas, tap water will stop in a day or less and become non-potable sooner. Living with a toilet that can't be flushed doesn't compare to satisfying your internet addiction or inability to socialize in person.

Not to mention electricity is needed for heat without which would render many places unlivable. Same could be said for A/C.
 
Not to mention electricity is needed for heat without which would render many places unlivable. Same could be said for A/C.

I lived in Texas as a kid without air conditioning and my parents didn't have AC in their car. We didn't even notice we didn't have it. Nowadays, I don't have AC anywhere but in my car and I hardly ever turn it on.
 
The government is a parasite. They take and usually don't return, this is the opposite of barter, the basis of the economy, where you willingly exchange and get eomething you wanted/needed in return.

Being a parasite, the best hope is that they return some indirect benefit like the e. coli bacteria in your ass. Even then, e. coli gets out of hand and gives the host diarrhea. The host dies and the e. coli goes what happened? The government has reached that point they no longer return anything close to the economic harm they do. So it borrow, borrows and borrows making sure the end is quite final. There will be nothing for anyone in most of our lifetimes. It won't be a temporary thing.

I like the tortured speech on fairness when pulling back the vail, its really about envy. Somebody made some money. So you want some either for you own pocket or give it for some purpose so you feel good about yourself. Either way that guy isn't as better off than you as they were. Civilization is not possible for a system based on Envy.
Without the government you wouldn't even own a computer and your ass would be out hoeing a field somewhere. Don't give me this "tortured speech" bullshit when you're ignorant as to how the system works as a whole. You can't have functioning utilities and no government, this is some retarded republican wet dream that doesn't exist in the real world. It reminds me of that asshole Romney "oh, you're sick, you don't need insurance just go to the ER" like they run on fairy dust or something. The best things happen in moderation, either side gets too fat and the trample over everyone else (be it private individuals, governments, collectives, you name it).
 
We need more regulation. Something closer to what we had before we deregulated but with an extra allowance to allows infrastrucutre builders time limited exclusivity.

Something to the effect of: if you build the road you can be the only one on the road for 2-3 years. Then you have to open your lines to be used by other carriers. That allows the infrastructure builders to establish a market. If they want to KEEP that market they will have to have competitive pricing.

I liked the dig once comment made a couple of pages back.

The point is comcast, TWC (someone I am forgettting) and Verizon own most all the infrastructure. You need 1 billion + dollars to even think of playing cards at their table.

Or force the companies to split into infrastructure providers and service providers.
 
Without the government you wouldn't even own a computer and your ass would be out hoeing a field somewhere. Don't give me this "tortured speech" bullshit when you're ignorant as to how the system works as a whole. You can't have functioning utilities and no government, this is some retarded republican wet dream that doesn't exist in the real world. It reminds me of that asshole Romney "oh, you're sick, you don't need insurance just go to the ER" like they run on fairy dust or something. The best things happen in moderation, either side gets too fat and the trample over everyone else (be it private individuals, governments, collectives, you name it).

I love how every entrepreneurial innovation is always met with scorn over pricing, yet we all owe our very lives to the infallible government for all the great things they've done.

I'm not going to point my head towards the dirt and grovel to my masters, thanks.

Even if you buy into the post-scarcity bullshit, it wasn't government that achieved that.
 
Actually, since you already admitted to having a job and you have to buy the same stuff everyone else does to continue having a comfortable standard of living, you do the exact same things everyone else does whether you like it or not. Sure you can object to it, but that doesn't change the fact that you continue to participate in it like any other citizen and have done nothing at all to relocate to another place that's more agreeable with you.
 
The business cycle is largely the market adjusting to malinvestment directly caused by government capital manipulation and regulation in the market, it is exacerbated by government.
A boom/bust economic cycle was the norm for all of history prior to the institution of central banks and 'heavy handed' 20th century style govt. regulation of the financial markets.

The worst bust ever in US history, the Great Panic of 1873, BTW occurred prior to the existence of the FED and when regulation was either a joke or non-existent during the infamous Gilded/Robber Baron Age.
 
You must be pretty young to think that Microsoft and Intel have not been considered a monopoly and the anti trust investigations that happened back in the day

There's antitrust, and then there are monopolies.

AntiTrust: laws prohibiting groups of companies from establishing Cartel-like groups to control and fix market prices. (Apple was just found guilty of antitrust violations, for instance.) This requires more that one company, obviously.

Monopoly: you're the last man standing in your field, even after having driven *all* of your competitors out of business legally.

Then there's the US DoJ, which constantly changes the law to suit its own agendas (the current DoJ is worse than most in that regard), which most often is used as a weapon for disgruntled Congressmen to use to smite people and/or companies that have somehow offended them personally.

Microsoft was not a group of companies; nor had it driven its competitors out of business (Linux, Sun, Apple, IBM). But none of that mattered to a DoJ driven by political agendas. [The idea that a company could be a "monopoly" within only a certain segment of its business--the desktop, in Microsoft's case--came straight from the mouths of Sun and Netscape, the architects of Microsoft's Kangaroo court. Ironically, those two companies have vanished even after the government "helped" them to hurt Microsoft. Object lesson: trying to compete in a courtroom is a fool's errand.]
 
Maybe, but you usually just say stupid shit.

Like anyone employed can't have a logical dispute with the government.
 
People usually resort to pointing out logical fallacies when they run out of ways to bring up rational arguments to the contrary. :p

This statement doesn't even make sense to me. So people usually give up debating and just point out someone is being illogical when they realize that someone isn't using the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way....what? lol

Of course! :D
 
I lived in Texas as a kid without air conditioning and my parents didn't have AC in their car. We didn't even notice we didn't have it. Nowadays, I don't have AC anywhere but in my car and I hardly ever turn it on.

Constantly having a really hot house isn't very good for certain materials. Maybe you don't care about keeping your house pristine, but most people do since it is generally the biggest purchase they make.
 
Constantly having a really hot house isn't very good for certain materials. Maybe you don't care about keeping your house pristine, but most people do since it is generally the biggest purchase they make.

Well, I do admit that I rent. I like having a clean house but if there's something inside it that's gonna go all peanut butter cup and melt in normal, yucky warm weather, then why would someone build their house with it in the first place?
 
Maybe, but you usually just say stupid shit.

Like anyone employed can't have a logical dispute with the government.

Of course you can have a dispute, but your disagreement goes beyond reason and into the desire to tear down the establishment to replace it with something far more broken which won't even actually work since we've proven from thousands of years of human history that civilizations tend to move toward large, centralized government that controls territory in accordance with technological and communications capabilities. Trying to set yourself apart and go after the system from a position of haughty superiority is made even more silly when you're one of the many nameless, faceless gears that turn in unison with the rest of the machine. I know we all wanna stand out and feel important, different, special or whatever, but the in the end, you're one more part of a much bigger thing that can't grind loudly enough to disrupt the overall functionality. Failing to see that and failing to take an active role in doing something about the situation you despise makes you into another armchair anarchist who cowers like the rest of us when the time comes to actually try to act constructively. You may as well not try to dress the part since you'll never actually play it out.
 
Of course you can have a dispute, but your disagreement goes beyond reason and into the desire to tear down the establishment to replace it with something far more broken which won't even actually work since we've proven from thousands of years of human history that civilizations tend to move toward large, centralized government that controls territory in accordance with technological and communications capabilities. Trying to set yourself apart and go after the system from a position of haughty superiority is made even more silly when you're one of the many nameless, faceless gears that turn in unison with the rest of the machine. I know we all wanna stand out and feel important, different, special or whatever, but the in the end, you're one more part of a much bigger thing that can't grind loudly enough to disrupt the overall functionality. Failing to see that and failing to take an active role in doing something about the situation you despise makes you into another armchair anarchist who cowers like the rest of us when the time comes to actually try to act constructively. You may as well not try to dress the part since you'll never actually play it out.

Set myself apart? Hardly. That is contrary to my entire ethos. I do like that you presume to know what I do and do not do. We have different interpretations of "constructive". Your post also contradicts half your other posts claiming everyone like me should be locked up.
 
Back
Top