Kevin Mitnick fakes his way into LA Telco Central Office has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Good Mitnick story
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Kevin-Mitnick-fakes-his-way-into-LA-Telco-Central-Office

Let us not forget about the retroactive immunity bestowed upon the telcos for playing their part in wiretapping [all] citizens on US soil. w00!

The actual problem is the ability and willingness of the telecoms to sue to keep competition away. Owning all the pipes, while it may be perceived as a monopoly and obstruction to competition, does not satisfactorily explain the problem. I say this because in Germany all of the the pipes are owned by Deutsche Telecom, but it is government regulations that allow for competition. As a result, internet is cheaper and faster as pointed out by TheGenk. Go ahead, own the pipes, but allow for fair use of them and lease them to anyone willing to pay, and the problem will not be so acute.


>> ^dag:

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?


>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^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

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

^Unless you are blaming the government for not preventing the merging and acquisition of the smaller telcos to make giants. You're not saying that I think Blankfist.

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?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.
How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations due to their non-regional considerations?
US airports are not government facilities.
It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.
Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?

>> ^vaporlock:
I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.




I'm guessing he meant without federal funding of infrastructure our airports, for instance, wouldn't be as good as they are. example Yes, there are private options to this, but when you want to take a global edge in something at a large scale, the only option is the federal option.

The video is ostensibly true in that smaller governments are more efficient, with greater accountability in their daily minutia. However, there is a certain efficiency in extending 'good' programs to the entire country at once rather than requiring every small subsection to enact it independently. It's also pointless at this point(I'll do it anyway) to even mention that many inefficient programs are as a result of undue influence of special interest groups. Public campaign funding, greater transparency and more effective dissemination of information from watchdog groups are all ways of making the federal government more efficient. In this age, it should be possible to catch more of the bullshit happening, which the political media coverage consistently fails to do for various reasons.

Of course, there are many watchdog groups that examine the inner workings of the federal government, because it's large, centralized and presents a larger impact on the country. They often detect corruption but don't have the platform to spread their findings to the larger public unless a larger media conglomerate picks up on it. The geographic distance from a centralized government is not a significant factor in detecting corruption as it is balanced by the large number of eyes focusing on it. If you mean local populaces remaining unaware of how terrible their national representatives are, then you have a point. But this factor will hopefully be alleviated in the future through continuing improvement in getting information to the public.

Don't pretend oversight at the local level isn't without it's problems, though they tend to take a different form from the federal level.

Yes, I'm deeply concerned with the government handing out monopolies like candy. I favor copyright/patent reform.

tl;dr Government requires constant supervision and representatives should be treated like children and changed when they crap themselves. But we love them anyway because they're essential for society to continue.

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.

How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations do to their non-regional considerations?

US airports are not government facilities.

It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.

Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?


>> ^vaporlock:

I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I know, I know...the government is bad. Same song, different day.

I don't really give a rat's ass for the FCC. I don't even care about prioritizing between different types of data. Giving VOIP priority over filesharing traffic is fine and makes perfect sense, one's gap-sensitive and the other isn't. What I want is one simple rule. The -source- of the data packet cannot be used in that prioritization. IOW, all VOIP packets must be treated the same, all video must be treated the same, etc.

Allowing the big network providers to do WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY THREATENED TO DO is just stupid. Allowing them to do so because you're worried about something that -might- happen later is even more so. It's like allowing a mugger to stab you, because you're worried that fighting back or running will allow him to file a claim against your insurance.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.
The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?

^xxovercastxx
I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

^Stormsinger
I think you are drawing a false dichotomy. There are 2 issues at hand there. Firstly, the government is already involved greatly in the situation and has made the situation very bad. Secondly, just because the government isn't involved with something doesn't mean we all become victimized automatically. For instance, google is a service that has done very well with little government involvement. Additionally, many people are very satisfied with their service. But for those who aren't, they have the choice not to partake of their services, it is what the market is all about. The government has broken this system in phone and radio, where is has eliminated competing markets to "clean" up the way broadcasting was done. What this has done is centralized power in the hands of the very few. For a robber Barron to work effectively, they need to be able to hold a market captive. This is hard to do when the market is allowed to work, but in cable and radio, and telco, this practice is illegal. So the government is the strongman that keeps most markets captive to monopolistic forces; like the wall street mess you pointed out. It was a mess, but when you combine mess with legal precedent you don't help the issue any more.

The government is very great at taking emerging markets and smashing all the small competition to make way for corporate takeovers. You can bet your dimes to dollars that Comcast and NBC will be at the table when all this Net Neutrality law business kicks in, and you can bet your hindquarters they will get to write in all sorts of exceptions that will apply to smaller ISPs and not themselves. I think it is fair to say that we all want to same goal here, as open communications as we can. I just want to make clear that the government, in this case the FCC, has a horrible track record, maybe the worst in government for openness and non-censorship. TV and radio are the ONLY mediums that get censored, in reality, the FCC represents the pinicale of the violation of the first amendment...why in the hell do we want them to help with the internet?



^xxovercastxx

I am sorry man. Really, I wasn't trying to be hostile. I was more frustrated that you were frustrating yourself. It seemed like you wanted to have a good conversation on the subject, but instead got tangentilized. My apologies. I would like to suggest, however, there is a third option. The main problem with both of those situations is choice. In ISPs, and in some net neutrality law, you really don't have any consumer choice. Both situations in reality, though, have come from a system of bad laws. If we were to remove the monopoly system that protects these mega media dirt bags, then consumers that don't like the NBC, Comcast pipes can leave. Right now, in many areas, that would be against the law, which is bull crap. We need to restore balance, I think that is something we all agree on, but the way to do so isn't with more bad legislation that could backfire, but to undo that which was a mistake from 50 years ago.

Net neutrality only addresses the symptom of a much more insidious problem. All of the companies he named have their major revenue stream in some form of government protected monopoly industry. Cable and telco media giants are the creations of government entanglement in the market. They created the monster they now claim they need to subdue. While it wasn't Al Franken that created these government protected monopolies, he proposes a solution that has time and time again shown to worsen our plight rather that help it. Any short lived deregulation ability the FCC would impose would surely over time be twiddled down by people who have billions to spend on lobbies and the ear of regulators. His sentiments of protecting free speech are admirable, but the prescription is that of an even greater disaster. Open up cable, telco, and radio markets to ACTUAL competition and their strangle hold over media will start to dissipate.

In other words, trying to kill the beast with the same thing that made the beast is foolish. Just undue that which made the beast first, then clean up any loose ends that didn't solve. It is practical, fair, and not reactionary, and doesn't open Pandora's box like it did for radio and TV (which are now HIGHLY regulated mediums).

Also, when has the government ever made or kept anything fast or unregulated? Has anyone watched TV, listened to radio or driven a car? Would anyone even consider those neutral, at all, like even a little? The government never misses an opportunity to regulate, ever. If not today, next administration after some other girl commits suicide from something, they will be forced by political pressure to do something, no matter how liberty restricting. You can not fight this phrase as a politician "think about the children....". Any talk of the FCC keeping it open today will be over once they flex more might over it.

The only reason we are having this debate at all is because of government caused media monopolies. Get rid of legal monopoly protection from cable and telco, and there isn't any need for this debate. This is just covering up bad legislation with even worse legislation.

>> ^Croccydile:

I don't think they are very fair with the Internet rankings though. Certainly the US is not #1 in the world but... Bermuda? That would be like putting 10mbit broadband on Guam and then calling it the largest broadband penetration in the world. Most certainly I take my connection at home with blessings as compared to say, "broadband" in Mexico. (Hint: Honest to goodness telco monopoly)


Gapminder's data for 2007 also shows Bermuda ahead of the USA for percentage of population online, (not just broadband users), although Greenland was the number 1 that year.

When I go back to watch old computer tv shows I am reminded of how drastically things have changed. Calling the past 20 years the Information Age is woefully inadequate to the scale of how much both PCs and the Internet have escalated our lives for better or for worse. The concept of even 1/1000th the potential of Google in 1990 would have resulted in a HOLY SHIT THIS IS AWESOME response back then.

I don't think they are very fair with the Internet rankings though. Certainly the US is not #1 in the world but... Bermuda? That would be like putting 10mbit broadband on Guam and then calling it the largest broadband penetration in the world. Most certainly I take my connection at home with blessings as compared to say, "broadband" in Mexico. (Hint: Honest to goodness telco monopoly)