No, Net Neutrality Doesn't Violate the 5th Amendment 322
An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday we discussed the theory that net neutrality might violate the 5th Amendment's 'takings clause.' Over at TechDirt they've explained why the paper making that claim is mistaken. Part of it is due to a misunderstanding of the technology, such as when the author suggests that someone who puts up a server connected to the Internet is 'invading' a broadband provider's private network. And part of it is due to glossing over the fact that broadband networks all have involved massive government subsidies, in the form of rights of way access, local franchise/monopolies, and/or direct subsidies from governments. The paper pretends, instead, that broadband networks are 100% private."
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. The government should never have allowed ISPs to lay cable underneath or on poles over government-owned streets. Such interference is unconscionable.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:1, Insightful)
Well you can have the state sponsored system where the government is full of screw ups and inefficiencies or that free market system where the corporations are completely guided by what takes the most money from its consumers.
I mean, you're lucky enough to have the best of both worlds! They've even achieved the added bonus of the legal system working in their favour, and not yours.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
he's right, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
His conclusion is right, but for all the wrong reasons...
Government subsidies are irrelevant. Could the government take back all those subsidies and right-of-ways? Problem not without compensation under the fifth amendment. Under current jurisprudence, the fifth amendment applies even to benefits provided by the government, including certain government jobs and welfare benefits.
His other argument is that there is no 'invasion' because 'these service providers chose to connect to the open internet allowing their users to request such content.' I'm not sure this is a very strong argument compared to Lyon's paper. The paper argued that net neutrality would essentially grant an easement over the ISP's wires and that this permanent invasion would be a taking under the fifth amendment. As far as I'm aware, Lyon's theory is novel in telecom regulation. I doubt the courts will accept it, but the techdirt article doesn't really have a strong argument against it either.
Under current jurisprudence, a regulatory taking is a taking under the fifth amendment. The relevant question is whether net neutrality would be a regulatory taking, and Techdirt does not address that question. I think net neutrality leaves the ISPs with enough room for profit that it would not be a regulatory taking. Whether I'm right or not, who knows...
IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for letting me know that government interference always fucks things up on the government-created information network. It would be so much better if I was unable to hear your insightful commentary. The internet sure has fucked up our economy.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
or otherwise interfere with private enterprise. Every time the government does it, it fucks up the economy. Every. Single. Time.
By that line of reasoning the government should get out of the business of war, then, as it is fucking up the economy. Clearly the corporations should be entrusted to wage war on their own, hire their own armies, and fight an ethical fight.
Because after all, that is what corporations are known for.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it. Without government subsidies and other involvement, there would be no internet. So you are arguing that we would be better off without the internet...on the internet no less? Or maybe you were talking about government subsidies to help build power grids, telephone lines, or highways? Our economy would be better without infrastructure that directly enables commerce? Fail.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, of course, the times where it didn't fuck up the economy. Or the times where government action was necessary to prevent a fucked-up economy that would have run unchecked if private enterprise was allowed to run amok.
Anti-trust and public infrastructure (roads, canals, harbors, etc) being the most glaring exceptions to your "Every. Single. Time." malarkey.
Re:he's right, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, the ISP's already granted me (as a customer) an easement across their wires. Why do you think the bill they send me every month, that if I don't pay my service will be disconnected, is for? So when I as a customer hit Google and Google sends me data, I'm just using the easement I've already paid the ISP for. And it hurts the ISP's profits not one bit if the government says they have to be even-handed in allowing me to use that easement. It doesn't let the ISP increase their profits by interfering with things that compete with services the ISP wants to offer, but then the ISP never had a legal right to increased profits just by offering a service that competitors also offer.
And of course Google's paying for it's own Internet access, so the whole "Google is free-riding!" whinge doesn't fly. Google may not be paying my ISP for Internet access, but that's OK because Google isn't getting Internet access from my ISP and they are paying the ISP they get access from. The deal between my ISP and the provider Google gets access from... well, that's between them. If my ISP isn't satisfied with their deal with Google's provider, my ISP needs to take that up with Google's provider and change the deal. It's simply not my problem nor Google's.
It doesn't matter if it's a purely private network (Score:1, Insightful)
The Federal government would still have broad authority to regulate it under the commerce clause:
]The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".] - from Wikipedia.
The government is not seizing private property, merely regulating its use. Under the argument put forth by Daniel Lyons, everyone could sue the Feds anytime they felt any regulation or law somehow restricted the utility afforded by any item they own. It's an absurd argument, and does not withstand even a cursory examination for merit.
Amazing how uninformed the author is (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the author's position is that no one is asking for open access to the "Internet". They are asking for open access to networks that were privately funded, like Comcast's _access_ network. The government didn't help AT&T (or any of the component companies SBC, Bellsouth, etc) run copper lines to houses nor wire fiber to digital loop carriers in neighborhoods. The government was of course deeply involved in the initial build of the Internet and did in fact try to give it to the original AT&T (who declined because they didn't think it was commercially viable), but none of that infrastructure is in service nor has it been for a very long time. No one has a complaint about getting access to the Internet. Google and all of the other commercial entities asking for open access don't care about access to the core, they have that in spades already, what they want is a guarantee that people who built _access_ networks can't charge them for sending their content over those networks. I personally see merit on both sides of this position, but the author of the Techdirt article is dead wrong.
Re:Wrong again (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh, net neutrality means that my ISP needs to give packets from your server the same QoS as packets from your wealthier competitor, so that (for instance) eBay can't pay consumer ISPs to speed up its access and slow down or block Craigslist. What does this have to do with the "fairness doctrine"? What are you even talking about?
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the GOVERNMENT has no concept of, or right to, ownership. .
This is incorrect on several levels. For one thing, ownership is actually defined by the government. Without a government, the piece of paper that says you own something would be worthless. Not only does the government have a concept of ownership, it actually creates all ownership.
"Owned by the government" means "belongs to the people" since WE paid for it.
Of course that is quite correct, but it does nothing to negate the grandparent's point. We the people paid for the property on which streets are built. Therefore in order to use that property for their networks, ISPs need permission from the elected representatives of the people, a.k.a. the government.
If these providers are not going to give all of us unfettered access to their networks, what incentive do we have to allow them to use our property to build those networks? They should buy their own damn land and put their networks there if they want to have total control over the signal. As long as they're putting the network on our land, we should have unfettered access to it.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:2, Insightful)
One drug that saves 10,000 lives a year being delayed by a decade of testing
So we should replace the FDA with psychics who can tell that an untested drug will save 10,000 lives a year?
Or just trust the drug company when they say they're certain it will but haven't actually tried it yet?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you smoking crack homes?
Do you honestly think private businesses would come up with "elegant solutions that [work]"? Let's imagine your energy scenario, in your magic ron paul world, private companies adopt alternative because (and only when) it's cheaper than coal. But here's what happens in the real world:
Private companies wait forever to adopt alternative energy sources, because the only thing that (really) matters to them is the cash, and alternative energy is not only more expensive per joule, but there are high start-up and research costs which coal doesn't have. So instead, they keep burning coal as long as the absolutely can, completely destroying the environment in the process, not only in their emissions, but also in their mining techniques which destroy mountains and ruin fresh water sources all over the country (but especially where all the poor coal miners live). No worries though, because surely the glorious free market system will save us when people say no and just stop buying from the bad companies! Oh wait, the mining and power companies all have monopolies in their sphere of influence, not to mention the fact that they are all colluding (actively or not). Don't like dirty coal? just turn the power off then! I'm sure ron paul will show up on a generator bike to keep grandma's respirator going.
Yes, the free market system and capitalism are good and important, but regulation is important when it comes to situations where either:
The company is heavily subsidized
The company has a monopoly, government mandated or otherwise
The environment or some other critical not-profitable consideration is involved
You also really need to come to terms with the fact that government regulation is the best way to get a lot of things. Imagine if power companies hadn't been given monopolies and subsidies, electric power would be spotty at best (sure companies want to sell you power, but running lines out to joe-farmer-in-the-sticks just so he can read in the evenings doesn't sound too profitable to me, which is exactly where we are with broadband and mobile coverage right now), but to ensure competition (since monopolies aren't allowed as they break the no-regulation magic system) there'd have to be several different sets of power lines coming to my house so I could choose the one with the best price and features. Not only would this never happen (companies would just rent lines from each other, or more likely just sell joules, or just buy each other up, bringing us back to monopoly), but if it did happen, it would be a colossal waste of resources and would greatly increase the end cost of power. So clearly the better choice is either - government-regulated power companies with subsidies, mandated monopolies and right of way, or quasi-governmental utilities co-ops which are owned by their customers (the best choice).
Re:No it doesn't (Score:2, Insightful)
It's character hasn't changed, you're just paranoid of the current administration while you were asleep during the last one.
Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the FCC declaring that "net neutrality" is going to affect the contents of your servers? Something from the the primary source, please, not grandstanding from a technologically-illiterate senator. It sounds like the FUD you're spreading makes you a "useful idiot" for the ISP duopoly.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet would be born no matter who designed it. [snip] And who knows, had private enterprise designed the internet from the start, it could have more elegant solutions and such.
Ah, the youthful imagination of how things might have been, unhindered by knowledge of how they were, knows no bounds. And in that imagination, the Internet comes to be in its current form regardless, only better!
But in reality, we already know what private enterprise would have created, because they did create it, or rather them. And they were called Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, MSN, and others. Of course they were largely piggy-backing off the government-created telephone network, but let's skip that for now.
And you're right, they had some very elegant solutions. For example, they dispensed immediately with the idea that every host should be able to act as both client and server, and that it should be possible to host data outside of on the singular corporation's servers and without their approval. Why it would be so much more efficient if we couldn't waste our time on Slashdot because it violated the AOL community standards.
And talk about elegance -- how about having multiple, mutually exclusive networks! This whole "one global network" thing is totally inelegant. Oh sure there was some consolidation due to buyouts and mergers, but we'd still be waiting for that process to conclude. It's only because of the existence of the Internet, and it's obvious superiority to anything private industry had provided on its own, that forced AOL, MSN, and the other few remaining private networks to first provide Internet access, and then ultimately become simply ISPs with only minor portal websites to remind you of what had been. Though even as this was happening, Bill Gates was saying the Internet was just a passing fad and he was betting everyone would come back to the safe walled garden of MSN soon -- oh yeah, he was just about to create something even better than the Internet. Uh-huh.
Had it not been for the Internet, we wouldn't be having this conversation because you'd be on MSN and I'd be on AOL.
We know what private industry would have done if there was no government interference, if you had your way. And it would have sucked ass.
Common carrier (Score:5, Insightful)
The more I hear of this the more I think we should declare the lot of them "Common Carriers"
"A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity". -- Cut some out -- in the United States the term may also refer to telecommunications providers and public utilities" -- Wikipedia
Stops the whole "Net Neutrality" issue and gives them some extended protections. If they want to say thay are not common carriers, I say we throw the lot of them in jail for transportation of child pornography. Every one of them provides it to there customers and seeing as they are not protected as a common carrier then they can be responsible for what they carry.
Just my 2 cents
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because private enterprise would find a way to make it work.
There are as many examples of that not happening as there are of it happening.
If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works
The free market solution for electricity prior to the rural electrification act was to just not sell it to people who were outside the cities, because it was not seen as profitable. After all at that point most of the country's wealth was concentrated in the cities, so why would the market be interested in bringing electricity to poor people who might not be able to afford the requisite rate for bringing power that far away?
Hence it is likely that had that act not taken effect, much of our agriculture (which tends to not be in large cities) would have needed to be done without electricity. That, or the farms would need to be sold to large corporations who could afford to pay for electricity to be purchased and brought to them - which would have put small businesses out of business.
Or are you just anti-small-business?
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:2, Insightful)
So we should replace the FDA with psychics who can tell that an untested drug will save 10,000 lives a year?
No, you should let people choose whether to use drugs that they want to use rather than condemning them to death. If you're going to die anyway, why shouldn't you take an untested drug which might kill you or might save your life?
BTW, I'm glad to see you didn't deny that pharmaceutical regulation has killed vast numbers of people.
Re:solution in search of a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The first time a large ISP tries to charge Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or some other large site money to allow their customers access to it and that same site says "No" and gets blocked/slowed down, their competitors (the ISP's, that is) are going to add that to their ad campaigns and you'll see their customers desert them in droves.
A couple issues with that solution:
1. In many areas, a reasonable question to ask is "what competitors?"
2. It's not just what my ISP does, it's what every ISP anywhere between me and Google does.
Re:he's right, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And guess what? They all do that, they all have peering arrangements with each other for call completion.
Hilariously, Google Voice has already been caught blocking calls to certain rural call centers [totaltele.com] because they discovered they didn't like the exchange contracts anymore. The rest of the major Telcos are whining to mama government to get the rural exchanges to stop. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/189820/rural_carrier_traffic_pumping_isnt_easy_issue.html [pcworld.com]
But guess what, the internet has the exact same peering agreements.
Just like the phone companies, the ISPs are crying about the contracts they signed. I pay ISP A for internet access, Amazon pays ISP B for internet access, and ISP A and B have an agreement to pay each other for the traffic they send either way (possibly with ISP C, D, and E somewhere in the middle). Now, ISP A whines that they're not getting enough money. Rather than charging me more, or charging ISP B more, they're claiming that they deserve to be able to charge Amazon for "using their network" despite their existing peering contract. They figure that if they just train their tech support to pretend that the problem is at the other end, they can extort Amazon into agreeing by simply dropping their traffic or redirecting it to a site that will pay. Same goes for other companies: voice over IP or IPTV that competes with their services or that they just don't want to pay their peers for? They'll drop that too, or just mess with it enough that its unusable. Sandvine and Comcast proves this is not a hypothetical. The fact that they were eventually caught just means they'll try harder next time.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Government did not make the internet what it is today; private industry did. Government wanted a WAN design, granted, but yeesh. 'government-created information network' is definitely not just a stretch, it's inaccurate. Government opening the door to private industry does not equate to government creation, and it certainly doesn't show initial interference to back up your somewhat rude point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet#History)
They created the technology, deployed the first real networks, and when they opened it up to private enterprise in 1988, many of them received government subsidies for the development of their networks, not to mention right of way and other dispensation. The ones that already existed only became part of the Internet because the Government had first created it; before that the private networks were walled gardens. Yes private enterprise developed the internet from that to what it is today, but to say it was government created is completely 100% accurate, and to say it exists in its current form only because of government "interference" is also 100% accurate.
If you don't like the term "government created" to describe the Internet as it exists today, fine, in that context I misspoke. You can't deny that the government did "interfere" with private enterprise in a way that guided them towards creating what does exist, directly contradicting the OP's point, which is my point.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
Full disclosure: My wife has chronic pain so I'm not completely detached from this issue. I still wouldn't want her taking drugs with unknown side effects.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, with the government our data might actually be SAFER. Because then it has to abide by the 4th amendment.
UPS, FedEx, and DHL are free to snoop around in your packages all they like, because they are private entities. The USPS, on the other hand, being a government agency doesn't have that privilege. If they want to snoop in the mail, they have to get a warrant first.
The same thing would probably apply with government run networks under wiretap regulations.
Re:Just like healthcare... (Score:0, Insightful)
True, the government can tax. But there are two problems with this:
1) The "tax" is only paid if a qualifying plan is not bought. Since they did not structure this as a tax credit, the tax would be a direct tax on each citizen. Since not buying health insurance is not interstate commerce and the tax is a flat rate, it would be a direct tax. Direct taxes are not constitutional.
2) The law as written calls the "tax" a penalty. Because the bill refers to the "tax" as a penalty, the courts would tend to classify this as a fine. In this case, the government would have to show how they can constitutionally regulate not buying health insurance.
But to answer the above point.
If congress passed a law regulating NN, the ISPs really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Not that I think allowing the government to touch the internet is a good idea.
Re:solution in search of a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a bad argument, used for many "laissez faire" open/free market arguments. The problem is when it comes to basic and near-basic utilities (electric, gas, oil, cable, internet, health care), there are quite often only one or two companies in your area that provide those services. They often know it, and without some sort of government oversight, they can do whatever they feel will net their upper management a few extra $$$ so they can get their kids yachts for Xmas.
What if Verizon gets no signal near your home or work? Are you going to cancel your AT&T contract and get a Verizon Droid phone you can't use?
Where I live in MA I am lucky enough that I can pick from Comcast or Verizon, but I started a new job up in NH and my boss, who lives locally, was pointing out that in most of the areas around here there's just one residential ISP (someone I'd never even heard of). What happens when Net Neutrality is quashed and this ISP decides to jump on the money machine and start charging Google, Wikipedia, Fark, Facebook, CNN, Yahoo, or hell, AT&T to use their network or be slowed? What do you do when you take a WFH day and decide to remote in to work but since AT&T didn't pay the no-name ISP enough, they get throttled and it takes you an hour to do what could've taken 10 minutes? Cancel your ISP and go stare at the wall? Or worse, get DirecTV satellite Internet? *gag* Oh I know, you could complain to your single ISP! Enjoy the laughter.
And while competition might limit the effects of losing net neutrality, it wouldn't stop it. Sure, Comcast might run an ad campaign touting how they don't slow down Fark and Google like Verizon does, and Verizon might run ads saying they don't slow down Bing and Spankwire like Comcast does, but what gets shuffled under the carpet is the fact that in the background, they BOTH slow down bbc.co.uk, Washington Post, and Slashdot, just because they can.
I'm not a fan of big government or government interference in daily life, but I'm definitely not a fan of monolithic, unregulated corporations either.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
"A market dominated by a collusive cartel" is what all unregulated free market systems naturally devolve into, in much the same way that entropy naturally increases.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you're new here on Earth, aren't you?
Private enterprise didn't "largely" build the Internet. After the "very early phase" when government actually built the thing, it was publicly-funded universities that did the heavy lifting.
Private enterprise has mostly been "me too!" when it comes to the Internet, doing their best to turn it into cable television when they finally got a clue. In fact, I think if you were to point to the things that you love the most about the Internet, you'd find that they were mostly already in place before "private enterprise" got up to speed online, while the things you hate most (Flash, advertising, spam, spyware, etc) about the internet have been almost entirely the result of bright ideas from private enterprise.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to die anyway, why shouldn't you take an untested drug which might kill you or might save your life?
Because you have absolutely no reason to believe it might save you, nor how to distinguish it from a thousand other "medicines" which claim to fix everything wrong with you. And government-employed doctors at HHS can't because of the oath to "do no harm" as they're still charged with protection of its population regardless of what kind of stupid ideas they may have individually.
The more appropriate question is: if you're going to die, would you knowingly take something which is *more* likely to shorten your life than extend it? You wouldn't have the luxury of knowing the drugs you use are most likely safe, having no access to documentation. tests, manufacturing processes, safety measures, etc.. Those fake "dietary supplements" are generally physically harmless, which is the reason they're still around duping the induhviduals. There's a huge moral difference between leaving someone the freedom to do what they want and standing idle while lives are at risk. Letting big pharma reduce testing *just enough* to avoid massive wrongful death lawsuits is just an all-around nonsensical idea when you accept the fact that their boards have no care about negative consequences of their operation if the balance sheet is positive.
Reducing regulation would only serve only to reduce testing cycles to a fraction of current far-from-perfect standards, an explosion of names for the same drug sold under a plethora of brands to the point where it would take even a doctor forever to figure out what to prescribe. Sure it *might* be a little cheaper, but at a cost far too great. There's room to debate making the process more efficient or even less cautious, but you zealots can only manage the complexity of thought with room for a single option: abolishing federal agencies.
BTW, I'm glad to see you didn't deny that pharmaceutical regulation has killed vast numbers of people.
They probably didn't because it's a pointless exercise only a simpleton would require. Even when the pass FDA tests and get approved, bad drugs still kill plenty of people. Tipping the scale in the other way makes sense only if you consider death as simply part of doing business. But there I went and forgot who I was talking to: of course that's acceptable to you. It's not Merck's fault people suffered heart attacks- it was their own damn fault for using Vioxx! It shouldn't even have been removed from the market- people should have all the options and damned be psychology for proving that excess choice has little to do with making good decisions. [princeton.edu]
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
Competition would keep everything tidy soon enough.
I base my beliefs on evidence, which is why I completely reject statements like this one.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
And meanwhile, the operation of public roadways enabled both the buggy-whip makers and the automobile makers to make a profit in their time.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Government opening the door to private industry does not equate to government creation
No? It sure seems that way to me. How not?
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
[Citation needed] is the modern call of the idiot who has no better rebuttal. We need to coin a term for it as a logical fallacy, something like Denial Of Reality or something.
Re:Al Gore created the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone honestly argue that an all private internet would have grown as fast in the last 25 years as this one has?
No, of course not; but they can dishonestly make that argument, and do.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, fundamentally, there is no ownership. Someone can always organize a larger or more powerful gang and come take it. At some point, this frequently escalates to nations going to war in order to do some taking.
So, really, there is no ownership. It's a fantasy created by transient national stability.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless it's a company that's in the supply chain and you are not a direct customer.
What if you really hated something ADM was doing? They were involved in wide-spread price-fixing a few decades ago. How would you "stop doing business" with them? How are you going to "call out" a corporation like that? Without the government's enforcement, ADM would still be price-fixing (actually, they are, just no so much in the US).
See the problem is not companies with retail outlets so much as corporations that by their very size and scope and power have exceeded any authority that any nation or customer can have upon them. Say, Haliburton, or Blackwater, or the Carlyle Group, or Enron (back in the day) or KBR, or AIG? How could any consumer have an influence in the behavior of any of these corporations when these huge corporations don't have customers in the normal sense?
I'm sorry, man, but the most dangerous corporations today are not mom and pop storefront operations. They're transnational monstrosities that are more powerful than governments. They buy and sell governments.
When you have a vote and a free Press (we still have both in the US, no matter what Glenn Beck says), you have a say in what government does. You can organize, you can influence. The biggest corporations are way beyond the reach of consumers and citizens.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
The US mobile phone market is awful. It's a much more free market than Europe yet it's less competitive and more expensive and your phones are still locked down more than Europe and you have incompatible networks where as I can buy any phone in the UK use it on any network without thinking about it.
Companies are self serving and will not give people what they want if they can get away with it and people will generally let them get away with it because they just assume all businesses are greedy and you have to live with it because that's just the way it is.
If the internet were created solely by private businesses it would be nothing more than incompatible AOL networks for people to pick from. It would be utter shit.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
I think people that bang on about free markets just don't think. A completely free market would be just as bad as a completely government controlled society. The ideal situation will always be a fine mix of the two that will require fine tuning over time. There will never be a one size fits all solution.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you, good sir. Apparently, this needs to be said time and again, since some people seem to be blind to the obvious:
THE FREE MARKET IS A MODEL. IT IS NOT REALITY.
Because reality is too complex to understand, we have to create models of it. Don't misunderstand me: the "free market" model is useful AND it's something we should aim for, but it is NOT reality because its assumptions cannot ever be fully met:
1) Economical agents are rational (do I need to explain why this is a false assumption?);
2) Information symmetry (counter-examples: insider tips, speculation...);
3) No participant with market power to set prices (counter-examples: monopolies, cartels...);
4) No/low barriers to entry or exit (counter-examples: ISPs/cable companies, oil companies, banks...);
5) Equal access to production technology (counter-examples: pharm, biotech companies, software patents...).
If you actually pay attention to the world around you, you'll notice that the ones who shout "free market" louder are actually the same people who attempt to subvert the assumptions on which a _real_ "free market" would be based on.
Re:he's right, but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
There are standards that arise from private industry that aren't directly spurred by regulation or involvement of public entities. (There is no such thing in reality as an "unregulated market", so its probably not worth looking for standards that emerged in such a market.)
For instance, while the AMQP messaging standard effort largely came from a heavily regulated industry (the early movers were in the financial industry, though software companies and others have signed on), it wasn't regulation that drove it, it was the fact that a bunch of large users of enterprise messaging software were unsatisfied with the existing offerings (and, I suspect, particularly the vendor lock-in that came with the existing enterprise-class offerings) and all had an interest in a developing and adopting a standard that would meet their needs and that vendors who wanted to business with them would need to conform to.
In fact, many of the standards that get adopted in government regulations (at least, in the US) are existing products of industry workgroups before they get adopted by government and mandated for use, and the existing industry workgroups are often charged by the government with updating the standards (though the regulating body chooses whether and when to adopt a new version of the standard that has been developed by the industry organization.)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for that, DragonWriter. I wasn't aware of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. I guess we owe even more of what we now know of as "The Internet" to the efforts of government.
Obviously, not everything government does is good or helpful, but the anti-US government movement that is all the rage in right-wing America today would have us take a big step backward.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, the original post was just a bunch of assertions (the usual libertarian "the free market is the solution to everything" tripe) for which numerous counter-examples exist in the last century. So Myopic's reply was no less informative than Darkness' post, and actually more so since
Re:he's right, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amazing how uninformed the author is (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what, you're right; the government should provide internet access, as in this century it's as much basic infrastructure as postal roads were in the Founders' time, and having private companies run the show will only fuck everything up.
Or do you think that the Founders didn't want the federal government to help provide infrastructure for communication? The Constitution doesn't seem to agree.