Why the US doesn't have cheap broadband
 

An interesting article:

http://www.mises.org/story/2815

This is what happens when corporate lobbying runs government. The FCC has brought some level of order to the chaos that would otherwise occur in over the air transmissions, but heavy lobbying has brought chaos to the FCC!

<sarcasm>I love this line:</sarcasm>
Sure, let's all pretend that UL or IEEE could stop pirate stations without the force of law. :rolleyes: UL and IEEE serve their purposes well, but they could not do the FCC's job without the same authority, which would result in the same lobbying efforts and the same problems.

So the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF) is losing money. Shame on them, but what of the companies swindling that money from them? Does anyone care to hold them accountable or is only the TDF to blame?

This is amazing. The FCC was created because private businesses were creating chaos. Private businesses then create chaos at the FCC, so who do we blame? The FCC??? Sure, let's eliminate the FCC! That way, those same private businesses can make more money while recreating the original chaos. The American consumer will get screwed again, with yet another example of lower quality and higher prices (court costs would be higher than FCC auction costs - even if they weren't, that's what we'd be told), all while real wages continue to drop.

For another example of successful corporate lobbying that leads to poor results, see this: Protectionism and My Stuffy Nose

This is Friendly Fascism. Corporate-run government, media and communication. Benito Mussolini would have been proud.

So if we eliminate the protectionism created by the FCC, by abolishing it...

There was a huge flame war going on at Digg about this article. People ranting about the FCC, M/RIAA, telcos, etc.

I'm actually a bit confused as to what this article is actually about.

We'd have higher prices for anything with a radio in it, and the courts would be clogged with companies suing each other over frequency rights. Lots of lawyers would get rich, and the consumer would be screwed.

What we need to eliminate is corporate control of government. We're supposed to have government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have now is government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations, all of whom are multinational (FOREIGN) entities.

Aren't consumers already getting screwed by the FCC? I mean look at the USA's cell phone market. The FCC's strict rules actually hurt the consumer I think in many ways.

I think there should be a committee of private companies and perhaps a few government officials that take over what the FCC does. That way we could cut down tax cost on it. Of course there is no perfect answer.

Nobody's saying the FCC is perfect. I'm just saying that if you really want to screw it up, privatize it.

It takes a large corporation to really harm people. They do things like lay off thousands of people while getting larger orders for durable goods. United Technologies alone has probably done more harm with this one tactic than the FCC with theirs, and UTC is just one company, and that's just one of the harmful things they've done.

Quoted for truth.

(This low-content post brought to you by network neutrality!)

See I, Cringley's "Leaner and Meaner Still..." for corroboration with IBM as an example.

"godless communist propaganda"
 

The Mises.com website is a hangout for extreme libertarians. They believe in a sort of anarchy where government has no right to intervene in business. Sort of like Ayn Rand on steroids, everything is for sale and should be privately owned.

Having made that point, the FCC was created to manage the electromagnetic spectrum as an asset belonging to the American public, much like the Forestry Service was created to administer public lands in the interest of citizens. During the McCarthyism era of the 1950s, the FCC was endowed with inteventionist powers to protect Americans from "godless communist propaganda". McCarthy was eventually exposed as a drunken paranoid schizophrenic, but the powers of the FCC remained as a legacy to his fearmongering, much like "In God We Trust" is still on our money to remind us of that era.

So the upshot is, the electromagnetic spectrum does not even belong to the corporations, it belongs to you and I. But the only portion that WE can use without paying for is CB radio (31mHz) and the WiFi band (2400mHz). No respectable corporation would want the WiFi band, since the wavelength resonates with the water molecule. That is why microwave ovens, snow and wet trees interfere with WiFi signals. and also why it is a junk band. Unfortunately to the general public, the WiFi frequency also is absorbed by humans, who are little more than bags of water.

As usual, the FCC, in their enthusiam to grant corporations any radio band they want, has totally abrogated their responsibility to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum for the public's benefit. Any anger at the mushrooming problem of unhealthful, crowded and ineffective WiFi access points should be directed at the Federal Communications Commission.

It's time that we as citizens demand a shakeup of the FCC so it may perform its intended duty, that of administering the radio waves in the benefit of the public. That means reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which Ronald Reagan so cavalierly did away with. That would put an end to the current real-estate speculation over bandwidth, and the resulting media monopolies that speculation has created.

Rachel Cogent AKA Gnarlodious
K5ZN
Webmaster, http://LiberalTalkRadio.com/

There's a simple reason IBM can't say how many Americans work for the company: If they did, we'd all know they're not an American company. I'm not saying they're an Indian company either. I'm saying that they know no loyalty to any nation or people. Americans (and people in other nations) need to recognize that corporations don't see themselves as citizens, and to allow corporations to run your government is to surrender your rights and your country's wealth.

I would direct it at the corporations that lobby to control it. Any agency will reflect the attitudes of those who control it, and like many government agencies this decade, the FCC is really control by big business.

Quoted for truth.

Since we have proven we can't keep powerful interests from owning government, it seems like the only viable solution is to remove the power from government and return it to the people.

What you're really saying is that since powerful interests are able to interfere with government, we ought to surrender it to them completely. Since it's still the Christmas season, I suggest you rent "It's a Wonderful Life" and pay particular attention to what happens when George Bailey isn't born. Potter's version of business running things is what's happening today, and it isn't any prettier now than in the movie.

What I'm saying is that since powerful interests are able to abuse government power--the only true coercive force--we might be better off if we neuter government's power so that it can't be abused by those powerful interests.

It's the same thing. Neuter government's power and you have nothing left to stand against those powerful business interests.

Think of it this way:

Suppose we do it your way and business decides how to split up the air waves. Then, you decide to go into the radio business with partners who have experience in it. They'll handle the ad sales and content, and you'll handle the technology. If your application for a license to operate your local, independent station has to go through your national and international competitors, what do you think your chances are? Do you really think you'll get a fair portion of the available spectrum? Will they let you broadcast with the same power? Not a chance. They're not going to want you competing for the same advertising dollars. Result: less choice for consumers and advertisers, and you don't create new jobs. Ad rates go up, and those costs get passed on to consumers as jobs disappear. Who benefits? Multinational companies like Clear Channel. (66 countries)

Corporations can't vote...
 

But citizens have no control over Big Business. We do have control over Big Government, so the solution is to return government to the people and then put Big Business in its place. We do this with our vote. As much power as corporations have been given, they still do not have the right to vote.

The problem is that lobbying dollars have more power than votes, and corporations don't have mortgages to pay or children to feed and cloth, so it's easy to invest in lobbying. It's easier still when you consider the huge return they get.

Nothing but competition and the consumer's buying power.

Why would you assume that some central organization would do this? It only brings us back to the same problem as the FCC.

Which is A) Easily manipulated by large corporations, and B) trivial compared to an oligopoly that is transforming into a monopoly as smaller competitors get bought out or crushed by rules set by their larger competitors.
It's remotely possible that it wouldn't be a central organization, at least at first. Over a short time, power would be consolidated. We would end up with a situation where there appears to be competition, but there really isn't. Take spaghetti sauce as an example: Ragu, Five Brothers, and a couple of others were owned by Unilever when I was there, (I don't believe they've sold any of their brands) and they appeared to compete on store shelves, but obviously, they weren't/aren't competing.

Spurious harmonics up and down the spectrum...
 

OK but there HAS to be some regulatory agency. In the early days of radio, sloppy transmitters would ruin it for everyone else. Spurious harmonics up and down the spectrum is like pollution, and in the electromagnetic spectrum you are essentially anonymous. Without some regulation, it would be like the mafia, with jamming, vandalism, and turf wars running rampant. Look at what happens on the internet when users are guaranteed complete anonymity.

Of course, that "regulatory agency" could (and should be, in my opinion) citizen vigilantes. Amateur radio operators have performed very well with the "Volunteer Frequency Coordinator", who ensures clear channels in crowded areas. They also have "posses" who hunt down unlicensed transmitters and report perpetraters to the FCC. This system should be implemented on a wide scale throughout society.

The problem really is centralization. Following Gnarly's lead, wouldn't it be better if for transmitters below a certain power, control of spectrum and behavior resided in the hands of communities?

Yes, centralization is a problem, but corporate power is beyond that of local communities. In my wife's home town, there's a (corporate owned) drug store being built within a quarter mile of at least two others, and there are more drug stores throughout the town. The building department tried to halt the construction because the company hadn't gotten permission to put another drug store in. The company is fighting it, and will very likely win, even though few people want another drug store in town. The town just doesn't have the money to fight them. The old saw that you can't beat City Hall only applies if you're just a citizen.

And there are no other brands? If they raised the price by fifty cents per bottle, would there be no competitors? All you're doing is proving my point; they can maintain a monopoly as long as the consumers consent OR there is a government regulation preventing competition.

No, there just need to be rules. They don't have to be enforced by one more agency; our legal and court system can also be used by those harmed.

So you want to use government to PREVENT more competition? Wow.

Consumers don't give consent to this: they're completely unaware. I can't remember which ones, but Unilever owns at least two more than those I listed.
You've apparently never had to deal with our legal system.
Edit: And you've apparently missed the entire point of my post! If a small city cannot successfully challenge in court a corporation that has violated its zoning laws by not getting the proper permits, what makes you think that average citizens could hope for any recourse?
Not at all. I don't care whether or not that drug store opens. I'm just pointing out that the local government cannot control it. In fact, for large companies like Microsoft, the EU looks like a pesky local government that's causing them some minor irritation. A town of 30,000 people wouldn't show up on their radar.

An all-consuming lust for power...
 

Huh? You are severely deluded, Alvarez! That may have been true in the days of Richard Nixon. But by Ronald Reagan, deregulation meant that greedy corporations would follow the "guidelines" out of the kindness of their heart. But there asn't any such kindness, only an all-consuming lust for power.

To this day, giant transnational corporations have every advantage of relocating offshore to evade environmental and tax laws. Meanwhile, local businesses are forced to pay the price for not offshoring. The message is, our current corporate model is sociopathic. Any person who behaves in such a greedy and socially damaging manner is called a criminal, and locked up or otherwise institutionalized. Giant Corporations, however, are praised as "increasing stockholder value.

We worship money, it is the ultimate criterion for everything, the bowing down to a graven image. Like it says on our money, "In God we Trust".

I would have to say there does need to be some sort of committee to regulate what big businesses do. My ex is a lawyer, and I got an earful of the legal system from her perspective, as a lawyer. I also have a friend in the health care business. The health care business in our country is so not what it seems. First off, everyone thinks that we have the best health care in the world, which is not true. We are actually 37th, Costa Rica is higher than us.

See this: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Now, when you let big companies take over health care they only look at profit, thus tons of people get denied coverage. There are more medical lobbyist than any other industry in our government, and they donate a lot of money to political campaigns. If you think politicians and government can not be bought off you are living in a world of delusion.

Our whole system needs an overhaul, it all needs to be redone. I am not saying I have the answers because I don't, but I do know that our system will fail us eventually and leave a huge gaping hole between the lower and upper class. The gap is already getting bigger and bigger. There are more millionaires now per a capita in the US than in the entire history of our country, and people think that is great. In reality its not, because the prices of everything have sky rocketed over the years and the value of our dollar has gone down. The rich keep getting way more richer and the middle class seems to stay right where it is.

Companies also find every tax loop hole in the world to keep their money and to cheat taxes. I am actually for this, because I hate the IRS and I hate how I am taxed for every damn thing I do. I also hate general funds, but that is more government than it is big business. The fact is, if we were to privatize everything it would be bad for the consumer unless it was highly regulated.

Our legal system is already tied up enough as it is, and certain government agencies already have more than enough power. So, what is it we do about this? I am not sure, but I think it would have to start at the root, and we should reform some of our government, adjust our economy and focus on things that benefit our citizens. Health care and education I think are big time screwed up systems run by the private sector (excluding state schools). The problem is, that education is a state level thing, so there would have to be some sort of federal policy or something to come into play. This would take it out of the private corporation's hands. Man is just too greedy by nature and can not be trusted, and that holds true to even the government side of things.

I just think we need change all over the place to make our country a better place, and that our current system is doomed to fail eventually.

How do we ever change anything if our votes don't count? Check this out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/voting_machine_mess

Got the chance to vote on one of these touch screen machines during the last national election. After making my choices, the machine gave me one chance to verify my votes before recording them ---- six of my choices had been changed on the review screen. I changed my choices back and submitted the ballot. I have no idea who I actually voted for.... did the machine change them again? The wife voted on the machine next to mine and had the identical experience, including the same candidates. I checked with a friend who votes in the same precinct.... same experience for both husband and wife.

Sure I reported the anomaly to the volunteers working the precinct, all of whom assured me it was okay. Well, it isn't okay... even if the machine didn't operate the same way twice (fat chance), how many people missed the fact their vote had changed? There can be no recount because there is nothing to check against the machine.... no paper.

So, I shot off a hot email to the State Election Commission. They did not respond, not even to acknowledge the receipt of my complaint (no doubt swamped with similar complaints). I didn't vote in the last local election. Friends who did tell me the machines are still changing their votes.

I have now joined the great masses of the unwashed who never vote, they were right all along. Being a registered voter has gotten me nothing but twelve months of jury duty!

Just a wild guess, but I'd be surprised if many those voting machines weren't using the most frequently compromised OS on the planet.

Ha! I'd really like to think this is just a software glitch. In my part of the country, machine politics has a whole different meaning.

As our Governor once said, "Vote early, vote often" ... only partially in jest.

the voting machines are all closed source proprietary coded OSes, made by private companies.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33137/118/

There are four major companies that make voting machines and they have been known to have been compromised. This includes the ones in Florida last presidential election.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...rnia_voti.html

From the link:
Bold Itals added.


As I thought, they do use the world's most frequently compromised OS.

Pardon me for being quaintly revolutionary, but the current power structure lends itself to corporate control. Something will have to change fundamentally in order to stop that.

I concur, our current linear system only has the outcome of what is currently happening. If we don't change it at the root of the problem(s) how can we ever expect anything to change? We need to change to a more adaptive system that can be ever changing and growing, but in more positive manners. Honestly, that is all probably a pipe dream and will never happen.

If history is any indicator, it will have to happen eventually. Governments constantly evolve/change/implode in response to public demand. The question is whether or not it happens gradually and peacefully or suddenly and violently. For the record, I would prefer the former. I just wonder how that might be accomplished in todays political climate.

True. The problem is that it will take a long time and significant abuses before you get a worldwide revolution, and anything done locally (by a single nation) is easily painted by the right wing as being Socialism or Communism. The real solution would be much more nuanced, with countries protecting their workers and their Sovereignty but not engaging in us vs them politics — unless you count corporate fat cats as them. ;)

I think this is becoming more important as our technology improves, since it's the technology that is upsetting the labor/management balance by reducing the need for labor.

That will never happen...
 

I don't think that will ever happen, because like I said in my first post here, this is Friendly Fascism.

After World War 2 and seeing the mob takeover of Germany, the US Government took action. Their deepest fear was that dissatisfied citizens would take to the streets wreaking havoc on the infrastructure. Government invested heavily in the emerging sciences of Mass Psychology, Public Relations, and eventually in Focus Groups. As a result, the majority of us are manipulated minutely into being just satisfied enough to cling to the existing paradigm. But not satisfied too much, lest we become lazy and unproductive.

We don't even know to what extent the Public Relations Machine controls our thoughts and actions. I suggest you download and watch the 4 episode BBC production "The Century of the Self", which will never be shown in America. It is downloadable on BitTorrent. You will see what I mean by "Friendly Fascism".

We do have one candidate for President who is saying all the right things about lobbyists, corporate greed, a fixed system and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.

He's the one who doesn't have enough money to make a credible run at the Presidency after Iowa. Go figure.

I don't know the more I think about how our society is going to more it looks like we live in a minimum security prison. The government is already fear mongering the people to justify the war on terror, which like all wars, is pointless. Lets remind ourselves how well the war on drugs has been going and any other thing we declare wars on.

Furthermore, the people's concern means very little these days, look at the disaster that was Katrina, our government really screwed up that one. Not to mention does writing your congressman actually do anything? Or writing the senators office? Nope, it doesn't do anything because you are not contributing to their campaigning. All government in our country is self interest. It is not by the people for the people, but its by the corporation to make the rich stay rich.

.
I forget who said: "Support democracy. Buy a politician today."
Probably somebody who practiced what they preached...

A victory for liberty, certainly.

That's what they look like to me also. Power mongers interested only in power. Kinda how you see Microsoft.

Because government collusion makes it possible, and government regulation makes it necessary.

How do you figure? Ron Paul has raised a huge amount of money.

Corporations already have too much liberty and not enough responsibility, and the liberty you speak of doesn't apply to citizens.
If governments were to collude, they would make it impossible. It's corporate manipulation of government that keeps them from colluding. Government regulations are what keeps you from drinking the same water as people in China, where business faces little to no regulation. That lack of regulation, combined with the current administration's poor regulation enforcement is why we've seen a rash of recalls as Chinese businesses cut costs a little too far, making it impossible for America to ignore their abuses any longer.

Ron Paul wasn't the one I had in mind, but he does seem to definitely be going against the business as usual mentality.

I won't identify who I meant, cause I ain't voting for any of em. Still hoping a meaningful 3rd party will jump in somewhere. I think either major party will give us more of what we've been getting and I won't vote for that.

Collusion between government and business is what causes the problem. And it's only useful for business to do so if government has been given the power to crush competition.

China, where the government owns all business and regulates everything? What, they're not safe with all that government control? Go figure.

Ron Paul is a third party candidate, this time running as a Republican because our two-party system excludes all third parties.

Not anymore, I just watched a ginormous national geographic documentary on main land china. Shanghai is a large economic power and people own private properties and businesses there. China is not like the traditional communist you think of, its more like federalism with a socialist founding. It is hard to explain but there are levels of control and power the government has over certain regions of the country. Mainly, the poorest parts of China are purely socialist because of the huge economic difference that some rice farmer makes versus a plastic surgeon in Shanghai. I guess its their welfare system so to speak. I don't fully understand their government, but its no longer like some evil communist government like everyone thinks it is.

Their ecomony is growing very rapidly. The documentary said that Shanhai alone was increasing their private cars owners by over a thousand a day at one point. It followed a woman who got plastic surgery because she wanted to improve how she looked. They are catching up to us quick, and they are becoming more of a federal government where the provinces themself have most of the power to do what they feel is good locally to their province, thus also creating some economic competition and dependencies on other provinces.

I don't quite grasp all of it yet because I have not got a chance to read up on it fully.

LOL!! You make it sound like the government has some control! In case you haven't noticed, for the last seven years the government has been controlled by people who believe that business should run everything. That's why we had the Katrina mess, the no bid contracts to Haliburton and Blackwater, and why Big Oil still gets tax breaks despite multi billion dollar per week profits!

Below are a few examples of the EPA's failure to control business pollution. Google Justice Department, SEC, FTC, and you find similar problems with either businesses getting away with crimes or altering the rules so that they can't be charged. The Justice case I've quoted is interesting because you have business shielding itself as a quasi government agency! It's shocking because of the trillions of dollars it's costing, and will continue to cost Americans.

http://www.wildcalifornia.org/pages/page-203
http://ehscenter.bna.com/pic2/ehs.ns...B?OpenDocument
http://www.worldwildlife.org/news/displayPR.cfm?prID=51
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6556413

SEC: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/85145...9?f=singlepage

FTC: http://www.bluemaumau.org/comment/18...Disclose_Risks

Justice: http://media.www.campustimes.org/med...-2289595.shtml


China is more Capitalistic than the US is. Sure, the people have very little political freedom, but that's a totally different animal from the economic situation. In business, the Chinese government does not control, it merely supports. The result is thousands of little Haliburtons running around causing all kinds of environmental catastrophes.

That is exactly what I'm saying. And they are controlling government because government has the power to control OTHER companies and people. Almost every licensing and permit scheme has been master-minded by some big company looking to eliminate competition. By raising the bar for entry, they eliminate the free market. They can only do this if we agree to give government the power to control an industry to start with.

Not true at all. If we were to eliminate government power to regulate (not control) an industry, it would quickly result in consolidated power amongst a few of the largest players. That's essentially what's happened this decade with severely relaxed or unenforced regulation. There are fewer players in most industries. Who's competing with Walmart, for example? Caldor? Ames? Bradlees?

Target, Amazon, eBay, Overstock, etc etc etc.

What's the most successful, functional government program or regulated industry you can think of?

BTW, VoIP is mostly unregulated and it's nowhere near any monopoly. How long do you think it will take to be monopolized? Will it be regulated first? Raising the bar to entry so that small guys like me can't make a go at it?

Hardly. That's like saying that Linux, with its 0.67% market share, is competing with Windows on the desktop.

Now? With this government? None. Prior to 2000, the EPA was at least trying to protect the environment. Today, it's just a rubber stamp for polluters. You rarely even hear about the SuperFund sites, many of which have yet to be addressed.

Not very long at this rate. VOIP is still in its infancy, and Verizon has successfully sued Vonage over patent infringements, making it likely that Vonage, Lingo, AT&T, etc., will have to pay royalty fees to one of their largest competitors. How it's even conceptually possible to get a patent, let alone win a lawsuit, based on digitizing sound and transmitting it over the internet, is mind boggling. People have made big business out of abusing the patent system though, so it will continue. Meanwhile, they'll blame the patent office for being vulnerable to their abuses.

So you claim that Target, Amazone, et al only have .67% market share?

So you can't name a successful government program but you want more of it?

We gave the government the power to control "inventions," and they took it too far.

Does VoIP service need regulation to keep it free?

In many parts of the country, they have a smaller market share compared to Walmart.

I did name one. The EPA was reasonably successful, until this administration eviscerated it.
LOL! Thanks for proving my point:
Not yet, but give it time. VOIP is still brand new. Most people don't even know it exists yet, or if they do know they're only vaguely aware of what it is.

"Smaller" does not make a monopoly. I shop at a lot of stores with a tiny fraction of Walmart's market share, however I buy things that Walmart sells, and pay more for them, for a variety of reasons.

Right. So we gave the EPA control of the environment a while back. Now a few corporations bought up the right politicians, and we're screwed. Since we gave them control of the environment, and we removed the ability for local people and towns to control it, they can do nothing either. This is the danger of ceding control to a centralized bureaucracy; you concentrate the power so it's easier to control.

You've got your facts backwards. The EPA didn't exist until 12/2/1970, at which point, many of today's Super Fund sites had already been severely contaminated. If corporations hadn't created those sites, it's likely that the EPA would never have existed. They did create them though, because local control of a large corporation isn't possible.

What we're seeing now is that corporations have bought off the Republican party, and to a lesser degree the Democratic party, in order to control the government. The solution is not to remove the government's authority. All that would do is make it cheaper for corporations to get their way. The solution is to take back the government and restore its authority.

I am not sure exactly what you want Carlos about successful government programs, but here are a few.

Education
Fire/Police departments
Mail
Library


The problem is that all of that is state level so it varies from state to state. I have seen some really kick ass libraries and some really crappy ones. Its up to the state for that stuff.

Also, it won't be long before the FCC has their fingers in VOIP. Now I am all for smaller government but at the same time against privatizing everything. Private companies running education, environmental departments, libraries, police and fire departments, I just do not see how that would go well. I am not saying I have the answers either. It is like I said earlier, we need to fix the system at the root of all the problems. Our economy is destine to crash sometime in the future based on our current linear system of how we borrow money privately (fake money at that) and have this federal reserve which we owe these private loaners more on interest. So basically a bunch of rich people are constantly getting richer off the population of the US.

Anyway, I don't feel like ranting too much, but I just want to know how do you think we can possibly privatize everything and make it be OK? I am serious, if you can change my mind I would accept it, but I don't think anyone can tell me about a system of privitization and have it work.

Successful federal programs?

How about Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and the US Military? NASA?

You may not like them, but they are getting the job done.

I thought Carlos meant a program that successfully controlled corporate abuses. ;)

Oops. Permit me to redo. Carlos is absolutely correct. Best case scenario is the regulatory agency will regulate to the standard big business has agreed to... public interest, well, not so much.

I wrote some grants for our state EPA a while back. They seem to be doing a good job in some areas, such as waste management/land fills and such. But, when it comes to curtailing the big corporations their hands are tied by the legislature. The lobbyists win pretty much every time. Best I can tell, Washington is no different.

And that is the source of the problem. Fix that, and you fix everything.

Yup. I often feel sorry for the bureaucrats. They take a lot of heat for incompetence, stupid rules, and no action, but the truth is they have no choice but to implement the stupid stuff that got passed in Congress. They're really in a no win situation. They can't change the stupid rules or act outside the enabling legislation. And all the agency heads are, of course, political appointees.

Well there is the FCC, and isn't there some sort of anti trust section of the government?

Well, you have private companies running prisons, as far as I know.
And then again, there is Blackwater ...in its sector. Oops

You can't keep Congress/lobbyist out of anything government.

From today's wire service:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin defended the agency's rule-making procedures and management practices on Wednesday, a day after a congressional committee said it would investigate."

I didn't ask for an investigation. Suspect we can guess who had enough vested interest and pull to get one.... and brow beat the FCC into doing things their way. It never ends.

Private schools consistently out-rate public, libraries are outdated and useless any more, and I've lived where fire was run by a private company and everyone paid for service, there was nothing wrong with that. Police...yeah, dial 911 and see what kind of "service" you get.

The problem is that we "privatize" but keep government's hands in it, with the mercantilism that comes with that. Funny that the post office was mentioned though, since it's actually a private for-profit corporation and now that they have to compete with free-market companies like UPS, they actually deliver good service. They were horrible before the market forced them not to suck.

On the subject of VoIP, which is rather important to me since we bought out a company that provides local hosted PBX service last year, I'm just waiting for the day that we are regulated like a phone company. It's a nice wild-West time now; we're free to offer exactly what the customers want and not what some clueless bureaucrats want them to have, but the Telcos are rather upset by this. Rather than push for their own liberty, they are looking to control us and force us down to their level. I have no idea how long it will be before that happens, but we have little power and they have a lot. I think the only thing on our side right now is complete ignorance and fear.

Sure, VOIP providers are free to provide what customers want, so why don't they? I've had Lingo, and now I"ve got Vonage. Both have plans limited to what they want to sell, with very little to no flexibility to do it my way, and their tech support is as bad as any company I've ever seen. I could probably come up with a long list of things they do wrong, but for the fact that I've avoided dealing with either to keep my head from exploding. Wild west is right.
I went to a private school in high school, and it was better than the public schools in the area for one important reason: trouble makers were expelled. If you privatize education, you're going to have to require private schools to take, and keep, everyone. They'll fail quickly then.
For every example like the Post Office, - which is still controlled by the government and is much better now - there are dozens of examples like Haliburton or Blackwater, where private business is pulling the strings of government, not the other way around. That's the problem.

Both private and public schools are rated pretty crappy so outrating crap isn't something that a private school should put on it's brochure.

Last time I was at a library (last week) it was pretty hopping. There were computer classes, computers, books, people, people reading books and this is all on cut budgets where they are not open for a full work week and they must stretch every dollar.

I thankfully can not speak for fire, but the police in my area are rather responsive. I have to say I would trust them over Dog The Bounty Hunter any day and I am not fond of many of the laws they are asked to uphold.

After all my disagreement above I can not agree more with this statement.

We provide a completely custom solution and tech support is done by networking experts. We're not as cheap as Vonage though. Quality, service, cheap, pick any two.

The market would respond with "special" schools.

Nobody would disagree. Haliburton is able to do what it does because we allowed our government to have excessive power.

Not possible. We're not talking about people with special needs. Trouble makers can't be separated out with tests.
That's a wonderful example of circular reasoning. Haliburton is a private company doing work for the government - essentially doing what the government cannot - and it is controlling how the government awards the contract. Your solution is to require the government to do less, which means that Haliburton (or, in theory, some other company) would do more. That would mean more private work, the awarding of which is controlled by: Haliburton!

No matter how you look at it, your solution is to give total control to the corporation. In the case of Haliburton, you'd be giving US government powers away to a foreign corporation based in the Middle East.

Oh, and quality cannot exist without service and vice versa. They're one. The two I want are quality/service and cheap.

Since my mom worked at such a school, I can point out with great confidence that you are wrong. I myself was transferred to a different type of school since I simply refused to attend certain classes, to do any homework, or really to follow any rules that I didn't care for. While most people going to that school were there because they were idiots, the school did let you learn and excel at ANY level that you chose for yourself, thus ending my boredom with school.

Nope, my solution is to give the corporation the control that consumers are willing to give it, and to remove all help that it gets from government. Without licensing schemes and such to stop competition, there will be competition. Laws against social disorder and environmental damage can stand without federal intervention if we remove the laws that protect companies from local charges. Also, removing the "corporate" protection that lets CEOs get away with gross negligence would be great.

I have purchased very high quality products very cheaply from vendors who provided no service at all to speak of. I've purchased things for more money from vendors who provide valuable services to go with them. I frequent a tool supplier who has fantastic service but sells tools of highly questionable quality, but they are dirt cheap. I can return them as needed since they provide great service.

LOL! My mother taught for thirty years. I substitute taught in the same school system after college. You CANNOT remove trouble makers from public schools without changing the Constitution. It's not going to happen.

Consumers are sheep, easily manipulated and fooled. That's why MS has the market share it does, why the Ford Pinto was the number 1 selling car in its day, why cigarettes are still around, why reality TV won't go away, etc.

Your definitions of quality and service are very different from mine. I see no quality in a well made product that isn't backed up with service, and I see no service in providing a lousy product.

There is certainly a place in the world for these. I do the same -- when I need a tool I'm not likely to use very often (a strange vise-grip, say), I go there to buy it knowing that it will be cheap crap. If it breaks soon, they replace it, but I know it will wear out if I use it much. What not to buy there: batteries which might well fail by leaking.

I went to private school in the beginning of my education. It was a Catholic private school, and I hated it. I hated it so much that I pleaded to get out, so my family finally put me into public school systems, which was way better. No uniforms, no religion in school, etc.

What do you think will happen if they privatize education? Pepsi and coke will have schools, microsoft, etc. What is going to make them regulate education?

My problem with privatizing everything is there will be no one to regulate them, and when you say the consumer will I disagree. The consumer will have no choice a lot of the time. Big business just buys out the competition. Look at how many companies Google and Microsoft buy out each year. Coke and Pepsi have already been trying to sponsor schools for years, and if education got privatized they would be all over it.

Maybe, it would be better in some ways. Or maybe it would get worse. I just can't see it happening because I think education should be free in our country and that everyone should have the right to these opportunities of education.

The problem is that our tax money is shifted around for personal gains a lot. Where does all the money go that is generated from the Lottery? It goes into a general fund, and is used for some very questionable things.

I'm just looking for clarification-- Is the idea being batted around here that some things ought to be privatized, but still regulated. Or just strictly privatized. I can't tell what's being argued...

Microsoft basically does have private education in the form of Comptia certification. While it works well for Microsoft's interests as a form of indoctrination, creating a cult of IT techs who only know Microsoft products can't honestly be considered successful education.

I'm arguing that what's missing — especially over the last 8 years — is proper regulation. I believe that with money and power comes responsibility, and deregulation frees the wealthiest people and corporations from their responsibilities. We should all be responsible for our actions, but if we are going to treat people of means differently, we should hold them to a higher standard than the common man, not a lower one as deregulation does. The government doesn't need to run businesses or control markets, but it does need to understand that there is at least as much crime in corporate board rooms as there is on the street, and corporate crimes affect many more people in long lasting and devastating ways. To ask for deregulation is to ask the government to abandon one of its primary duties: to provide law and order.

You're really going to stick with that assertion even though I WAS THERE? Wow. I suppose then that anything else we debate is pointless; if you're willing to either call me a liar or just say that my life experience didn't happen, nothing I say will get through.

Two more: Fuses and hose clamps. There was a story recently about a near-fire when their fuses failed, and then a week later they did a recall on them. I just had a hose clamp leak coolant all over my keg fridge when it invisibly failed.

Some people assert that most things should be regulated but that they need to be regulated a certain way. I say that as long as government has power, there will be people trying to buy that power from them, and mostly succeeding. If we take away the government's power to limit competition, then competition will benefit the consumer.

Oh, I see what you're saying. YOU were there, by MY experience teaching is invalid. So is my mother's. :eek:

The government has no power to limit competition. If we take away the government's power to limit the criminal actions of corporations, we get voluntary regulation.

Edit: And one more thing about competition! Anyone old enough to remember the days before cable will tell you that while television back then was a waste land, it has gotten much worse since cable. Why do you think that is? Could it be because going from 3 or 4 channels to hundreds has turned them all into commodities to be produced as cheaply as possible, quality be damned? There's a writer's strike today because the studios don't want to pay them. They don't want to pay because they've been getting away with no writers in 'reality' shows. Because of that, no matter how much you dislike Reality TV, it isn't going away. Competition is a good thing, to a point. Beyond that point it leads to lots of companies selling cheap crap that no one really wants.

The amazing leap of logic, which I feel compelled to explain, is that you can't prove a negative. However you can prove a positive. You never saw what I describe, so you say it can't happen. I was there and lived it, so I say it can. This is where most intelligent people realize that lack of experience or failure to observe something does not prove impossibility.

Can I start up a competitive first class mail service? Can I start up a cable company without spending millions in licensing fees (which of course limit competition to only the rich corporations)? Can I even start cutting someone's hair without 1000 hours of cosmetic training and paying for a license?

Talk about an amazing leap of logic! One anecdotal case is supposed to trump the experience of dealing with a much larger group of students? I don't say that you're case didn't happen. I say that it can't be a model for all cases, unless you're intending to impose regulations requiring parents to be concerned and actively involved in their children's educations. I have no idea how you would enforce such regulations.

If you don't mind competing with UPS, you can. You can't start any business without taking necessary steps to establish it. Licensing became necessary because the market doesn't work well without it. It's often industry associations that request regulation because fly by night operations are harming their business. The home inspection business is one of the more recent industries to do so.

It is illegal to deliver first class mail in the US if you are not the post office. They've even arrested teens doing messenger service in NYC and SF because of this.

So licensing prevents competition, that's what I said.

Tell it to UPS.
Yes, it limits competition to people and companies that are qualified to provide a service or product. Or perhaps you'd like to make it legal for anyone to sell drugs? Got kids? Want to see them on crack?

As I understand it, UPS, FedX, etc. are forbidden by law from undercutting postal prices, do not have legal access to your letterbox or post office box, cannot sell or accept stamps. The post office is a protected monopoly on US Mail. That doesn't mean you can't send something some other way, but not on the same terms as the post office, nor with the same legal protections that US Mail has.

That is uncalled for.

This topic is interesting and worthwhile,
but I have grave reservations about discussion threads becoming a duel ground between two posters. It has happened all to often -- and in many instances with disregard for the original poster’s choice of topic.

Perhaps we should have a maximum number of posts / portion of posts - per thread? ;) In the meantime a bit of self-limitation would be a good thing.

-- ArcticStones
.

No it's not!

The topic is deregulation. Broadband is just a metaphor, and the logical conclusion of complete deregulation in broadband is the same kind of chaos that would result with the complete deregulation of the pharmaceutical industry.

.
CWT, do you realize that 32 of the 88 posts in this thread are yours?! :rolleyes:
.

A hose clamp failure on the fuel line in my old Torana resulted in a fire under my hood that burnt out all the wiring. Nothing to do with broadband but yeah the moral is no cheap hose clamps :rolleyes:.

Why? They don't deliver mail. It would be illegal for them to do so.

Not just undercutting, they are not permitted to deliver for less than $1.

And I do support the removal of all drug laws. Just as in prohibition, the laws do much more harm than the drugs themselves.

It would also be illegal for a USPS employee to deliver packages from the big brown trademark looking UPS trucks.

The mailboxes and stamps are how USPS prefers to do its transactions. UPS prefers their customers to schedule pickups or deliver to various locations. There is nothing to keep UPS from buying for their customers (or requiring their customers to buy, as with USPS) boxes to install on or near their home or business, and they could check it daily. They could even print and sell UPS stamps. I don't think they want to though. Their current system seems to work pretty well; I don't think their drivers will start delivering packages through their truck' window any time soon.

USPS cannot offer the same services as UPS for under a dollar. Also, UPS doesn't seem to be offering any services for just over a dollar, either, so such a law doesn't appear to affect much.

I agree 100 percent.

33
 

:eek: Wow.

Remove all drug laws and anyone can produce and sell anything, of any quality, to anyone.

So you needed diabetes medicine, but the store you bought it from sold you a 1/4 strength version of your medicine. Now you've lost your sight, a leg, and your heart is failing. Is the pharmacist punished? No, it's legal! Can you sue? Theoretically yes, assuming we haven't removed those regulations, but you've lost your health and along with it, most of your wealth. You don't have the strength to even begin such a battle. Of course, your supplier knew that, so he knew he could cut costs and give you a sugar pill.

Of course, without any regulation, it would be easier and more profitable for a dealer to wait outside the schoolyard with a table full of brightly colored pills.

Caveat emptor, kids!

I don't think anyone is calling for complete deregulation of rules or government agencies, just some. I live in MO, which is very very bureaucratic by nature. You have to have a permit for everything. On the plus side, you can get a permit for just about anything you can think of.

I think they should decriminalize a bunch of drugs (all of them actually) but keep some sort of regulation on them, and still have the FDA approve the drug. It scares me that we have a pill for everything these days. If people want to get high I think that is there business and we waste too many time and resources trying to regulate it legally and it is nothing but one huge failure. I think time/money can be spent somewhere else and be more productive. There are plenty of countries too that have already done this and have a fraction of the problems we do in our country.

Also, I have sent letters via DHL and UPS before. So I am not sure where you have to send something through the USPS.

I agree with Carlos and with Cwtnospam on the subject. Deregulation is very much needed in some areas but also at the same time, there needs to be regulation to keep the corporate powers in check. Otherwise they will do whatever it takes to make a buck. Destroy the environment, exploit their work force, break anti trust laws, so on and so forth. If there is not any regulation who will stop them? Other private companies? Also, competition of the consumer market will not balance out or regulate these corporations. The ones with the most money will win, because they can just buy out all competition or slash prices and drive others out of business. There is no way that we live in a society or a world for that matter where human beings will place fair and nice with other human beings.

Well, I’d settle for enough deregulation that the Canadians would be allowed to sell over-the-border drugs. ;)

34
 

I think you're right, there will always be some regulations that should be removed, and some that need to be better enforced. Unfortunately, I don't think that's what has been suggested here.

Its funny the state I live in just changed a lot of state gun laws. You no longer need any license to own or buy a gun, only to conceal and carry. Also, you can now shoot first and ask questions later if someone breaks into your house. However, you must make sure they are actually in your house. Where as in Texas they can just be on your property and you need to give them three warnings.

On the other hand, you need a liquor card to work in a bar. This is a one time yearly fee to be able to work in any place that sells liquor. You also need a food handlers license to work in a kitchen or handle food in any way. You take very simple very shorts tests and get a card, and renewing it you don't need to take the test. If you go down to city hall and buy a liquor permit for the day you can bring liquor with you onto public property, like a park. Even though a lot of this isn't regulated very closely, you can and will get fined if you don't have your proper permit. If liquor control or health inspectors come by and ask for everyone's proper cards and you don't have yours, your business you work at gets fined. It is kind of ridiculous but it is also not a very huge deal in my mind.

When it comes to broadband there are many things to consider. Can our current infrastructure handle an increase? How much more power will this consume? Is it really needed? I think there should be some sort of guide lines to follow because of the resources it takes to run these things. However, at the same time I don't think it should be too limited to some narrow scope. Also, with the problem is not always regulation it is also how our economy works. I mean look at how bad comcast is, they are horrid and no one regulates them on bandwidth gouging, monitoring bandwidth and limiting customers downloads even though they are paying for that premium service, and all sorts of other nasty little things they do. Even though they sell a service at a certain rate for certain broadband they limit you and throttle your traffic.

USPS is aided by cities in mailbox installations. For example, in my city, the mailboxes are centralized per block and are installed when the subdivision is built. UPS does NOT have that special help, and does not have the right to use up sidewalk space to install their boxes. The law is preventing them from competing with UPS. They don't deliver for $1 or near it because there's no market for $1 mail delivery. People will either pay for cheaper standard delivery or more for special fast delivery.

Pretty much like what we have today. Since illegal drugs are illegal, they are produced by outlaws instead of professionals, and they are often deadly. The legal drugs are better, but we still have had a lot of bad prescription drugs hit the market.

Look at electrical products and UL. I look for the UL label because I know that THEY CARE about the reputation of their label, and they will make sure the products are good. Government has nobody to answer to, no reason to keep our faith. I'd happily look for the label on my drugs (UL, Consumer Reports, whatever) rather than rely on an inefficient and self-serving bureaucracy.

I suggest that we remove all specific laws that control competition and enforce the fraud laws better. You can sell me broadband however you want without a government license, but you have to live up to your contractual obligations. If not, there are criminal and civil penalties enforced. I propose that CEOs be held personally responsible for gross negligence.

35
 

You're suggesting that we all enter into the same kinds of agreements (contractual agreements drawn up solely by the corporation) that recording artists enter into with record labels! That's an unregulated business, and look how well that's turned out. Contracts always work in favor of the corporation.

I do like the idea of holding upper management personally responsible.

Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of liability when making your company incorporated, LLC, or sub chapter S?

I am totally for accountability, not only in the corporate world but in the government as well. I would like to see politicians be held accountable for any laws they break, scandals they are involved in, or anything else that would be considered illegal.