| reply to GNH
Re: Free Ticket to Somalia! said by GNH: People like you depend on socialistic governments, people like me do not. As you post to a forum using a technology developed through socialized markets (government-sponsored DARPA development of TCP/IP).
Delivered through rights or way and easements without which, a private ISP would find it impossible to negotiate with every property owner between them and you.
Probably from the comfort of a home built to construction codes and zoning restrictions, altering what willing buyers and sellers would freely negotiate within a "market." (Reducing your caveat emptor when buying or renting. And, eliminating your responsibility to purchase enough property to protect yourself from your neighbor's perfect property right to dispose of their property how they wish, such as a late-night biker bar.).
Perhaps snacking on some food without having to worry (much) about how it was made -- thanks to food and drug quality laws (again, altering what a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce).
After a nice, steamy poo... plopped into water delivered to your home with an ease that wouldn't have existed if left to a "market." Swept away to a treatment facility which, thanks to the zoning laws mentioned above (preventing your neighbor from exercising their perfect property right to compete in that space -- to the benefit of your own property interest.). |
|
 GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | I don't see cable, copper, or fiber as the future. Wireless will drive the Internet within 10 years, max. The capital barriers will melt, and people will control the Internet, not governments.
SO many opinions...
[edit] Worth adding. You're off-topic, for the most part. My disdain and distrust of government has nothing to do with proper functions of the state. And, those issues are discussed elsewhere. Keep it on topic.
--
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket..." -- Hussein Obama |
|
|
|
| said by GNH:Wireless will drive the Internet within 10 years, max. A public resource just as finite as easements and rights of way. Requiring social intervention in the use of those frequencies to prevent them from degenerating into the free-market of CB radio.
said by GNH:You're off-topic, for the most part. My disdain and distrust of government has nothing to do with proper functions of the state. You were the one who accused others of depending on socialism, unlike you. You invited someone to point out a few of the many examples of how you depend on socialized markets too. |
|
GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX | ibid. |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by GNH: People like you depend on socialistic governments, people like me do not. As you post to a forum using a technology developed through socialized markets (government-sponsored DARPA development of TCP/IP). Delivered through rights or way and easements without which, a private ISP would find it impossible to negotiate with every property owner between them and you. Probably from the comfort of a home built to construction codes and zoning restrictions, altering what willing buyers and sellers would freely negotiate within a "market." (Reducing your caveat emptor when buying or renting. And, eliminating your responsibility to purchase enough property to protect yourself from your neighbor's perfect property right to dispose of their property how they wish, such as a late-night biker bar.). Perhaps snacking on some food without having to worry (much) about how it was made -- thanks to food and drug quality laws (again, altering what a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce). After a nice, steamy poo... plopped into water delivered to your home with an ease that wouldn't have existed if left to a "market." Swept away to a treatment facility which, thanks to the zoning laws mentioned above (preventing your neighbor from exercising their perfect property right to compete in that space -- to the benefit of your own property interest.). Using government for R&D type activities makes sense in many cases (space race in the 60's, e.g.). But make no mistake - it's private enterprise that makes these technologies a reality. THIS, btw, is why this move by the FCC is idiotic:
»www.businessweek.com/technology/···1009.htm
It's going to slam the economy. Investment by private industries will start to dry up if companies aren't allowed to regulate what they can charge for usage of their system. |
|
| reply to GNH
Dude... just shut up already. You're talking point has been rendered useless and pointless. |
|
| reply to JPL
said by JPL: But make no mistake - it's private enterprise that makes these technologies a reality. I would say that, in our system of "socialized capitalism," it's a marriage of public and private interests which make most things possible.
If you're saying it could be too excessive in either direction, I agree. But, I don't think it's an either/or proposition.
I do think it's good to err on both sides over time. Less regulation spurs creativity. But, (as we recently saw with the financial/derivative meltdown) creativity by itself isn't perfect either.
I'm not a supporter of so-called "net neutrality." Although, I doubt it will be the Armageddon as the less-regulation fanatics insist.
IMO, regulating broadband by the FCC (and the use of net neutrality) misses the primary problem. Broadband is a locally-created monopoly like water, electric, gas providers. It relies upon the use of finite public easements and rights of way. Something not easily used by anyone seeking to "compete."
If it were me, I would regulate broadband providers as a public utility. Not nationalized. But, a recognition that it's not a competitive "market" either. That it needs to operate in the public interest, not merely what the "market will bear." |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to GNH
said by GNH:I don't see cable, copper, or fiber as the future. Wireless will drive the Internet within 10 years, max. Another thing we need Government for. Imagine the chaos of unregulated spectrum.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| said by KrK:said by GNH:I don't see cable, copper, or fiber as the future. Wireless will drive the Internet within 10 years, max. Another thing we need Government for. Imagine the chaos of unregulated spectrum. All you have to do is try to use a CB radio to find out what that would be like.
- People talking over each other, often intentionally just to disrupt others.
- Not respecting the five-minute rule (limit on conversations).
- Using linear amplifiers with 1000 watts (when CB is limited to 4-12 watts).
- Intentionally trying to talk further than 155 miles (SSB skip) in violation of Rule 13(9).
- Adding extra channels to illegally talk on the "funny frequencies" (between CB's 11-meter band, and amateur's 10-meter).
CB radio is like the Somalia of radio spectrum. If wireless broadband were left to the "free market" it would turn out exactly the same. |
|
| reply to tdouglas22
I laughed so hard when he said "YOU depend on socialistic government! Not me nya nya nya!" |
|
GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| Good grief, you people have no clue. Neither one of you know me, you have zero intelligence regarding how much I do or do not depend on "government." I've found far too many people, just like you two, that haven't lived long enough to even develop an informed opinion on the negatives associated with unnecessary government regulation. Both of you can squirt milk out of your nose and laugh away. Makes no difference to me, whatsoever. I would expect you two to do just that, because that kind of behavior goes hand-in-hand with your level of education.
The government has ZERO business regulating the Internet, and they will not be successful in their efforts. So, deal with it.
--
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket..." -- Hussein Obama |
|
GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX | reply to amigo_boy
You know very little. You can't compare citizens band to an IP network. That's idiotic. |
|
| reply to GNH
said by GNH:The government has ZERO business regulating the Internet, ... Not even fraud? |
|
GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX
1 edit | That's not regulation, it's law enforcement.
[edit] But, I understand you can't see the subtlety. |
|
| reply to GNH
said by GNH:You know very little. You can't compare citizens band to an IP network. That's idiotic. Why?
Why should we assume that one user of broadband wireless wouldn't use a high-power amplifier to drown out competing users?
Or, that someone who wishes to use that spectrum for other purposes (like the way CB users wander into unlicensed spectrum between 10 and 11 meters, and even show up on licensed 10-meter spectrum)? |
|
GNHtolle causamPremium
join:1999-12-20
Arlington, TX Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| You've got to be kidding... You need to give more thought to the technology; both AM and TCP/IP over Wifi. You're comparing apples to sirloin.
--
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket..." -- Hussein Obama |
|
| reply to GNH
said by GNH:That's not regulation, it's law enforcement. [edit] But, I understand you can't see the subtlety. (Chuckle.). Regulation is always through through law.
Now we're just debating what is valid "law enforcement." Or, what behaviors are characteristic of "fraud."
The camel's nose is now inside the tent and you have to deal with subtleties that you wish didn't exist. Like, whether spam is fraud. Or, spam with fake SMTP headers.
Or, if an ISP advertises a speed that is rarely obtained (and thus the industry would benefit from the equivalent of nutritional labeling, common metrics presented in a common format).
Or, if an ISP has become a monopoly through the use of public rights of way and easements. (Monopolies are discouraged by our system of capitalism because they share characteristics of fraud).
It's easy to say "the government shouldn't regulate...." But, what you really mean is they shouldn't regulate it to a level you happen to disagree with. And, you're probably unable to articulate what that level is.
Thus, it's easier to just make a ridiculous blanket assertion "the government shouldn't regulate..." and hope nobody asks any questions. |
|
| reply to GNH
said by GNH:You've got to be kidding... You need to give more thought to the technology; both AM and TCP/IP over Wifi. You're comparing apples to sirloin. What are you talking about? You're saying a 1000 watt level of power wouldn't interfere with neighbors using 1 watt of power?
Or, that someone broadcasting FM voice wouldn't interfere with multiple wifi channels? |
|
 PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | reply to GNH
So, are you saying that you trust the Baby Bells to not restrict your flow of information? I hope you don't live in an area where that's the only choice. The government is stepping in here so that companies like AT&T and Verizon don't do what you fear the government is going to do. I'd say that regulating the INTERNET is a pretty important function of public infrastructure given that the Internet was developed as a public network of networks. If anyone is going to take us down the road of Socialism here it is the Bell Monopolies. |
|
