GasBandit
Staff member
Net Neutrality's been dead for a while and they just were hoping you didn't notice.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
This does explain why Google is doing the whole Google Fiber thing: they want to undercut everyone before they start demanding outrageous fees.
Necronic
Staff member
Google's move into the land of ISP really is the glamor story of the success of free market capitalism. Old entitled industries that developed in a way to avoid competition are seriously threatened by a very ambitious upstart that wants to redefine the playing field.
Here's hoping it never becomes a cautionary tail on monopolies.
Here's hoping it never becomes a cautionary tail on monopolies.
I don't think there's a whole lot of free market involved in Googles ISP efforts. They got some crazy exemptions for right of ways and freebies from the local governments of the area. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-taxpayers-support-google-fiber/
I doubt google will make much of a dent in the issues Netflix is having. It's not even Netflix that's having the issue, it's their ISP Cogent. Basically ISP's have an agreement to send fairly equal amounts of bandwidth to each other. When that get's too far off, they ISP using the extra bandwidth will pay the other one. Usually the company causing the problem will pay it, but Netflix doesn't want to. That doesn't make it ok, but it's not really about Verizon specifically throttling Netflix like some are making it out to be. It's business as it's always been, but Netflix is the one that happens to be dealing with it now. So unless Google is able to reach most of the US, they're not going to be able to change much.
Necronic
Staff member
I didn't realize that there were subsidies being given, although it makes sense. And reading those subidies....meh, they are on par or smaller than those you see in any big new industry coming to town. This is a step out utility as well, which justifies significant subsidization.
GasBandit
Staff member
This may sound somewhat unlibertarian of me, but the fact of the matter is that internet access is de facto infrastructure like roads, highways and phone landlines. When the first company to lay the pipe becomes the de facto monopoly provider for internet service, you have market monopolization issues. As I've often said, the one true task that should be given to governments is to bust monopolies, but you can't really do that with infrastructure such as the internet. Thus, some government meddling is unfortunately necessary, though it should all be as transparent as possible.
Necronic
Staff member
Wait....you're anti-monopoly? That is more than a bit surprising.
Also, I agree with you about the cable lines. They should be government owned and then treat them like power lines, either make it a city utility, or have the utility companies compete for and buy bandwidth on the state lines. I've lived in cities with both versions. The advantage of the former is that it's simple to get power. I've heard that it's cheaper to get power in the latter, but after 6 years in houston I have yet to see that.
Also, I agree with you about the cable lines. They should be government owned and then treat them like power lines, either make it a city utility, or have the utility companies compete for and buy bandwidth on the state lines. I've lived in cities with both versions. The advantage of the former is that it's simple to get power. I've heard that it's cheaper to get power in the latter, but after 6 years in houston I have yet to see that.
My big issue is just when people try to hail this as some sort of model for what can happen when government lets the free market reign. This never would have happened if they hadn't gotten free right of ways, free rackspace, free offices, free marketing and mailing, etc. Those are HUGE expenses and the reason there is little to no competition for ISP's. The barrier to entry is huge, and if anything this shows how government should get involved to encourage competition.[DOUBLEPOST=1372108313][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'd much rather have the government own the conduit for the fiber and co-lo's housing all the equipment. Fiber is getting cheap enough that it's not crazy for a small telecom to put down it's own fiber. Digging up the ground and roadways and paying for right of ways is what ends up killing most.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, it's one of my only two major departings from libertarian doctrine (the other being military size). I believe that the government should and must actively promote competition in the free market because that's how the market balances itself - and if one entity in the market becomes so strong as to prevent competition (a la Ma Bell) the government has the responsibility to break them up or in some other way ensure continued competition. Competition is what got the US the best, most advanced, lowest price and highest selection market for cell phones. Lack of it is what got us the crappiest bandwidth and television channel selection in the developed world.
I'm going to 2nd this sentiment when it comes to breaking up monopolies and cartels. The virtues of capitalism only come when there is vigorous competition for consumer dollars, or hiring labour. When you get into a stagnant situation either way, that's when the abuses come about. It's government's role to promote competition for consumers, and competition for labour. Then most other things (hardly all, tons of exceptions) work themselves out, and that type of system is at its best.
You mean 85+% of electricity prices being taxes isn't the normal state of things? Who knew?! *sigh*
American Factory Boss held hostage by his Chinese workers for severance packages.
Apparently stuff like this happens all the time in China.
Apparently stuff like this happens all the time in China.
It's good because the southern states are no longer held to a different standard than other states.
It's bad because they've STILL been excluding blacks and other minorities even under the Voting Rights Act and now they can do it openly until the courts catch up and strike down each new voting rule they make. So if they enact a rule right before election day, there will be no recourse for the voters.
GasBandit
Staff member
But then, how will the human sponges who can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of paying attention (won't even call it research) know which candidate to vote for to keep the gravy train rolling? HOW?!Like the incredibly racist decision of removing party affiliation from local election candidates on the ballot
How are those two things alike?Like the incredibly racist decision of removing party affiliation from local election candidates on the ballot
It's worth noting that this move was passed overwhelmingly by Kinston's voters (65% of which are black), but struck down by a DC Judge because without party affiliation black voters wouldn't be able to figure out who to vote for.
The most racist thing in the entire case was the judge's Charlie-like decision.
The most racist thing in the entire case was the judge's Charlie-like decision.
See the biggest issue is that it's discriminatory towards a certain set of states and still based on voting data that's ~40 years old despite the law being renewed in 2006. As was mentioned above the correct approach to this would be to apply these standards across all 50 states. [edit] Or at least update the data and redetermine where situations apply.
Obviously racism persists and the federal government should have the ability to combat voter discrimination... but I'm not comfortable with 9 states being singled out, and especially not fond of the US government using decades-old data to do it. I'm not all that bothered by the decision. The Justice Department just needs to be smarter (lol) about how they guarantee equal access at the polls.
We'd have to break congress first. It's very hard to fix something which is broken with a broken tool.
Necronic
Staff member
So this article came out with a bunch of incredibly damning e-mails at ratings agencies from before the financial crisis. This is imho the smoking gun. Or....A smoking gun. I don't understand how this happens and how no one pays for this. In my industry if you mismanage your job and cause an industrial accident through pure negligence then there is a decent chance someone is going to jail.
I'm just....man this article kills me. I can't even say I'm mad. I'm just sad.
I'm just....man this article kills me. I can't even say I'm mad. I'm just sad.
They won't, there's too much money involved. We'll just get regulations that look good, but do nothing other than make it harder for small banks to do business. So they end up getting swallowed up by bigger banks, making it worse.
So far my prediction from the crash is holding up. Nobody of any importance will see any jail time from this.
And I read that in Al's voice...
GasBandit
Staff member
Me too, complete with "studio audience" laugh track making him take pauses between the lines.
I seriously had the laugh track too. It's crazy.
A criminal WMD just MAY have a lower threshold than a Nation State having WMD.
GasBandit
Staff member
My real point is that's a stupid distinction. When is a WMD a WMD? When American knee jerk reaction says so?
The Boston bomb was a conventional bomb. Not a WMD. It's asinine, trumped up nonsense that only makes us look even less like a nation governed by the rule of law. There were no biological, nuclear or toxic chemical elements in the devices used to attack the Boston Marathon.