Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I already posted this to BF's Facebook - but this is where the action is - my selected comments:

There's no chance for competition when the massive telecom corporations own all the pipes into the home and sue to prevent any further competition. (See most muni-broadband projects) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/the-price-of-muni-broadband-eternal-war-with-time-warner-cable.ars

Read the above article and tell me again how if only the free market was left unfettered we'd have competition in broadband. What a load of bull. The major controlling corporations have no interest in competition.

How is it government's fault? The big telcos gobbled up the little Baby Bells with no regulation from the FTC, hogging all the infrastructure and lobbying / suing any organization that challenged their primacy. How do you blame the government for this?

>> ^kymbos:

Here in Aus we have cans and pieces of string, powered by diesel. This whole internet thing is just a fad.


Diesel works ok, but I prefer to run my internet box on koala juice, it's more organic.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^blankfist:
One word: government.

HAHA! Non-statist idiots!


This seems to be more a case of statist non-idiots, not non-statist idiots.

*politics

Your video, Why is European broadband faster and cheaper than US?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^marinara:

paying $60 per month for 768 kilobits here in the USA.

Outch!

For 30€ you get 100mbit internet and telephone flatrate here in Germany, time to move

>> ^blankfist:

One word: government.

By that do you mean a lot of government regulations working well to benefit the people instead of letting big businesses Cleavland-steamer every one of us into financial ruin???


If so, I agree. Government.

>> ^blankfist:

One word: government.


HAHA! Non-statist idiots!

thank you very much!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*quality

>> ^chilaxe:

The idea is that systems can function more efficiently when the costs of different choices are transparent. So if people choose to live in inefficient locations because the inefficiency will be subsidized by others, the overall wealth of the society decreases from that inefficiency.
That's fine if most people live lives with a fraction of the efficiency of us, just so long as they bear the costs, not us.


I don't think that's an achievable goal though, not to the level you're talking about.

Think about all the flat rates out there. There's flat-rate phone service. Flat-rate broadband internet. Flat-rate video game services. Even flat-rate movie rentals (Netflix!)

>> ^NetRunner:

First, the Post Office has been self-sufficient since the 80's. Your paycheck has nothing to do with it, unless you buy postage from the USPS.
Second, there's a difference between "inefficiency", and mandated universal service. What you describe is the latter.
And a third point to @blankfist's gung-ho praise of private carriers, all the packages I've gotten this year from Fedex were sent by Fedex's SmartPost, where they hire the USPS to do terminal delivery for them, because they can do it more efficiently.
Ditto for DHL and UPS. It's been a while since someone other than a USPS mail carrier brought me a package.
As confrontational as all that sounds, I don't really have any particular attachment to seeing government be in the mail delivery business. I don't really see any point in the universal service requirement on snail mail anymore, either.
I'm game for upgrading to something like Finland's universal service for broadband internet, since keeping us all connected via an information network is why we had a government-subsidized post office in the first place.
If you guys sign on for that, I'm all for cutting the Post Office loose.


FedEx and UPS will fly USPS mail from point A to point B. USPS will deliver the last leg of Fedex and UPS parcels in certain areas. It works both ways. They all touch each other's junk.
But the enforced monopoly on private mail creates an oligopoly in the package delivery market. This is the greater evil of government enforced monopolies. Monopolies don't lead to ingenuity, resourcefulness, or efficiency. So markets, that are seemingly free, will emerge around the government controlled one. And since companies can gain a market advantage by piggybacking on government infrastructure and making political deals, then it leads to oligopolies where the consumers are given false choices at inflated prices in their goods and services. Think Verizon/AT&T, Comcast/Time Warner, Energy providers, etc.

The USPS is self-sufficient? The USPS has several billion dollar deficits every year. To stay in business it has to "borrow" money from the US Treasury each year. ("Borrow" because it'll get paid back right?) So... where does the Treasury get it's money from? *cough* ... Taxes?!?! Ok, so technically it isn't using tax money because really that money was spent a looong time ago with how the government has it's own deficits (in the trillions!).
Basically when the USPS brags that they don't get tax payer money, it's at best a misnomer. It's actually far worse. The USPS has to "borrow" money from the US treasury, who has to "borrow" money from the Federal Reserve. And since the Federal Reserve doesn't actually have any "reserves", it magically creates the money, which debases the currency, which causes inflation. So everyone does end up paying for the deficit, only it's with an invisible tax of lost purchasing power of their money, i.e. prices go up. Yet the "debt" holder still collects interest from the tax payers and can even demand payment in full which would probably lead to confiscation of public assets and/or selling of public assets to private companies. So the reality is the USPS does cost the tax payer. The tax payer pays the deficit. Twice. Plus interest. That's why public debt is such a dangerous matter. And also why most of the debt in the world is illegitimate.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner I think the point is that if you want to not exist on tax dollars, you don't also get to legislate out competitors.

Big shrug here. I don't really see a problem with that. Maybe if I thought the service we were getting was a bad deal I'd feel differently, but I think we're getting a pretty good deal.

I'm a lot more worried about the near-monopolies we've got in broadband internet and mobile phone service than I am about the USPS's monopoly on 1st class mail service.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
They loose money as well, perhaps it is time to let someone else take a stab at it?

Ahh, do they? Or is their financial situation being weighed down by a requirement Congress saddled them with to pre-fund health benefits?

Again, I just don't see the point in messing with how the Post Office works. It seems like the (half-hearted) efforts from the right to destroy it have more to do with long-term political strategy than an actual effort to make someone's life better.

After all, it's pretty hard to tell people scare stories about how socialism leads to death camps, when one can just point at the postman and say "oh really?"

>> ^chilaxe:

That's a good point, but I think it supports the argument that the USPS is highly inefficient. If services are genuinely more expensive out in rural areas, why should other people be subsidizing the price?
Bubbajoe in Redneckville can move closer to town if cheap mail is so important to him, and his decisions should have nothing to do with your and my paycheck.


First, the Post Office has been self-sufficient since the 80's. Your paycheck has nothing to do with it, unless you buy postage from the USPS.

Second, there's a difference between "inefficiency", and mandated universal service. What you describe is the latter.

And a third point to @blankfist's gung-ho praise of private carriers, all the packages I've gotten this year from Fedex were sent by Fedex's SmartPost, where they hire the USPS to do terminal delivery for them, because they can do it more efficiently.

Ditto for DHL and UPS. It's been a while since someone other than a USPS mail carrier brought me a package.

As confrontational as all that sounds, I don't really have any particular attachment to seeing government be in the mail delivery business. I don't really see any point in the universal service requirement on snail mail anymore, either.

I'm game for upgrading to something like Finland's universal service for broadband internet, since keeping us all connected via an information network is why we had a government-subsidized post office in the first place.

If you guys sign on for that, I'm all for cutting the Post Office loose.

What your really saying is people don't have rights to restrict their property. I would like to use your house for my parties from now on then. Once again, you don't have a right to the internet just like you don't have a right to the New York Times. This entire argument is flawed. If people want to restrict access to their pipes, then that is their shallow grave. Consumer retaliation can be strong, devastatingly so. (Just ask Time Warner)

I mean, it isn't like everyone has internet. Go up to some rural mountain areas and you can't get it during the winter at times. And I am not just talking about broadband, I am talking about the internet. Are their first amendment rights being violated? Not being able to consume a product you desire has nothing to do with rights, at all. No one owes you speech, that is something you owe yourself.

I think your heart is in the right place on this, I think your demands are completely unreasonable, and in the end, lead down a path I don't think you desire. Does the FCC create free speech on TV? Or does it take an active role in making sure things aren't said? Same with the radio, are they handing out tickets for people not being expressive enough, or expression something they don't want heard? You really, really, really, don't want governments deciding how content is delivered on the internet...you really don't.

>> ^marinara:

reason.tv are hypocrites who want to wreck free speech by killing net neutrality.


Cause regulation is what you need for free speech...just like radio and tv and movies aren't censored! Your opinion isn't shared by everyone, so it is hard to label them hypocrites You can't regulate free speech into existence, you can only regulate it away. It is like saying since I can't post things in someone else's news paper my free speech has been violated. The REAL culprit in the whole net nutrality debate is the lack of consumer choice in your broadband. A lot of that has to do with state and city regulations on who can lay cable, and you can bet it is a hotbed of mixed interests. If and when wireless is the mainstay of bandwidth, the entire net neutrality issue is moot. If you could choose between one of 300 networks, you would have more choice to choose against companies that don't play nice. Others, that don't care, won't make that choice. I prefer not to let government get its foot in the door for this last safe haven of free speech, the government has a much worse history than most things I can think of.

Not to mention that argument is completely flawed I might as well say you are a hypocrite because of your views on Net Neutrality and then use that to disregard your very sound opinion on abortion. ERROR ERROR does not compute! I will still allow you to touch me, though! (time for another drink!)

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^gwiz665:
Oh you glorious Swedish bastard, why do you have such cheap awesome internet while I have to prostitute myself for my measly 4/1 Mbps!
>> ^LarsaruS:
Long live my 100Mbps/100Mbps uncapped internet for 26.7 US dollars/month (165 Sek/month)


We have it so that you can't have it, because that is the way the Internet works! Right?
Also because you are a Danskjävel It helps to live in a university town though as there are about 7 different ISPs competing against each other here...
Just for fun I checked up on some North American ISPs (Since I'm not in NA I might have found only the crappiest of ISPs there after my exhaustive 2 minute google-fu exercise) and man are they robbing you guys over there... broadband with the "amazing" speed of 0.5-4Mbps for a similar amount or more than I pay for 100/100... I mean WTF mate?
There is a saying in Sweden: Freedom starts at 100Mbps


That's pretty awesome. I pay $59.99/month for 20/2.