[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote
With no government action the internet would not exist.
Fact.
Nonsense.
I’m all ears.
Figuratively speaking.
Tell me how the internet came to be…[/quote]
al gore
I don’t buy this shit about net neutrality.
If all the major ISPs switch to a biased subscription model, it will leave a gaping hole in the market for companies who offer full unbiased access to internet content.
A blatantly inferior service is not going to previal in a free market.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I don’t buy this shit about net neutrality.
If all the major ISPs switch to a biased subscription model, it will leave a gaping hole in the market for companies who offer full unbiased access to internet content.
A blatantly inferior service is not going to previal in a free market.[/quote]
Who is going to lay all the new cable or fiber optic to bring the high speed internet?
The cost to get into the market is huge.
Another thing is why shouldn’t I have a say through my elected representatives on how Verizon, Comcast and the like do their business?
They run their cables through my yard. Verizon tore up my driveway and front yard and didn’t compensate me. I do not use their service.
Do I have a right to charge them rent? Do I have a right to dig them up?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Do I have a right to charge them rent? Do I have a right to dig them up?[/quote]
Absolutely! The question is why did this company have access to your property in the first place?
Go out there and dig up their cables cut their service and tell them to route somewhere else…or to pay you a spoecified amount.
Imagine if everyone did that.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Do I have a right to charge them rent? Do I have a right to dig them up?
Absolutely! The question is why did this company have access to your property in the first place?
Go out there and dig up their cables cut their service and tell them to route somewhere else…or to pay you a spoecified amount.
Imagine if everyone did that.[/quote]
I doesn’t sound very appealing.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Imagine if everyone did that.
I doesn’t sound very appealing.[/quote]
Well, let’s apply some simple economic analysis to this. Remember how we were talking about barriers to enter the market earlier? The fact that the telcos do not own the property in which they have to lay their lines is a barrier of sorts (but not really in the strictest sense). If telcos had to actually pay a cost to all property owners for access to property internet access, telephone, and cable TV would be much more expensive. Not only this it would not be as prevalent in many parts of the country because, as we can properly imagine, many people would refuse to allow their property to be dug up to lay lines or erect poles, etc. This is what is seen.
What isn’t seen is the fact that more efficient ways of delivery may have come about sooner because of the above noted costs. With this increased efficiency we may have already had cheaper service and more wide spread delivery. We can only imagine what more wide spread delivery might mean: with greater traffic on an infrastructure there is more incentive for technological innovation which would not be otherwise.
So, while it no doubt seems more cost effective from our current perspective what we actually may be losing out on is greater innovation and, in fact, cheaper service in the long run. We can’t know this until it actually happens though.
What we really need to understand, however, is how and why the current situation came to be. Why did a telco get to lay lines without paying for access in the first place?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Imagine if everyone did that.
I doesn’t sound very appealing.
Well, let’s apply some simple economic analysis to this. Remember how we were talking about barriers to enter the market earlier? The fact that the telcos do not own the property in which they have to lay their lines is a barrier of sorts (but not really in the strictest sense). If telcos had to actually pay a cost to all property owners for access to property internet access, telephone, and cable TV would be much more expensive. Not only this it would not be as prevalent in many parts of the country because, as we can properly imagine, many people would refuse to allow their property to be dug up to lay lines or erect poles, etc. This is what is seen.
What isn’t seen is the fact that more efficient ways of delivery may have come about sooner because of the above noted costs. With this increased efficiency we may have already had cheaper service and more wide spread delivery. We can only imagine what more wide spread delivery might mean: with greater traffic on an infrastructure there is more incentive for technological innovation which would not be otherwise.
So, while it no doubt seems more cost effective from our current perspective what we actually may be losing out on is greater innovation and, in fact, cheaper service in the long run. We can’t know this until it actually happens though.
What we really need to understand, however, is how and why the current situation came to be. Why did a telco get to lay lines without paying for access in the first place?[/quote]
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
[/quote]
It was private industry that started the railways and put the Pony Express out of “business”. The same analysis applies to all infrastructures that rely on access to private property.
Where there is demand supply will follow so long as the technology exists and there are no barriers to entry into the market.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
It was private industry that started the railways and put the Pony Express out of “business”. The same analysis applies to all infrastructures that rely on access to private property.
Where there is demand supply will follow so long as the technology exists and there are no barriers to entry into the market.[/quote]
Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railway required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad, the two privately chartered federally backed enterprises that built the line westward and eastward respectively.
I will let wiki burst your bubble.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
It was private industry that started the railways and put the Pony Express out of “business”. The same analysis applies to all infrastructures that rely on access to private property.
Where there is demand supply will follow so long as the technology exists and there are no barriers to entry into the market.
Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railway required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad, the two privately chartered federally backed enterprises that built the line westward and eastward respectively.
I will let wiki burst your bubble.
[/quote]
You beat me to it.
In my opinion,there are just certain enterprises that only the resources and long term view of government can tackle effectively.(yes,I know that sounds like an oxymoron,but it really isn’t)
Once the donkey work is done,these then tend to be turned over to private enterprise for refinement and continuation.But the initial effort tends be in the public domain.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
It was private industry that started the railways and put the Pony Express out of “business”. The same analysis applies to all infrastructures that rely on access to private property.
Where there is demand supply will follow so long as the technology exists and there are no barriers to entry into the market.
Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railway required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad, the two privately chartered federally backed enterprises that built the line westward and eastward respectively.
I will let wiki burst your bubble.
[/quote]
Wiki only provides an explanation for what is seen. It does not analyze what is not seen. My earlier analysis still applies.
The federal government did not build railroads. They took money from individual citizens and gave it to business men so that they could build and purchase railroads. Do you really think it was some bureaucratic genius that thought up the idea to build railroads? More likely it was some business man who came groveling to big brother for favors – just like they all do.
Government cannot build anything. All goods and services require labor and resources. The government can only tax, borrow, and loot – all at the point of a gun.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Once the donkey work is done,these then tend to be turned over to private enterprise for refinement and continuation.But the initial effort tends be in the public domain.[/quote]
But how does one know government will provide the most efficient means for delivery, etc. Please see my above analysis.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Wiki only provides an explanation for what is seen. It does not analyze what is not seen. My earlier analysis still applies.
[/quote]
You used the railway system as support for your idea that telcos should not be funded by the government or granted special exemptions to ease their entry into a desirable market. The wiki quote proved that the same sort of thing was going on there… federal support for private enterprise in order to allow a project to come to fruition faster.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Once the donkey work is done,these then tend to be turned over to private enterprise for refinement and continuation.But the initial effort tends be in the public domain.
But how does one know government will provide the most efficient means for delivery, etc. Please see my above analysis.[/quote]
Look at it this way:If they are the only game in town for a particular desired outcome to be achieved,then they are de facto the most efficient means for delivery at that point in time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Or more likely we would still be reliant on the Pony Express.
It was private industry that started the railways and put the Pony Express out of “business”. The same analysis applies to all infrastructures that rely on access to private property.
Where there is demand supply will follow so long as the technology exists and there are no barriers to entry into the market.
Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government, it was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railway required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad, the two privately chartered federally backed enterprises that built the line westward and eastward respectively.
I will let wiki burst your bubble.
Wiki only provides an explanation for what is seen. It does not analyze what is not seen. My earlier analysis still applies.
The federal government did not build railroads. They took money from individual citizens and gave it to business men so that they could build and purchase railroads. Do you really think it was some bureaucratic genius that thought up the idea to build railroads? More likely it was some business man who came groveling to big brother for favors – just like they all do.
Government cannot build anything. All goods and services require labor and resources. The government can only tax, borrow, and loot – all at the point of a gun.[/quote]
You should stop. You are making yourself look silly.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
You used the railway system as support for your idea that telcos should not be funded by the government or granted special exemptions to ease their entry into a desirable market. The wiki quote proved that the same sort of thing was going on there… federal support for private enterprise in order to allow a project to come to fruition faster. [/quote]
It only proves what actually happened. Further logical analysis concludes that where government does not intervene (in the first place) other means will come about in the market. It is the same fallacy government has been making for over 100 years – that which is seen and that which is not.
And as I stated, nothing can be built by government but rather it is individuals who are employed at the expense of the taxpayers who are doing the building for private industry. What happens when government makes a bad investment and some industry fails? Do we let it continue to fail by bailing it out because the collective wisdom is that the market does not work without government? Hint: we’re witnessing the same thing with the American auto industry.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You should stop. You are making yourself look silly.[/quote]
What is silly is the idea that government can do anything other than steal wealth at the point of a gun.
Of course, they sell it to you as being for the good of the public in their public schools and never let it be debated. It is an uphill battle.
Why does Marx get more attention that Adam Smith in any freshman economics course? It’s because even though his theory is wrong it still relies on government to prop it up. It is sold as a false choice to our young scholars so that big brother can say, “Hey, Marx got it wrong be we got it right.” And they sell it with half truths, incorrect theory, and misinformation.
Even public choicers which are a step above Keynesians don’t get much debate time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You should stop. You are making yourself look silly.
What is silly is the idea that government can do anything other than steal wealth at the point of a gun.
…[/quote]
And without government others steal from you at the point of a gun and you get less in return.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And without government others steal from you at the point of a gun and you get less in return.
[/quote]
The idea that government prevents crime is nonsense; if that were true we wouldn’t have one of the worlds largest prison populations. In fact, I would say that larger government actually increases crime because they provide an incentive for violent gang activity with regulation and other taxpayer ripoffs.
And further still, it does not follow that government should be the one deciding what is in the public interest when it comes to economic matters. This is the function of prices. People like what is a “good value”. We already know that government intervention distorts prices which causes inefficiency and higher prices. That isn’t good for the “public”.