Fuck you Europe we own the interwebs!

[kushoffer]

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.

ahhhhhh shit i know you arent talkin to me---are you honestly going to argue this? Dude we created this shit, so everyone else can fuck off and play by our rules. Our internet is what it is today because of freedom of speech and not being regulated.... another concept created by America. They dont like it then dont use it plain and simple. We arent going to give up control of our freedom because other countries are butt hurt they dont have a hand in the greatest invention of our time.

Sucks for them, maybe one day other countries will do something great and we can do some tradework.

 

[Deliguy]

they make some good points. ICANN is defacto international but they are regulated by the US government? That doesn't make a whole ton of sense. It also doesn't help that our law makers are idiots when it comes to the Internet. Just look at their track records. Remember when they tried to make an "E-Stamp" tax on emails. lol.

 

[erisch]

I don't have internet at home, so I had to wait til today before I could reply.

First of all, we, as broadband consumers, would benefit from commodification. I assume we're all marketers, and not broadband providers, right? One way we would benefit is that more people would have access to broadband. No need to argue that one, right?

Secondly, is there competition in commoditized goods and services? Yes. Competition = choice or diversity. Competition is driven by needs, which means consumers would have their needs met by the market.

Profit margins increased by larger market share? Hah. This might be true in high growth markets, but like I said, there will be little growth in the broadband market simply because the underlying infrastructure as it is today will meet our demands for the next 50 years.

Should the industry be regulated? Yes, but only to protect consumers (and free speach, if you want).

Kushoffer, shut up and go watch Nascar, Fox is not good for you.

they make some good points. ICANN is defacto international but they are regulated by the US government? That doesn't make a whole ton of sense. It also doesn't help that our law makers are idiots when it comes to the Internet. Just look at their track records. Remember when they tried to make an "E-Stamp" tax on emails. lol.

If the broadband industry was regulated by G20, the rest of the world would not have to worry about what happens in a corrupt government run by corporations. And the way I see it, there are more non-US users of the internet than the US population.

Now, I know a bunch of you are gonna jump at the chance of wording your opinions on what I said about the US government being corrupt, so let me just point out one thing for you first: Would there be arbitrary policy inconsistency if the government only acted in the best interest of the people? No. Is the Surgery General telling people to quit smoking? Yes. Is the agriculture industry (especially tobacco farmers) protected by tarrifs? Yes. Inconsistent. Imagine all the other stuff that's going on over there...

 

[LogicFlux]

Now, I know a bunch of you are gonna jump at the chance of wording your opinions on what I said about the US government being corrupt, so let me just point out one thing for you first: Would there be arbitrary policy inconsistency if the government only acted in the best interest of the people? No. Is the Surgery General telling people to quit smoking? Yes. Is the agriculture industry (especially tobacco farmers) protected by tarrifs? Yes. Inconsistent. Imagine all the other stuff that's going on over there...

This guy seems a lot smarter than you so you should probably read his post.

 

[guerilla]

First of all, we, as broadband consumers, would benefit from commodification. I assume we're all marketers, and not broadband providers, right? One way we would benefit is that more people would have access to broadband. No need to argue that one, right?

That does not follow that commodification will get more people online. The Soviets commodified everything, and they had shortages and lines for basic goods. Typically, state intereference in an industry decreases service and increases cost.

I want more people online with more money to spend. Not a bunch of people on slow connections that have my landing pages banned at the government regulated ISP.

Secondly, is there competition in commoditized goods and services? Yes. Competition = choice or diversity. Competition is driven by needs, which means consumers would have their needs met by the market.

Broadband is not a natural commodity. It has qualitative differences. The only way to commodify it, would be to regulate it into sameness. That would limit competition and choice. All market interventions cause distortions and prevent maximum efficiency and by extension, consumer satisfaction.

Profit margins increased by larger market share? Hah. This might be true in high growth markets, but like I said, there will be little growth in the broadband market simply because the underlying infrastructure as it is today will meet our demands for the next 50 years.

So your suggestion (based on previous posts) is to regulate artificially high profits. Oh, but you are all about the consumer.

50 years ago, most people still did not have color televisions. You have no idea what the broadband needs will be 50 years from now, and to suggest you do is blatantly dishonest.

Should the industry be regulated? Yes, but only to protect consumers (and free speach, if you want).

This is an oxymoron. It has been explained to you clearly, regulation is protection. Which is bad for consumers. You cannot protect consumers except by enforcing laws against fraud (which is theft). All other attempts are simply petit monopoly dressed up as populist policy.

If the broadband industry was regulated by G20, the rest of the world would not have to worry about what happens in a corrupt government run by corporations.

Uhm, the G20 is an unelected, undemocratic body. IT IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. All global bureaucracies are anti-democracy including the UN.

And the way I see it, there are more non-US users of the internet than the US population.

It's who can pay, not who can be a free rider. The internet is a meritocracy, you fucking socialists are going to ruin it with your idiotic notions of equality. Again, equality is only possible by dumbing down the net, it is impossible to make shitty sites good, but it is easy to make good sites shitty by regulating them.

Now, I know a bunch of you are gonna jump at the chance of wording your opinions on what I said about the US government being corrupt, so let me just point out one thing for you first: Would there be arbitrary policy inconsistency if the government only acted in the best interest of the people? No. Is the Surgery General telling people to quit smoking? Yes. Is the agriculture industry (especially tobacco farmers) protected by tarrifs? Yes. Inconsistent. Imagine all the other stuff that's going on over there...

Even if the US government was hell on earth, all of your economic arguments fail. Even if the internet was run by George Bush and a cageful of retarded monkeys, that would not justify regulation or commodification.

Leave shit alone. The internet is doing fine. It's growing, broadband penetration is increasing, and that is what markets do. They evolve and grow as long as you don't fuck with them, trying to live out some social engineering fantasy.

If you want to increase broadband penetration, start an ISP. Stop trying to take fascist control of existing businesses and their capital through the power of the state.

 

[erisch]

Thank you for that valuable insight..

Just kidding. I agree with what he is saying. But it seems most of you guys are looking at the situation from the wrong point of view. What do you care if broadband service providers earn less? Would you not benefit from increased global broadband penetration (Yup, I used the word penetration)?

In a commoditized market, there will be enough choice to fit most peoples' needs because of free market mechanics. But do you really want so much choice that providers start to bundle offers to disguise price and make it more difficult to compare? Because that is the reality today.

I want to remind people to mind their own business, not the broadband service providers business.

 

[erisch]

^ was referring to LogicFlux post. Will look at guerillas post after class.

 

[droplister]

I don't have the wherewithal to read all this, but I see you guys talking about broadband a lot. Which leads me to believe you don't even understand what ICANN does. :ugone2far:

 

[erisch]

Heh.. Yeah, it's not really about ICANN. Don't know why. I didn't really read the article But it still applies to ICANN. Enabling and facilitating services are closely related.

guerilla:
increase in consumer surplus = increase in real income.
Since when did the communists have anything to do with this?
A civil law system would "regulate" an industry, not protect it.

class again. be back soon

 

[guerilla]

guerilla:
increase in consumer surplus = increase in real income.

What is consumer surplus?

Since when did the communists have anything to do with this?

You're proposing state regulation over an industry driven by free speech.

A civil law system would "regulate" an industry, not protect it.

What part of "all regulation is protection" do you not understand?

Regulation creates barriers to entry. Which limit competition. Which protects existing players.

If you can't refute this simple logic, you can always provide an example of regulation that comes at with no cost, or creates no barrier.

 

[guerilla]

Estonia has been 100% connected for a year. Next, 100MBPS ! |

It’s been over a year since Estonia announced every inch of the nation was connected via WiFi.

While muni wifi languishes in larger American cities, and US rural coverage is spotty at best, former Soviet state Estonia now has Wifi service reaching any location within its boundaries. Quite a feat from a country that was in total financial and technological melt down a couple of decades ago. This has been accomplished the without support of, or more importantly, without interference from the government.

Often called E-stonia by geeks, every one of its 1.4 million residents, half of which live in the suburban and rural areas, are connected by wireless Internet. More than two-thirds of the population conduct their personal banking transactions and file their taxes online. And school children access the school’s servers and connect to national libraries from home — or anywhere for that matter. In Estonia it is even possible to travel between cities by trains and busses and maintain Wi-Fi Internet access.

Above all, much of this access comes virtually free. Users do not pay any access charges directly in most locations. And interestingly, this wireless deployment through the whole country has been achieved with almost no government support. Barring a few schools and libraries that have been set up by the Estonian government, the 1100-plus Wi-Fi hotspots that span the country, covering every nook and corner, have been set up by local small businesses, such as hotels, cafes, groceries and gas stations, along with the four national telecom companies. And the whole effort has been and still is driven largely by just one man: Veljo Haamer, a technology geek who conceived this dream of wiring - or rather unwiring — his country about 6 years ago. (Government Technology)
​

What’s next? 100 MBPS for all by 2015. It’s good to have decisive leadership that hasn’t sold out to a duopoly.

Tallinn - Estonia unveiled ambitious plans Friday to get high-speed internet access to every one of the Baltic state’s 1.3 million residents by 2015. An agreement reached by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and an industry group - the Association of Estonian Information Technology and Telecommunications Companies - promises to turn the entire country into a super-high speed internet hotspot by means of a project called EstWin.

“If the 19th century was the era of railways, and the 20th century saw the development of electricity grids, the 21st century is the era of development of communications networks,” said Economy Minister Juhan Parts. Getting the whole country online would have major economic benefits, Parts said. EstWin will make available an internet connection of at least 100 megabits per second across the country by means of nearly 7,000 kilometres of fibre-optic cabling and 1,400 wireless hotspots. (Earth Times)​

​

Without government interference. Brilliant. All hail the market.

 

[xmcp123]

Thank you for that valuable insight..

Just kidding. I agree with what he is saying. But it seems most of you guys are looking at the situation from the wrong point of view. What do you care if broadband service providers earn less? Would you not benefit from increased global broadband penetration (Yup, I used the word penetration)?

It's not worth the massive regulation of the internet we'd see with the G20 in charge.

In a commoditized market, there will be enough choice to fit most peoples' needs because of free market mechanics. But do you really want so much choice that providers start to bundle offers to disguise price and make it more difficult to compare? Because that is the reality today.

That's fine with me. They're running a business, not a charity. And as soon as it's not companies in charge, there's not much of free market anything left. The fact that you even said that is laughable.

I want to remind people to mind their own business, not the broadband service providers business.

Says the person whining about their bundling.

It all comes down to this: The internet has survived, prospered, and become what it is because the governments don't cooperate.
If you really really want to say something, there's piss they can do about it. If I pay a guy in China for a server in South Korea and get someone else(let's say they're in india) to register the domain through a german registrar, the sheer amount of paperwork it takes to find me protects my right to say what I want.
Really, it keeps the internet in it's current free-wheeling state that we do so love.

The minute any global government-involved entity controls it, that's all gone.

Can you imagine what 4chan would look like if the network was owned by News Corp or something like it

I actually literally laughed out loud when I read this.
If the g20/any government really were in charge, not only would they be regulating it, but they're so much in pocket of the major media corporations that what you're so afraid of would become even more a reality, just via shady agreements between companies and countries/officials.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with both LotsOfZeroes AND guerilla, but the idea of putting the g20 in charge is too pathetic to support.

 

[xmcp123]

Bump to see if erisch will reply.