beerslurpy
member
So do you oppose or support a legislative solution?
MoveOn.org and the GOA agree on something!
- Thread starter liberalgunnut
- Start date
- Status
One of Many
Member
I think that a bigger problem exists than how much you pay for a Internet service based on volume. That problem is lack of competition in local access. In most local areas, there is only one ISP that you can obtain service from, or at best there is one dialup ISP, and one high bandwidth ISP. That lack of competition allows the ISP to charge higher prices than they could if a choice of provider existed, and allows the user to choose only a "take it or leave it" package.
Lack of choice means that if you have a problem with your service, the ISP can blow you off for a week (they don't have the manpower to fix your problem quickly - you go on the waiting list). It means that you have to pay for a service call, even though the problem is due to a breakdown in ISP equipment.
What we really need is more competition. Require all the ISP companies to go head to head in all markets, rural as well as urban. The way things are now, ISP companies can ignore areas that have lower population densities, and concentrate on major cities where they maximize profits.
Internet service at this time is like electric power service or telephone service in rural areas was for many years; either unavailable, or monopolized by a single provider.
Lack of choice means that if you have a problem with your service, the ISP can blow you off for a week (they don't have the manpower to fix your problem quickly - you go on the waiting list). It means that you have to pay for a service call, even though the problem is due to a breakdown in ISP equipment.
What we really need is more competition. Require all the ISP companies to go head to head in all markets, rural as well as urban. The way things are now, ISP companies can ignore areas that have lower population densities, and concentrate on major cities where they maximize profits.
Internet service at this time is like electric power service or telephone service in rural areas was for many years; either unavailable, or monopolized by a single provider.
Helmetcase
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2005
- Messages
- 706
Me? You know you're my main man, would do no such thing
. I think I do largely see the merits of the points you're making--I think it's a matter of deciding which poison we want to swallow, a clumsy govt effort at keeping MCI/Verizon and ATT/BellSouth/SBC from getting an oversized say in what we see on the net, and just letting them duke it out the way we've largely done with other media outlets, and see what comes from it.Because traditional media are so closely held by just a few outlets (Ted Turner, NewsCorp, etc), I think it drives a market for an independent web driven alternative. I know I get most of my news from various right and left blogs, sites like THR, etc.
liberalgunnut
Member
By the way... I selected the location of my home based in large part due to the available hi-speed access. I don't think that companies should be forced to put in broadband access for everyone. I think that should be market driven. I just don't think that we should be paying for the infrastructure AND the access... while at the same time getting less service. What this primarily republican lead legislation is suggesting is that we should be doing exactly that. Like Ted Stevens says... and he's much more of an expert on this than any of us given that he leads the committee that is pushing this...
Okay, so you're asking me to be upset about a "potentially bad thing"? I'm not upset about it, and I say so. And you fire back all sorts of crap.
"Intellectually lazy" -- no, hopelessly naive -- is what I call it when people quote someone who is being paid -- well -- to say what he's saying as if his words are truth. I don't care what his name is.
Vint Cerf's words are as subject to dispute as anyone's. Ad hominem is no more basis for defense as it is for attack.
liberalgunnut
Member
liberalgunnut
Member
In my home I freely pay whatever I need to for access. I never said that I had ANY problem paying for access (my total internet bill exceeds $300/mo) I pay comcast $169 for 7meg down 1.5 up. My business operates in a totally free market based economy. Where did I say I needed protection? All I want is access... if it cost more I could care less. Most of my clients are operating several OC3 connections that cost 500k+ per month... they are not complaining. the problem is legislation that controls WHO gets access. Please don't put words in my mouth.:banghead:
By the way... in case you don't understand... I am a capitalist, I am for a totally free market were I can get the same access as you given that I'm willing to pay the same for access as you.
beerslurpy
member
Liberal, who is proposing such legislation? The only legislation I have come across is one that proposes to do the exact opposite of what you are condemning.
I dont oppose it because of the proposed substance of the legislation, I oppose it becase
1) I have low confidence in washington getting it right
2) most of the problems at this point are purely speculative. Most of the people who have a horse in this race spend little time talking about actual problems that need to be solved and lots of time attacking hypotheticals.
It basically seems like an excuse to exercise the old legislative prerogative. I would bet money that the end result of any such legislation will favor these big businesses over you or me. Ironic that the liberals are arguing in favor of such interference while the supposedly evil conservatives are arguing against it. Is the free market evil even when it works?
I dont oppose it because of the proposed substance of the legislation, I oppose it becase
1) I have low confidence in washington getting it right
2) most of the problems at this point are purely speculative. Most of the people who have a horse in this race spend little time talking about actual problems that need to be solved and lots of time attacking hypotheticals.
It basically seems like an excuse to exercise the old legislative prerogative. I would bet money that the end result of any such legislation will favor these big businesses over you or me. Ironic that the liberals are arguing in favor of such interference while the supposedly evil conservatives are arguing against it. Is the free market evil even when it works?
liberalgunnut
Member
slurpy,
There is a net neutrality proposal (put up by members of both parties but it's being blocked by mostly republicans and a few dems lead by Ted Stevens) that would keep things on a payment for access/use basis. it would require providers treat all content the same. It does not suggest that fees cannot be charged accordingly for internet use. currently the provider lobbyists are pushing for a system that lets them decide which content has the most market value for them and allow them to give that content access to ultra-high speed access while denying that access to say people like those running this site.
No one is asking for anything for free... this is about access and content. By the way... to be clear I'm all for getting rid of the Democrats that do not favor net neutrality. Sorry if my original post was a little confusing on the legislative side.
There is a net neutrality proposal (put up by members of both parties but it's being blocked by mostly republicans and a few dems lead by Ted Stevens) that would keep things on a payment for access/use basis. it would require providers treat all content the same. It does not suggest that fees cannot be charged accordingly for internet use. currently the provider lobbyists are pushing for a system that lets them decide which content has the most market value for them and allow them to give that content access to ultra-high speed access while denying that access to say people like those running this site.
No one is asking for anything for free... this is about access and content. By the way... to be clear I'm all for getting rid of the Democrats that do not favor net neutrality. Sorry if my original post was a little confusing on the legislative side.
good bet.
So wait...
You're expecting me to believe the following:
Google's goal is to utterly dominate the delivery of whatever content on the Web it can get that can generate ad revenue based on its software that looks for the content of searches, e-mail messages, location searches, etc.
Google is a publicly traded for-profit company with a market cap of $130 Billion.
According to the article, these proposals would make things a lot more difficult for startups who wish to dethrone companies such as Google.
Google pays its top PR guy to go to Washington to argue AGAINST policies that would make things harder for its competitors, and therefore easier for Google in the big picture, by making them pay more to join the Internet that Google itself has helped pay for, if only through its enormous telecom bill?
If this is true, SELL GOOG!!! Clearly the board and top management team are either REALLY high on hash, or they're consciously not upholding their legal and moral responsibilities to their stockholders.
Sorry. I don't buy it. I wasn't born yesterday. It is possible, I guess, but it's dubious.
I actually like "net neutrality", but I'm not shaking in my boots here. I don't trust any of this.
As far as I see it, there are three groups who could pay for the Internet (since telecoms are also publicly traded companies whose manag
1. Taxpayers
2. All Internet users
3. Those who profit most directly from the Internet
Currently, it's all 3. Such legislation could shift the percentages around, but that's about it. Like I said, I'm not shaking in my boots. Furthermore, a server farm to feed a big pipe costs a lot of money. It's not like I can go out and buy one today. A possible bigger bill for the "pipe" is just a part of the expense.
The Web first piggybacked on a lot of DoD and education sector hardware. Why shouldn't big commercial users pay for more of it now that things have changed?
Again, I'm not even saying I'm for this change; I'm just hard-pressed to find a cogent argument against it.
liberalgunnut
Member
I simply pointed out that I thought it was an interesting article. I pretty much agree with your google analogy. Although I would point out the google at one point was a couple guys in a dorm at stanford trying to figure out how to wade through the web... When I was a photographer in the mid 90s and they were just becoming famous in the SF area they came to our studio for a shoot and we had to buy them lunch because they had no money. at the time no one was going to unseed AOL... is some guy going to sit in his garage and come up with the next great thing? absolutely. Google may buy them for 2 billion... but if when this guy does and someone types his search engine in their browser or their favorite gun site... and they get a response like "we can connect you to google, or the brady campaign now or please hold for noname.com" the odds of innovation are greatly reduced. The business model that was get a good idea and you can get venture captial for it are long gone. People don't know what is the next big thing... they'll know it when they see it. But they won't see it if they can't get to it.
As far as your taxpayer/internet user/business thoughts... taxpayers are long done paying for the internet, that went away after Gore invented the internets. #1 does not apply at the moment. I'm simply saying that I vote for a system that allows #2 and #3 to happen without corp censorship. If comcast wants to create fast pipes and then tell me that it costs $500 a month to get on them I'm fine with that... I just don't want them to build the pipes and tell me that I can't get on them because my competitor has an exclusive rights to it. or I can't view that site because it's in opposition to the political position of my provider.
Regardless, it ain't capitalism if you can't get on the playing field.
By the way... you put up a good argument.
As far as your taxpayer/internet user/business thoughts... taxpayers are long done paying for the internet, that went away after Gore invented the internets. #1 does not apply at the moment. I'm simply saying that I vote for a system that allows #2 and #3 to happen without corp censorship. If comcast wants to create fast pipes and then tell me that it costs $500 a month to get on them I'm fine with that... I just don't want them to build the pipes and tell me that I can't get on them because my competitor has an exclusive rights to it. or I can't view that site because it's in opposition to the political position of my provider.
Regardless, it ain't capitalism if you can't get on the playing field.
By the way... you put up a good argument.
Not true. I'm sitting on tax-funded infrastructure at the moment. Internet II. Lots of packets bounce around the tax-funded 'net. But I'll agree, that's fading fast as a major factor in the 'net, at least in North America.
My point was just that, the taxpayer COULD be made to fund the infrastructure to provide a "level playing field". This of course presents a cornucopia of OTHER problems that, IMO, are worse. Since the Transcontinental Railroad, large-scale "service providers" have defrauded the taxpayer in ways that are not possible with private clients, and they've only gotten better at it. My prediction is that it would cost all of us even more, and we'd have no choices about it.
Totally agreed.
I'm just not sure what to do, exactly. Something like Common Carrier laws, perhaps, could work, though I really want to avoid the 19th-century railroad model, at all costs! There's a lot of history behind this stuff.
True. The Common Carrier thing is the best idea I can come up with. But that still doesn't, and shouldn't, stop UPS from cutting a deal with, say, Cabela's or Amazon, to provide cheaper deliveries in return for enormous volume, cooperative mailroom staff, and assistance with automation. The only absolute is... that there are no absolutes.
Thanks! As do you.
MikeB
Member
I could care less what Vinton Cerf's opinion is.
Sorry but to me verizon wanting to institute QoS on their lines to deliver Video to compete with Comcast doesn't rise to the level of needing congress to get involved.
Sorry but to me verizon wanting to institute QoS on their lines to deliver Video to compete with Comcast doesn't rise to the level of needing congress to get involved.
liberalgunnut
Member
the 19th century railroad model is exactly what these providers are proposing.
If we started out on the wrong foot please forgive me... sometimes I get rather passionate (as with many here) on my positions. I really do appreciate the thoughtful responses.
BTW: The thing that sparked this thread was the following program...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html
I found it quite compelling and they put up some great arguments... but then again I'm a liberal and this is Moyers...
The 19th Century railroad model was primarily one of massive taxpayer ripoffs. I used to be a railroad buff, and did a lot of reading when I was a kid. The modern boondoggle began with the "Credit Mobilier." http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0813974.html
The whole idea of "robber barons" is often misunderstood. These men did what they did with the help of the Federal Government, and with a lot of tax money. They weren't by any stretch of the imagination "free market capitalists."
WRT the foot thing, I'm sorry, myself. I've become a bit oversensitive to wacky political extremism and paranoia of late, and I say that as a wacky, paranoid gun-toting libertarian whose antecedents literally escaped death at the hands of the Nazis!
The whole idea of "robber barons" is often misunderstood. These men did what they did with the help of the Federal Government, and with a lot of tax money. They weren't by any stretch of the imagination "free market capitalists."
WRT the foot thing, I'm sorry, myself. I've become a bit oversensitive to wacky political extremism and paranoia of late, and I say that as a wacky, paranoid gun-toting libertarian whose antecedents literally escaped death at the hands of the Nazis!
beerslurpy
member
What youre saying doesnt make much sense. All of the infrastructure guys have been arguing since day one that they are content neutral service providers. The second they start regulating content, they open themselves up to a galaxy sized pile of liability for things that their customers do and say.
If their customers are in a legal grey area that turns out to be pitch black, they get held vicariously liable for the harm. Look at what happened with napster. Even plausible control over your users is enough to trigger liability.
I oppose the bill you guys have been talking about, but I also oppose the other bills that have been hinted at. I oppose government control over the internet even in small, supposedly helpful ways. There may come a time for it, but that time is not now.
If their customers are in a legal grey area that turns out to be pitch black, they get held vicariously liable for the harm. Look at what happened with napster. Even plausible control over your users is enough to trigger liability.
I oppose the bill you guys have been talking about, but I also oppose the other bills that have been hinted at. I oppose government control over the internet even in small, supposedly helpful ways. There may come a time for it, but that time is not now.
BigFatKen
Member
While AL Gore was taxing us to hard wire the schools, wireless broadband was in the works.
I know this much: when it was Yahoo! vs Netscape you got a 4MB free account at Yahoo! and 5MB at Netscape for a free email. My little website cost $8.95/mo and I got 25MB.
Enter Google and overnight my website was allowed 2000MB and bandwidth I could never use. Free website anyone? Competition worked. Cost at Godaddy? $39.95 prepaid got me two years.
With tabbed browsing here and pop-up blockers common, does anyone know the replacement HTML attribute for target=_blank? This causes a new window to open and is blocked in some sites. Thank you.
I know this much: when it was Yahoo! vs Netscape you got a 4MB free account at Yahoo! and 5MB at Netscape for a free email. My little website cost $8.95/mo and I got 25MB.
Enter Google and overnight my website was allowed 2000MB and bandwidth I could never use. Free website anyone? Competition worked. Cost at Godaddy? $39.95 prepaid got me two years.
With tabbed browsing here and pop-up blockers common, does anyone know the replacement HTML attribute for target=_blank? This causes a new window to open and is blocked in some sites. Thank you.
liberalgunnut
Member
Actually they can regulate content without "regulating content" by simply providing a service for a fee through exclusive contracts. they would simply be "regulating users" not "content". Napster failed because napster's basic business model was based upon an illegal activity. Not because they regulated content... they were successful BECAUSE they freely allowed the giveaway of copywrite protected materials through their model. The "illegal" part was what killed them. the name is useless without any service.
and while 802.11a was being installed they switched to 802.11g :banghead:
and while they are installing 11.g...
The city of Mountain View is on free wireless provided by Google, Portland is coming soon. the catch is that it's around 256k... if you want faster you pay
The point is that you have to start somewhere. Gore did the right thing at the time. the internet, as shown right here... is a great learning tool.
Internet TV is very close to real... Cisco's purchase of Scientific America, that and Apple's iTV, would tell the average viewer that full screen full quality internet TV ain't that far off.
MikeB
Member
Oh the horror. Someone quick get the government involved they are charging for premium service.
beerslurpy
member
libgunnut, what matters is not the formalities, but the actual existance of control. It also isnt the illegality, ironically enough- remember that neither napster nor its users were charged with criminal infractions, they were hit with a civil suit by the record companies who got injunctive relief, not criminal sanctions. Many P2P companies are profiting from illegal activity, but only napster bit the dust because only napster had a system designed with centralized servers over which they had exclusive control. Even if they cant bar users from trading copyrighted material, they can shut down the servers. This would bring all their users into compliance with the law by denying them access to the service entirely.
For a counterexample, if you sued edonkey to halt the illegal actions of its users, they would simply answer that you havent stated a claim upon which relief can be granted because they exercise no control over anything but the publication of the software, which is already in the wild and cant be called back in. There is literally nothing they can do to stop or hinder their users, legal or otherwise, from doing anything. And they cant be sued for creating the software because they didnt encourage anyone to break the law with it, just like no one encouraged anyone to pirate stuff in the 80s with high speed modems or rob people with legally produced guns. It's just another file transfer program like FTP.
If your carriers are picking and choosing which customers to give exclusive contracts to, they have a degree control over those customers. Those customers will know the likely criteria for picking one over the other and they will craft their behavior and policies to curry favor with the carriers. It is really that simple. And it is control.
For a counterexample, if you sued edonkey to halt the illegal actions of its users, they would simply answer that you havent stated a claim upon which relief can be granted because they exercise no control over anything but the publication of the software, which is already in the wild and cant be called back in. There is literally nothing they can do to stop or hinder their users, legal or otherwise, from doing anything. And they cant be sued for creating the software because they didnt encourage anyone to break the law with it, just like no one encouraged anyone to pirate stuff in the 80s with high speed modems or rob people with legally produced guns. It's just another file transfer program like FTP.
If your carriers are picking and choosing which customers to give exclusive contracts to, they have a degree control over those customers. Those customers will know the likely criteria for picking one over the other and they will craft their behavior and policies to curry favor with the carriers. It is really that simple. And it is control.
liberalgunnut
Member
great point.
While I agree with you. I'd remind you fo the 6 months Tommy Chong spent in jail (thanks to Ashcroft) for producing "tobacco" pipes.
It's not only control... it's a indirect form of censorship.
regarding Napster... I was thinking...
Actually copywrite infringement is a violation of the law... although you are correct that its a civil, not criminal issue. it's is illegal when a court agrees that there is an infringement. Much like it is illegal for me to build a house on your property... your remedy is a civil suit, or to chase me off with your guns
If I'm reading your post right it seems that we're pretty much in agreement on the desired end result we just have different methods to get there.
Last edited:
liberalgunnut
Member
the city of Mountain View was smart enough to keep out of the way. It's good business for Google, and a great business for Mountain View.
beerslurpy
member
Yeah, I am aware that copyright infringement is a crime, but it is fairly difficult to get people for it due to the requirements that people actually exploit the copyrighted material for their economic benefit. The NET Act in 97 updated "economic gain" to include ratio FTP sites, but by then everyone had moved on from that technology and it became meaningless again.
Besides, if you can prove that someone was distributing stuff (even for free), the 17 USC 504 (c) "statutory damages" are ridiculously high. It is basically a per-work damage of $750-$30,000 so if you share songs from 1000 different CDs, they can sue you for 30 million dollars without having to prove any damage to themselves at all. IMO it is really unfair and congress gave them a far bigger stick with a far lower burden of proof than they even give to law enforcement. I pretty much rest my case about it being bad for the general public whenever congress is in session.
However, I beleive there was a requirement added (thanks Scalia!) that says that a jury actually has to assess the damages even though they are statuatory. A rich guy got sued for running shows on his TV station without paying and appealled up to SCOTUS. Can't remember the name of the case. In any case, a sympathetic defendent with a decent lawyer might be able to get the jury to go outside the statute and let you off lightly. But it is still a very painful and costly process if they go after you. But most people are far too close to judgment proof to even bother suing. Not to mention most people downloading and sharing are outside US jurisidctions.
Oh, and thanks to one of the ISPs successfully fighting off a discovery for the names of their users, the lawyers cant get infringer's names until they sue them and bring them into court. Not being able to cherry pick the unsympathetic defendents quickly leads to situations where very sympathetic and newsworthy infringers are sued (politicians, recording industry bigwigs, people without computers, children), which leads to very bad publicity and lots of wasted legal costs and embarassment.
I'm going into patent law, but I'm coming out of the tech sector so I sort of keep up to date on this stuff.
Besides, if you can prove that someone was distributing stuff (even for free), the 17 USC 504 (c) "statutory damages" are ridiculously high. It is basically a per-work damage of $750-$30,000 so if you share songs from 1000 different CDs, they can sue you for 30 million dollars without having to prove any damage to themselves at all. IMO it is really unfair and congress gave them a far bigger stick with a far lower burden of proof than they even give to law enforcement. I pretty much rest my case about it being bad for the general public whenever congress is in session.
However, I beleive there was a requirement added (thanks Scalia!) that says that a jury actually has to assess the damages even though they are statuatory. A rich guy got sued for running shows on his TV station without paying and appealled up to SCOTUS. Can't remember the name of the case. In any case, a sympathetic defendent with a decent lawyer might be able to get the jury to go outside the statute and let you off lightly. But it is still a very painful and costly process if they go after you. But most people are far too close to judgment proof to even bother suing. Not to mention most people downloading and sharing are outside US jurisidctions.
Oh, and thanks to one of the ISPs successfully fighting off a discovery for the names of their users, the lawyers cant get infringer's names until they sue them and bring them into court. Not being able to cherry pick the unsympathetic defendents quickly leads to situations where very sympathetic and newsworthy infringers are sued (politicians, recording industry bigwigs, people without computers, children), which leads to very bad publicity and lots of wasted legal costs and embarassment.
I'm going into patent law, but I'm coming out of the tech sector so I sort of keep up to date on this stuff.
- Status
