I was under the impression that there was debate because people in general don't trust either big business or the government to police things properly.
That's basically it. It's just that the dittoheads think net neutrality = government policing when it's not. The telecoms have done a bangup job of misinforming the free market dogmatists on that matter.
Government mandated net neutrality is basically what most of the debate is about. I don't see much of the net neutrality debate framed outside of whether or not the government should enact regulation.
I'd like to clarify because my comment is ambiguous. It's scary either way. Either we end up with a fragmented internet like the article suggests, or end up with a heavily regulated internet like the article suggests. Both are scary outcomes.
and someone playing the false dichotomy card in 3...2...
The fact that it has generated debate suggests that any attempt at Internet access control will be micro-examined end to end. Even if rationality and human decency fail to prevail, I trust that bureaucracy will slow things down well enough.
Net Neutrality (forcing telecom companies to relinquish control over their property), is only potentially a valid idea because they hold a government-assisted monopoly. They receive government subsidies and have specific permission to lay down fiber-optic cable.
If these were totally independent companies that existed and thrived without the aid of government, appropriating their property for the public would be illegal and immoral.
I believe it is legal in many or most countries. In the USA the power of the state to expropriate property for the public good is called eminent domain, and it is affirmed by the US constitution.
You're not allowed to collude or leverage dominance in one market (infrastructure) into an unfair advantage in another market (content).
Citation needed.
Apple dominates the college student/professional artist demographic. They sell hardware coupled software - it is illegal to run their software on any non-Apple hardware.
This is why free markets work -- if we refused to regulate anything, ever, it'd be oligarchy, and there'd be precious little "free" about it.
That is absolutely wrong. By definition a free market has no regulation (besides prevention of fraud). In fact the only thing giving telecom companies a monopoly is the government.
EDIT: To the person who voted me down, would you mind explaining why? I'd be fascinated to know.
EDIT 2: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_marketA free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts
During the Gilded Age, as the industrial revolution was happening, a small number of people controlled all of the money and infrastructure. Then, there were no laws against collusion or antitrust or any of that. If you owned the railroad line to Denver, you could insist that you'll only ship your brand of widget to Denver, and everyone loses except you. You win big.
So they routinely fucked everyone else over, and life is much better now that we don't have a few massive trusts dominating the whole economy.
It's interesting that you should bring up the railroad industry as an example of why anti-trust laws are necessary....
The railroad industry was extremely corrupt and was heavily subsidized by the government. They received special treatment and competition was forbidden.
Yeah, I'm noticing a trend - you don't even know basic history, but you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them.
Here's a hint: they aren't. Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you?
but you think you know all the answers and they're so obvious that you can be smug and condescending about them.
With the exception of me stating my opinion that appropriating private property is immoral, I have simply been stating facts. In fact I can tell this discussion has degraded because you have resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Black and white proclamations about "government this" and "free market that" are used by 2 kinds of people : demagogues, and the useful idiots who follow them. Which are you?
Sometimes the extreme view is the correct one. Just because it is extreme does not make it inherently wrong. You are the one being dogmatic. And I'm not even saying that net neutrality is wrong. I very clearly stated that it should remain open for debate - it is not an cut and dry issue.
"Freedom and equality for all" - I take the extreme view on that. Does that make me wrong? If you view the free market as a moral issue then this comparison does not seem so far-fetched.
Yes, the attitude of "I don't have to know what I'm talking about in order to hold an extreme view and be 100% confident in it" is not only wrong, it underlies most of the avoidable catastrophes in human history.
IANAL but extending "eminent domain" to telecommunications infrastructure does not seem straightforward or cut and dry. Eminent domain typically refers to a physical property.
And eminent domain has been affirmed by subsequent supreme courts rulings - it is not explicitly defined in the constitution.
I recall one fellow from Gujarat I met at engineering college who was in it because the degree would earn him a better dowry. He explained it thus:
1. If you have a B.E. degree, you get a INR 2000000 dowry alongwith a 800cc Maruti Suzuki automobile.
2. If you have a MBA degree, you get a INR 3500000 dowry, alongwith a Maruti Suzuki Esteem, or a Tata Indica.
3. If you have a M.D degree, you get a INR 5000000 dowry, alongwith a Maruti Suzuki Esteem / Tata Indica, and a furnished apartment.
4. If you have completed IAS school, you get a INR 7500000 dowry, alongwith a luxury car, and a rowhouse/bungalow.
Apparently, the way the parents reason when it comes to sending their kid to college is: if sending him to college costs me such and such, what will the returns on such an investment be?
1. Clean color scheme: The grayscale goes really easy on the eyes.
2. Match Score: While a simple ranking should have been enough, your quantification somehow gives me an idea of how far apart two matches might be. Good move - that is added intelligence.
Also, when taking on a problem, it helps if you break it down into smaller, shorter, quantifiable targets. This single approach alone will help you see impossible problems as being a set of smaller, difficult ones.
Indeed. And I write funny so pen on the right is actually more helpful than pen on the left. I can only write if the paper is orthogonal to my body i.e. parallel to the keyboard. I make my left-arm parallel to the keyboard, which puts my fingers on the right-side of the keyboard, making it easy to pick up the pen placed on the right side.
