kushoffer

FOXNews.com - Europeans: U.S. Should Give Up Control of Internet - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

__________________


-FUCK IT GRAB A BOTTLE-

kingofsp

Makes sense to me.

__________________
W4 - Like Hуdra, but like way better.

kushoffer

yeah i dont think i trust them saying that they just want a piece too

__________________


-FUCK IT GRAB A BOTTLE-

acemenace

I own the interwebz.

alexb

I have a box full of Internet.

__________________

guerilla

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

painperdu

Let them build their own Internet. There's nothing stopping them. In fact, all of the technology they need is open and free. They want a network that's already built and populated?

guerilla

If you read on, she is proposing a G20 to regulate the internet. That is exactly what I am talking about.

She doesn't want to deregulate it, she wants to take it away from the US and regulate it.

Fucking Globalist filth.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

erisch

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.

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

LogicFlux

It would become a bureaucratic clusterfuck.

guerilla

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

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

LotsOfZeros

I back up a copy of the internet on my thumb drive every night just in case it crashes.
So, I own the internet.

__________________
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty" ~ Ronald Reagan

erisch

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.

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

guerilla

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

erisch

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.

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

guerilla

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

erisch

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.

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

guerilla

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

droplister

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...3-5961566.html

__________________
мейкманиесонлайн

Mahzkrieg

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.

kushoffer

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.

__________________


-FUCK IT GRAB A BOTTLE-

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.

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...

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

LogicFlux

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

guerilla

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

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.

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

erisch

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

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

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.

__________________
мейкманиесонлайн

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

__________________
International affiliate? Sign up here if you don't want to worry about cashflow again!

guerilla

What is consumer surplus?

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

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.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

guerilla

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

Without government interference. Brilliant. All hail the market.

__________________
Change Your Life
Twitter ^ YouTube

Thank you for your attentiveness,
the forward thrusters, engage on you busters,
I cut the mustard.

xmcp123

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

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.
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.
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.

__________________