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."
Next Week on a Very Special "D-Bag Lawyer" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Art. IV, Sec. 4 empowers and obligates the US federal government to guarantee a specific form of government for a State once Congress has it to the Union (note also, related to this, that the consent of a State is nowhere required in the Constitution for it to be joined to the Union in the first place; that power is reserved to
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:he's right, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Where the hell did you learn to talk like that then?
Did you pass the bar but decide to go into computers? I can't even get through reading those papers without getting a headache.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Haven't gotten my bar exam results yet...
I'll probably be going back into computers though. The legal market is pretty messed up right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, the ISP's already granted me (as a customer) an easement across their wires.
An easement is an ownership right. I don't think Internet access is analogous to an easement. An easement can't be revoked by the grantor after it is given. Your Internet access? Well, I don't know what your contract says, but I'd imagine there are a wide variety of reasons that your ISP could cut you off, and I doubt you would have any recourse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
An easement doesn't go away without the express permission of everyone involved in the easement. If your neighbor has an easement across your property to get to his garage, he doesn't lose it because he didn't pay you "rent" on that easement. That's one of the main differences between easements and leaseholds.
A better analogy would be the phone company charging other phone companies to route calls across their network. And guess what? They all do that, they all have peering arrangements with each other for
Re: (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 ex
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually understand what "right of way" is? To be short and clear, it is a government supported right and protection against all manner of things that might interfere with their presence and their operations. Right of way exists for radio, electric power, telephone, cable TV and lots more. This luxury does not come free. It exchanges this luxury for providing services that benefit the community. While I think ALL services that require Right of way should be regulated by the same agencies for the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Net neutrality is legal because the ISP was granted a monopoly by the Local or State government, and they can impose any regulation as part of the deal. It's just the same way they regulate Electric and Natural Gas companies.
If the ISP doesn't enforce net neutrality, the Member State government can revoke the monopoly, pay the ISP for property lost (as required by eminent domain), and hand the monopoly to a new company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Net Neutrality wouldn't be a regulatory taking in it's head as much as it would be a consumer protection situation. You see, the ISP's sell subscriptions to the internet. If they block any portion of that internet, then it's more or less false advertising. If the ISP restricts or manipulated the packets or information crossing into their network to below what the consumer purchased, then it's bait and switch, failure to deliver contracts services, and possible unfair business practices depending on the stat
Re:he's right, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
problem is (Score:2)
The problem that will stymie people on this will be that the non-net-neutrality can take place on purely private property. It doesn't take place on the shared wires, or the rights of way. It takes place inside the routers wholly owned by the ISP/telco/cableco etc.
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
Re: (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.
Just like healthcare... (Score:5, Interesting)
People are using the same argument that "Government can't make me buy health insurance!" in order to kill the already-law health care reforms. But the pseudo-code looks like this.
function HealthCareTax($BoughtInsurance)
{
$HealthTax = $money;
If $BoughtInsurance == True {$HealthTax = 0;}
return $HealthTax;
}
The government most certainly has the power to tax, and also has the power to create tax deductions for those who qualify. So, this challenge is going to go nowhere fast.
Back to Net Neutrality, the way to implement this is a tax on what we consider unfair network activity. If they want to do what they want with their property, sure... but then they've got to pay a tax that makes that behavior less profitable or perhaps even unprofitable.
solution in search of a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
If AT&T told me I couldn't access Wikipedia, or Fark, or even Spankwire from their network because their operators weren't paying some stupid monthly charge, I'd cancel my iPho
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Race to the bottom. Look it up.
Example: the minute a bank starts charging to send customers their monthly statements, customers will move to other banks, right? Wrong. At least here in .nl, the other banks decided that this was a good time to start charging for formerly free services as well, until the current situation where you get nickeled and dimed to death with small charges.
In your hypothetical case, the other ISPs will not advertise their neutrality, they will start extorting content providers themse
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
Fourth Amendment (Score:2)
TFA says "The third parties are not proactively going onto anyone's network."
So you don't mind if the Cops listen to your IP traffic then, and prosecute you for data they find in it?
No Surprise Here (Score:4, Interesting)
American corporations have been behaving like welfare queens for decades, and all the while pounding their chests and proclaiming their love of free enterprise. The disgusting part of the whole thing is that the business press is so used to kissing corporate heinie that they never call them on it.
Net Neutrality is needed NOW (Score:5, Informative)
When I first heard of Net Neutrality, people had mockups of what they feared ISP's plans would eventually degenerate into. Things like "facebook+ebay+1GB other". It gave me the creeps back then, but what horrifies me is that in less than a year this has become reality to Australians.
Check this out: Optus iPhone plans [optus.com.au]. Click the "Plan Comparisons". Each one has a "Unlimited mobile access to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, eBay, foursquare" bonus.
The fine print says: "Unlimited use of these services within Australia only. Use of these services is separate and does not count towards your included “Mobile Internet Data Value.” These features are only available to you if your handset is compatible with the service. Optus Mobile Fair Go Policy applies..."
Keep in mind that Australia already has "tiered" internet pricing, because local bandwidth is practically free, while international bandwidth is very expensive. However, this is not what's happening here. None of those sites are hosted in Australia. It costs Optus no less to provide those to their customers than any other site. This is some sort of back-room deal.
If you host a website, or work for a company that does, welcome to second-class citizenship on the internet, unless you pony up the cash and make a deal with every two-bit ISP and Telco out there. Can't afford to do that? Tough.
Welcome to the free internet, where you are free to use all 6 Optus approved services.
Re: (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:5, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Informative)
No. Private enterprise did not want the internet. In large part they said "it's just a fad, no significant amount of commerce will be done over the internet." Were you asleep all through the 90's? Here is a typical such article from Newsweek in 1995:
http://www.newsweek.com/1995/02/26/the-internet-bah.html [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only during Nap Time, but between that, Recess, Arts and Crafts, Story Time, and Reading and Arithmetic, who has the energy left to keep up on current technology trends?
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, private enterprise largely built the Internet after the very early phase, while government did its best to prevent commercial use. You know, companies like Sun, Cisco, etc, etc, etc, etc....
FAIL: Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992
Nuff said.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Informative)
Oops, got in a hurry there. My FAIL. While parts of that bill were passed in other legislation, that bill ultimately failed. What I was thinking of was actually:
High Performance Computing Act of 1991
http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional/laws/pl_102-194.html [nitrd.gov] [nitrd.gov]
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: (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 A
Re: (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: (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 j
Re: (Score:2)
A market dominated by a collusive cartel is not a free market.
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:4, Informative)
Actually, cartels, price-fixing, collusion, etc are exactly what you get if you had a truly "free" market (assuming that such a thing could exist in the first place).
There is no mechanism in a "free market" that would prevent price-fixing or monopolies. Only government regulation can do that.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
At the time there were exclusive deals so there was only one seller of the iPhone in both the UK and US.
In the US you can't ta
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Informative)
What a great opportunity for a company C to come into the market and sell it for $10 and take all the customers.
That's when Company AB sells at $5 for long enough to drive C out of business.
(Which, if it's an industry/product that has an even remotely non-trivial barrier to entry, probably won't take very long, since they'll be deep in the hole to start with.)
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: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:4, Informative)
If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works.
No. The whole point is there aren't "enough people" to make it economical for business to deliver certain services out to rural areas and still make a profit (must the tired USPS/UPS point need be repeated?). Sure, the market *eventually* came up with affordable on-site power generation products, but it hadn't bothered at the time the bill was passed. Why is it so hard to understand that private enterprise is fantastic when it has a market to supply and otherwise it's useless and we need government to actually get anything done?
There's a large difference between what government decided to subsidize decades ago, and today's politicians being too cowardly to cancel outdated subsidies like coal and corn. If you insist on living in the past please stick to arguing about the merits of a subsidy, but don't keep boring us with verses from your stupid free market bible.
Re: (Score:2)
A free market is a democracy, not an anarchy.
Without a strong government to referee things you wind up with the biggest bruisers running the show in the form of trusts.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's my goddamn flying car then?
Right here. [terrafugia.com] I got a pretty good look at this at the EAA Airventure in Oshkosh WI last weekend. Pretty neat stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the looks of this one [youtube.com] better.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at a lot of the companies who thought about making flying cars (like Ford in the 1950s) the ideas were usually rejected by the FAA which is, guess what? More government interference.
I say 'proof' or you're talking out your butt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And my eternal youth?
You'd be a lot more likely to have it if the government didn't impose vastly expensive regulations on anyone who tries to provide it. When dramatic life extension becomes possible you'll probably have to fly to Mexico or Thailand to get the treatment if you don't want to die before it becomes legal in America.
There is absolutely no doubt that pharmaceutical regulation has killed at least hundreds of thousands of people, and probably far more. One drug that saves 10,000 lives a year being delayed by a decade
Re: (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?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
As long as drug companies are HONEST about what they sell I have no qualms about them selling whatever they want.
If someone takes a look at the listed ingredients and/or side effects, and decides on that basis not to buy, another drug company will cater to them.
Competition would keep everything tidy soon enough.
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: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:5, Informative)
We used to live under that system, and it fucking sucked. It sucked so badly that the masses revolted and demanded government regulate these industries which perpetrated terrible lies and destruction upon the population. This happened over and over and over again.
People like you have forgotten the lessons of history. Do you think big government was instituted by bureaucrats last Tuesday? We have built up the government over hundreds of years, a little at a time, each time to solve a problem. Every now and then we stumble, but we usually trade in a big problem (say, unregulated drug markets causing huge causualties) for a small one (say, fewer casualties).
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: (Score:3, Informative)
The material question is, has pharmaceutical regulation saved more people than its killed?
Re: (Score:2)
And one untested drug that kills a million people undoes all the good of deregulation.
There is indeed no doubt that pharmaceutical regulation is killing people. But at the same time, it is saving more, other, people from dying.
Net lives saved.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Funny)
How did this get moderated "informative"?
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
And it's not informative, either.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Funny)
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
No it isn't!
And it's not informative, either.
Yes it is!
Well, actually, no you're right it's not informative at all. At most it's ever-so-slightly informative or funny. Mostly it's just me being a wag. One way or another, I was trying to engage Darkness404 on his intellectual level, and I think I achieved that.
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Funny)
No it isn't!
Yes it is!
this isn't an argument! You're just contradicting.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when those same ISPs have been forced to negotiate contracts and ROW more locally, that has always been a disaster. No wait, I mean those areas have vastly superior service. Wait, which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
And people in general have nominated the government as their representative by voting in parties that defend such policies.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I own what I can defend from taking.
Interesting theory... but it's not really ownership if anyone can just organize a big enough gang to steal it with no repercussions [wikipedia.org] (no matter how good your defenses are, someone will always be able to get more people than you can handle). You "owning" something means that you are exclusively entitled to possess and use it, and that such rights don't disappear just because someone failed to respect them [wikipedia.org].
Re: (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)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
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: (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: (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:Best way to fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Best way to fix it (Score:4, Interesting)
Not hardly. Corporate networks would never, ever have evolved into the Internet.
Without the work done by government and the publicly-funded universities, there would never, ever have been an internet. There are no business models from individual corporations that would have resulted in anything nearly as great as the Internet.
Private enterprise took their best shot at making an Internet and it turned out to be cable television. Remember all the "public access" and "interactivity" there was going to be on cable television? Maybe you're too young to remember the hype surrounding the early "pay TV" efforts, but it was supposed to "serve communities" and "bring us together". We would do our shopping on cable TV and communicate with each other on cable TV and play games on cable TV and have town hall meetings on cable TV.
Instead, we got Spike, the Home Shopping Network and some expensive premium channels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure there are a couple examples, but I can't actually think of any standards which arose from unregulated markets. Insofar as standards benefit consumers (and that is insofar VERY far indeed), the credit is almost entirely due to unfree, regulated markets.
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: (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
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And who knows, had private enterprise designed the internet from the start, it could have more elegant solutions and such.
If private enterprise designed the internet, we would have had an internet designed by Microsoft, DoubleClick, and Real. Jesus, that makes me shudder. We all benefit every single day because the internet was designed by idealistic hippies who believed in sharing, equality, and freedom, even at the expense of profits. The internet is so good specifically because it was designed by academi
Re: (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 what? (Score:2)
I don't understand. What would that fix? Net neutrality? Seems to me that would break net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need the government in order to have a monopoly or oligopoly that screws its customers. At the risk of stating the obvious, the government's role is often to lay down the rules of fair play: take our anti-trust laws, for example.
--
My first rule: be suspicious of hard and fast rules.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need the government in order to have a monopoly or oligopoly that screws its customers.
How do you create a monopoly which screws its customers without government preventing competitors from entering your market?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You prevent them yourselves by subsidizing prices in any competitors area until that competitor is out of business, then jack the prices up to outrageous levels until you've recovered your losses.
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without government subsidies and other involvement, there would be no internet.
{Citation required}
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: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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Building infrastructure is one of the few areas of where government involvement in private enterprise is reasonable. That's why public utilities fall under a special set of rules and regulation and end up being quasi-governmental entities. Unfortunately, telecom has even more layers of special rules so it's ripe for corruption.
I believe the answer is to force the segregation of infrastructure providers and service providers - very similar to how many want Microsoft's OS and application divisions to be sep
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, we don't have to choose between those two things. That's called a "false choice." Everyone except for you realizes that there is a sliding scale of how much regulation and competition we want, and that the best market is a balance of many competing dimensions.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>>>Mom&Pop ISP is Smalltown USA doe not engage in commerce among the states.
>>
>>If they're providing access to a worldwide network
Just because Farmer Jo is selling chickens in Smalltown USA, and her customer carries them into the next state, doesn't mean Farmer Jo is engaging in "commerce among the States". Her chicken business is still INTRAstate commerce. So said the US Supreme Court in the 1930s when they struck down one of FDR's New Deal laws. They ruled the farmer wa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, there is precedent for saying otherwise [wikipedia.org].