Fuck you Europe we own the interwebs!
- Thread starter kushoffer
- Start date
- Status
The Europeans are notorious for regulating "public goods". While American control of the internet is not ideal, it is vastly superior to surrendering it to the EU, and ultimately the UN.
Once global (corporate) government starts regulating the internet, small operators are fucked. They will do exactly what they have done in education, banking, banking, law, transportation etc. They will create barriers to entry to protect their brands from competition.
Once global (corporate) government starts regulating the internet, small operators are fucked. They will do exactly what they have done in education, banking, banking, law, transportation etc. They will create barriers to entry to protect their brands from competition.
Let me get this straight. You reference Fox and follow up with something that is supposed to be an argument?
There wouldn't be a need to regulate a commodity. Its just that broadband is not quite a commodity yet in most parts of the world. Can you imagine what 4chan would look like if the network was owned by News Corp or something like it(which is the way it seems to be going in the US, UK and Australia)? If the internet was regulated by G20, then at least it would be fair and balanced.
There wouldn't be a need to regulate a commodity. Its just that broadband is not quite a commodity yet in most parts of the world. Can you imagine what 4chan would look like if the network was owned by News Corp or something like it(which is the way it seems to be going in the US, UK and Australia)? If the internet was regulated by G20, then at least it would be fair and balanced.
That statement is completely nonsensical. Broadband is not a commodity. It is a service.
But it isn't. Precisely because no one is regulating 4Chan.
Fair can be accomplished by not regulating. Balanced is not desirable. We want a great internet which necessitates having bad parts of the internet. Balance seeks to remove the exceptional and the pathetic. Balance can only come by dumbing down the exceptional, because there is no rising tide that can take a shitty website and make it great just by passing a law.
Learn the lessons of communism. Leave control in the hands of the surfers, not the government.
Just wanted to add, the G20 and UN, and to a degree, the EU are unelected bodies. I hate democracy, but the notion of having people making laws and regulating, when they have no constituents to answer to, and can openly trade power for money disgusts me. In America, treaties trump the Constitution. So as Obama is pushing CIFTA right now, if it passes, the 2nd Amendment, while still a part of the Constitution, will be null in effect. This shit is a big deal when rulers get together and make plots without the democratic process or any populist feedback.
Leave the internet unregulated. It is 100 times better as it is, than anything the government has stuck it's fingers into like print, radio and television, all industries the governments have managed to corrupt and kill.
/rant
I back up a copy of the internet on my thumb drive every night just in case it crashes.
So, I own the internet.
So, I own the internet.
I'm not gonna quote you quoting me, guerilla, but I'd still like to point out your mistakes.
I usually don't like referencing Wikipedia, but in your case I'll make an exception.
Commodity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commodification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, basically what I'm saying is that a quick search on Google was all you had to do before you opened your keyboard.
I usually don't like referencing Wikipedia, but in your case I'll make an exception.
Commodity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commodification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, basically what I'm saying is that a quick search on Google was all you had to do before you opened your keyboard.
This should be fun.
I love it when people say this. It means "I know Wikipedia is a horrible source, but I can't come up with a better one to defend my argument."
From your first link;
I wasn't aware that ISPs did not provide differentiation in broadband service. Apparently cable and DSL are the same thing? Wireless too?
From your second link;
Being that I am not a marxist, and reject most of Marx's theories, from communism to the labour theory of value, I don't know why I am expected to conform to the definitions of a discredited school of economic thought.
I didn't even need to check Google. I'm competent enough on economics that I don't have to rush to a dictionary to find a definition when I have a point to make.
Nice try, but you are trying to run this on the wrong fella.
Adrian Slywotzky at Mercer wrote a book in 98 called The Profit Zone which is what I'm reading at the moment.
In the book he mentions that companies should avoid differentiating on price because it leads to commodification.
I guess it's not really an academic look at economics, but more a real world look at strategic business designs, however I still think my point is valid.
And my point was that a commoditized industry would not need regulation because the free market (and a functioning legal system) would take care of that.
So, if the broadband industry is to be regulated, I would prefer it if G20 did it instead of the US.
Did you miss the second link in your quote before you rejected Marxist theories?
I separated my sentences to make it easier for you to quote me.
Just one last thing.
Differentiation is not width or depth of service offering, but rather how the service is perceived to differ from competitors.
In the book he mentions that companies should avoid differentiating on price because it leads to commodification.
I guess it's not really an academic look at economics, but more a real world look at strategic business designs, however I still think my point is valid.
And my point was that a commoditized industry would not need regulation because the free market (and a functioning legal system) would take care of that.
So, if the broadband industry is to be regulated, I would prefer it if G20 did it instead of the US.
Did you miss the second link in your quote before you rejected Marxist theories?
I separated my sentences to make it easier for you to quote me.
Just one last thing.
Differentiation is not width or depth of service offering, but rather how the service is perceived to differ from competitors.
If you understand economics, that idea is completely ridiculous.
Commodification is when there is no qualitative differences between offerings. What part of that is not understood? All broadband is not the same product. It's not delivered the same way, it doesn't perform the same way, and that is why it has to be priced differently.
That is a false premise. The US has regulatory control, and chooses not to regulate it. That is the ideal given the world we live in is filled with politicians who want to control and destroy the market.
Which quote?
And it is perceived to differ if it has more or less depth of service.
Wow.
Dude, I don't think that you realize that you actually agree with me.
As customers of broadband companies, we would benefit from the service being more uniform and quantifiable (=commoditized). As service providers, broadband companies would benefit from larger profit margins (= less uniform and unquantifiable). In order for the consumers to "win", the industry needs regulation instead of protection. This might be unique to the broadband industry because of what happened leading up to the burst of the tech bubble (over investment in capacity), but I don't see how it can be misunderstood. I think an important point to make here is that regulation of the industry does not mean that there will be more rules to how consumers can use the internet, but rather how the providers can limit the service.
As customers of broadband companies, we would benefit from the service being more uniform and quantifiable (=commoditized). As service providers, broadband companies would benefit from larger profit margins (= less uniform and unquantifiable). In order for the consumers to "win", the industry needs regulation instead of protection. This might be unique to the broadband industry because of what happened leading up to the burst of the tech bubble (over investment in capacity), but I don't see how it can be misunderstood. I think an important point to make here is that regulation of the industry does not mean that there will be more rules to how consumers can use the internet, but rather how the providers can limit the service.
No, we would not. We benefit from more diversity in the market, not less. That includes type, model, price, quality and any other qualitative measurement you can muster. Diverse markets are innovative, they are large, and they are resilient.
Larger profit margins must come about by gaining market share in competition.
Regulation is protection. Consumers win when they have choices. When the market responds to their needs and means to pay, not when it is arbitrarily ordered by some meeting of global bureaucrats.
I think you may misunderstand free market economics.
Which is a barrier to entry. Which reduces competition. Which creates protectionist prices and lowers the quality and diversity of service.
All regulation is protection. Companies best regulate by satisfying consumer demand. Only competition makes this possible. All regulation is anti-competitive.
ICANN is pretty lame in how they don't open .com up for bids. There are a lot of companies, like GoDaddy, that would run the extremely profitable registry for much less than Verisign. But they are also great in the fact that they don't do shit. Seriously, ICANN just chills, has meetings around the world, and collects mons.
Fuck anyone that wants to take control of or change who controls the web, because no one should. And since ICANN doesn't do shit anyways they are about as close as we can get to no one in charge.
Complate privitization would suck. ICANN has made some pretty crappy agreements with Verisign about the costs of domains. I don't care to learn the deals they would make in private.
More on that http://news.cnet.com/ICANN,-VeriSign-make-strange-bedfellows/2010-1032_3-5961566.html
Fuck anyone that wants to take control of or change who controls the web, because no one should. And since ICANN doesn't do shit anyways they are about as close as we can get to no one in charge.
Complate privitization would suck. ICANN has made some pretty crappy agreements with Verisign about the costs of domains. I don't care to learn the deals they would make in private.
More on that http://news.cnet.com/ICANN,-VeriSign-make-strange-bedfellows/2010-1032_3-5961566.html
I don't know any internet business owner that would rather operate under any body of law on the internet than American law. I also don't know any law colleagues that support such an opinion, either. American common law is one of America's greatest and most receptive exports.
On the topic of commoditization of broadband, I don't understand this. Commoditization shrinks margin. Commoditization also increases barriers to entry as room for competitive advantage in innovation approaches zero unless the commodity as a whole gets an aggregate benefit, in which the innovation is implemented across the entire commodity industry. Changes are slow to roll out and incentives plummet.
This is true for virtually all commodities.
In a rapidly developing technology like internet access, I can't see how anyone can view commoditization as a desired outcome. It will happen one day due to the nature of interoperable networks, but you're preaching false commoditization through regulation, where regulatory barriers STRUCTURALLY shrink differentiation across the market.
On the topic of commoditization of broadband, I don't understand this. Commoditization shrinks margin. Commoditization also increases barriers to entry as room for competitive advantage in innovation approaches zero unless the commodity as a whole gets an aggregate benefit, in which the innovation is implemented across the entire commodity industry. Changes are slow to roll out and incentives plummet.
This is true for virtually all commodities.
In a rapidly developing technology like internet access, I can't see how anyone can view commoditization as a desired outcome. It will happen one day due to the nature of interoperable networks, but you're preaching false commoditization through regulation, where regulatory barriers STRUCTURALLY shrink differentiation across the market.
- Status