Net Neutrality Shot Down.

[meshou]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm



US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.

Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

All three mounted vigorous lobbying campaigns prior to the vote in the House of Representatives.

Tier fear

The rejection of the principle of net neutrality came during a debate on the wide-ranging Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act).

Among other things, this aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees.

An amendment to the Act tried to add clauses that would demand net service firms treat equally all the data passing through their cables.

The amendment was thought to be needed after the FCC ripped up its rules that guaranteed net neutrality.

During the debate House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, said that without the amendment "telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway".

"This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet," she added.

Critics of the amendment said it would bring in unnecessary government regulation.

Prior to the vote net firms worried about the effect of the amendment on their business lobbied hard in favour of the amendment. They fear their sites will become hard to reach or that they will be forced to pay to guarantee that they can get through to web users.

Meg Whitman, eBay chief executive, e-mailed more than one million members of the auction site asking them to back the idea of net neutrality. Google boss Eric Schmidt called on staff at the search giant to support the idea, and film stars such as Alyssa Milano also backed the amendment.

The ending of net neutrality rules also spurred the creation of activism sites such as Save The Internet and Its Our Net.

Speaking at a conference in late May, web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that the net faced entering a "dark period" if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise.

The amendment was defeated by 269 votes to 152 and the Cope Act was passed by 321-101 votes.

The debate over the issue now moves to the US Senate where the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will vote on its version of the act in late June. The debate in that chamber is also likely to centre on issues of net neutrality. Fucking shit.

It doesn't voilate freedom of speech if it's a corporation taking it away. No sir.

Posted in "world" because yes, this does effect everyone using the internet regardless of location.

[Ka.avik]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm


Fucking shit.

It doesn't voilate freedom of speech if it's a corporation taking it away. No sir.

Posted in "world" because yes, this does effect everyone using the internet regardless of location.

You've read cyber punk: the corporations are the government nowadays. Of course this is censorship.

[PiccoloNamek]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5063072.stm


Fucking shit.

It doesn't voilate freedom of speech if it's a corporation taking it away. No sir.

Posted in "world" because yes, this does effect everyone using the internet regardless of location.

There's no reason to be angry. It was determined that this would come to pass from the very moment the universe came into existence. But if that is the case, it was also determined that you would be angry as well.

Anyway, I really don't think anything will change from the way it is now.

[htb]

"Net neutrality" is an interesting euphemism for federal regulation.


They fear their sites will become hard to reach or that they will be forced to pay to guarantee that they can get through to web users.One shouldn't blame statists for unfamiliarity with market forces, i.e., competition -- to wit, a rival telecom happily taking the business of a hypothetically suppressed business or private individual -- but the ignorance is equal parts humorous and disturbing.

[kuranes]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=10345&highlight=caspian

[meshou]

"Net neutrality" is an interesting euphemism for federal regulation.

One shouldn't blame statists for unfamiliarity with market forces, i.e., competition You are aware there are about three or four companies that own nearly all the lines the internet operates on, and that they built those lines with government subsady?

When you're talking government subsadied monopolies, don't start spouting free market bullshit.

[Architectonic]

You are aware there are about three or four companies that own nearly all the lines the internet operates on, and that they built those lines with government subsady?

Yes, this is the real problem. If there were a significant number of competing networks (which would most likely have been the case if there weren't heavy government subsidies involved), then it wouldn't be a problem.

But I'm more interested in seeing the result of this - I expect that the results will be different to what most people expect...

Do realize that Google with its 'don't be evil' policy and its market position, has the ability to compromise the position of the ISPs who choose to filter content. (But what they will actually do is harder to predict.)

[abathur]

Well, there are some benefits, I think, to the basis of the legislation--competition. It does, however, open some very disconcerting doors. I don't see how the ammendments to the bill didn't even get debate, much less pass.

The argument that these companies need to be able to fuck us in the ass so they can have the money to fund the next generation of internet infrastructure improvements is absolute bullshit. They profited hugely once when the government subsidised their efforts, and I don't have a huge problem subsidising these efforts again. This is a thinly veiled money and power grab piggybacking in on a good idea.

[KuJo]

i dont quite understand. i dont think i understand anyway.

so the government is censoring the internet or something. i just dont know.

[Rooster]

i dont quite understand. i dont think i understand anyway.

so the government is censoring the internet or something. i just dont know.

I think the major concern is that corporations will reshape the internet in a way that they can earn the most money. Browsing my become a thing of the past if people are required to pay for every site they visit. Plus it may allow several undesirable entities to monitor broadband communications.

[meshou]

so the government is censoring the internet or something. i just dont know.It does, but that's not the issue.

There are one or two companies that own most of the infastructure of the internet-- the wires, the routers, all that. They own it because they went to the government and argued that the internet was the future, and the demands on the hardware they had was too much for the huge number of people who were suddenly using it.

So, the government paid for most of the expansion in the mid ninties. The companies made a fortune.

Now, since those companies own the wires, they would like to make money off of them by charging people for how fast they can connect. Sites like this, if they do not pay the people who own the wires, may suddenly become very very slow. Also, instead of going to any site you like, you may have to pay a subscription to a certain number of sites, and then be charged for going visiting them more than a certain number of times per month.

That means that general, not for profit sites like this one could easily become too expensive to run, and will be pushed off. It'll become a giant mall.

They claim this is to help pay for more expansion, but they make plenty of money expanding in any case, and there is actually a great deal of unused hardware.

[KuJo]

I think the major concern is that corporations will reshape the internet in a way that they can earn the most money. Browsing my become a thing of the past if people are required to pay for every site they visit. Plus it may allow several undesirable entities to monitor broadband communications.

i assumed that it would become like wiretapping now, as in they can see what people do. but i dont think they will change it all too much(in terms of billing for site access), because everyone uses it, so they would be billing themselves too.

[meshou]

i assumed that it would become like wiretapping now, as in they can see what people do. but i dont think they will change it all too much(in terms of billing for site access), because everyone uses it, so they would be billing themselves too.You think the guy who owns the restraunt bills himself full price for lunch?

[KuJo]

It does, but that's not the issue.

There are one or two companies that own most of the infastructure of the internet-- the wires, the routers, all that. They own it because they went to the government and argued that the internet was the future, and the demands on the hardware they had was too much for the huge number of people who were suddenly using it.

So, the government paid for most of the expansion in the mid ninties. The companies made a fortune.

Now, since those companies own the wires, they would like to make money off of them by charging people for how fast they can connect. Sites like this, if they do not pay the people who own the wires, may suddenly become very very slow. Also, instead of going to any site you like, you may have to pay a subscription to a certain number of sites, and then be charged for going visiting them more than a certain number of times per month.

That means that general, not for profit sites like this one could easily become too expensive to run, and will be pushed off. It'll become a giant mall.

They claim this is to help pay for more expansion, but they make plenty of money expanding in any case, and there is actually a great deal of unused hardware.

ok thats clearer. i think they would lose too much business though. i know i wouldnt pay for it, and my friends wouldnt. and if that does come to pass, i think there will be even more lobbying to stop that. it all seems distant, even thought its basically right now.

[KuJo]

You think the guy who owns the restraunt bills himself full price for lunch?

its his money hes eating.

[kuranes]

Here in Chicago they have a big time lobbyist doing the persuading for them. Mayor Daley's brother. Who is also a VP at Chase/Morgan. And thought by some to have a shot at the next President of the USA spot. They are going to go after the cable companies' business now, with the profits on basic basic phone service starting to plummet because of VoIP.

[meshou]

its his money hes eating.My point was that no, they would not charge themselves for a service they already use now, even if they started charging everyone else for it.

[KuJo]

My point was that no, they would not charge themselves for a service they already use now, even if they started charging everyone else for it.

yeah i know. i thought you would have come back by saying that if they charge themselves, they make an exponentially larger amount by charging everyone else too. :p

[meshou]

yeah i know. i thought you would have come back by saying that if they charge themselves, they make an exponentially larger amount by charging everyone else too. :pMaybe that too.

[CoHo]

I have a hard time deciding which side I think is right in this situation... if Ma-Bell owns the copper then they should be able to dictate where the electrons go -> That's the libertarian in me. But the hard-core disfunctional porn addict in me is concerned that my download times are going to skyrocket... hrm...


Then there's the frosted side and I haven't talked to that motherfucker in years. Sick bastard.

[Rooster]

A few questions...

Is it possible that people simply won't accept a change on the internet of that magnitude? If the intenet suddenly becomes commercial central then what is the point? Who would buy into that? At what point would the internet have to evolve to become completely immune to that kind of exploitation? If the government helped pay for the lines then doesn't that mean they belong, in part, to the taxpayers?

[meshou]

I have a hard time deciding which side I think is right in this situation... if Ma-Bell owns the copper then they should be able to dictate where the electrons go -> That's the libertarian in me.I believe the government owns the land my house is on, but it can't tell me what to say inside of it. Stop me if this gets too jingo-y, but perhaps the bill of rights is based on the ideal that there ought to be checks on the powerful entitys in people's lives preventing them from contriolling what we think and say.

Therefore, I hardly think that approving of a government created and funded monopoly's assertion that it has the right to cencor one of the most important mediums in existance is a libritarian stance, nor would it view applying free market economic privliges to a socialist market without any restructuring as anything but a clusterfuck. At least I hope.

[Nadiar]

I find the topic of Net Neutrality to be kind of interesting.

On the one hand, I can see why the Network Corporations want to create a global QoS strategy to make sure that important packets will always make it through, to prevent problems with the network. I think this is completely important, and is a valid reason to oppose the laws relegating Net Neutrality.

On the other hand, I can see why the government, and Content Providers want to create a Net Neutrality law. It is COMPLETELY Un-American that ANY company could censor your content. I look at Internet Access like a phone line. The company is responsible for providing me a phone line, and making reasonable attempts to make sure I never get a "all circuits busy" message. However, my phone company (whom I work for) is NOT allowed to censor what kind of content I get. I can have them put a block on a specific number reaching me, but then its up to ME to remove it. I'm not at the whim of some corporate monkey saying what I am and am NOT allowed to read.



Watch this video: http://dontregulate.org/ It makes me want to stab people in the face, due to its duplicity.



I'm frustrated at my own company beyond measure for supporting AT&T in their proposal of a 'tiered' Internet service. The very concept if a 'Tiered' Internet makes me almost incoherently angry. I support "Enough and as Good" Net Neutrality. I'm completely anti-tiering, and understand the severe problems with "Radical Bit Anti-Discrimination."

I wish my company was having a meeting soon, because I want to harass our VP about it. As it is, I think we're not having any until August or September.

[Nadiar]

A few questions...

Is it possible that people simply won't accept a change on the internet of that magnitude? If the intenet suddenly becomes commercial central then what is the point? Who would buy into that? At what point would the internet have to evolve to become completely immune to that kind of exploitation? If the government helped pay for the lines then doesn't that mean they belong, in part, to the taxpayers?


Looking at it from the point of view as an ISP, our customers are going to be fucking pissed.

We could choose 2 different solutions. We'd be able to choose minimal latency, which would make gamers and people using VOIP happy, OR we'd be able to choose "low cost."

Who is this going to make happy? The only people that might be happy about this are the customers that aren't paying anything anyway. We offer a 128/64 service FREE to all of our customers that have local service and cable tv service. Most of them are COMPLETELY happy with this, and we're happy because if they're using a cable modem, they're not using dial-up (which costs us a lot more). Something like 1/3 of our cable modem users use either that, or the next step up (which again is part of a package, but it basically ends up costing the customer $20/month) is 3m/256k.

I don't see a future in which would could go with anything other than "top tier" service. Customer's wouldn't be able to handle it.


Whats really weird, is I know for a fact none of our admins or engineer's think this is a good idea. Which basically means this is a decision made by CEO's and Product Management that think "hey, this would be a good way to lower costs. All I ever do with the Internet is check my email"

Of course, these are the same people that said: "Hey, now that we're not being raped by Sprint on bandwidth, we're considering dropping usage limits [we had some decent usage limits that were like $5/GB over the limit before] or we'll just triple the bandwidth all customers have, can the platform support this?" "Sure, it can support one or the other of those options with no problems"
2 months later "what do you mean you just tripled it, lowered the cost, and got rid of the usage limit?"

Mysteriously, the military dorms have a MASSIVE throughput of traffic, and our system has to be upgraded every few weeks to handle it.

500 users, with an *average* of 3 GB/day for each personon a cable platform = headache.

[htb]

three or four companies ... monopoliesTechnically, that's an oligopoly. And introducing the history of telecom subsidies as a demerit does not exactly reinforce the argument for what amount to price and architecture controls from Washington, especially when those opposed to "net neutrality" special interests generally support greater deregulation -- starting with the problem of municipal parochialism.

[meshou]

Technically, that's an oligopoly. And introducing the history of telecom subsidies as a demerit does not exactly reinforce the argument for what amount to price and architecture controls from Washington, especially when those opposed to "net neutrality" special interests generally support greater deregulation -- starting with the problem of municipal parochialism.I think the "problem" exists even if we deregulate it further.

The only viable options, to me, seems to be enforced neutrality (which is not the same as price controls--- it's more like creating an artifical shortage of something everyone uses for free already, then charging for it not legal) or breaking up the ogliarchy and then deregulation are the two options.

Making a compromise, like deregulating an ogliarchy, would just be amazingly stupid.

[Ka.avik]

I believe the government owns the land my house is on, but it can't tell me what to say inside of it. Stop me if this gets too jingo-y, but perhaps the bill of rights is based on the ideal that there ought to be checks on the powerful enties in people's lives preventing them from contriolling what we think and say.
that was under a republic. This is an empire.

you'll get used to it. Wars, invasions, both abroad and in your home, are how empires delay their collapse.

if you don't get used to it ... I still doubt you can push us back to being a republic. But thanks for caring.


edit:
I may not know what I'm talking about, I know I don't know the solutions, but as was said above (I think) it's the CEOs that are making these horrible decisions. Human nature is to blame for this. Greed w/o forsight, arrogance without the knowledge of what it's like on the frontlines, and a general malaise of technical knowledge about what could be done about it.

people suck.

[PlayerOfGames]

This is utter bullshit, although it's not surprising.

The massive success and impact of the internet has been based on the fact that it is neutral, that no preference is given. The massive amount of growth that allowed all these companies to make so much money in the first place is very indebted to this neutrality.

It's utterly unremarkable that they're now trying to milk it for all it's worth in the typical sell your mother corporate way. What is disgusting is the way people lie down and take it. Write your representatives...

[CoHo]

I believe the government owns the land my house is on, but it can't tell me what to say inside of it. Stop me if this gets too jingo-y, but perhaps the bill of rights is based on the ideal that there ought to be checks on the powerful entitys in people's lives preventing them from contriolling what we think and say.

Therefore, I hardly think that approving of a government created and funded monopoly's assertion that it has the right to cencor one of the most important mediums in existance is a libritarian stance, nor would it view applying free market economic privliges to a socialist market without any restructuring as anything but a clusterfuck. At least I hope.

This is where I feel a disconnect.

It would be like a corporation owning a highway and dictating a "super-speed-lane" for its largest customers. Is that okay? Should the corporation be able to do that? Should they also be allowed to have a "super-slow-lane" for non-paying commuters?

I'm not asking is this a good idea or do I want this to happen. I'm saying should they be allowed. I think they should. It is their highway, they should be able to dictate how the highway is managed. If they only want people to be able to access Christian Fundamentalist Websites then hell, it is their highway.

The real problem is we have a monopoly. AT&T owns the coaxial. Until we fix that issue there will always be problems like this.

I'm more willing to side with letting AT&T dig their own grave. If they set up a super-speed and super-slow lane for the Internet and people don't like it there will be mounting pressure for the government to loosen restrictions and open up a more competitive market.

My opinion: Let them do what they want to their hardware and focus more on getting us out of this Time Warner-AT&T monopoly.

[meshou]

It would be like a corporation owning a highway and dictating a "super-speed-lane" for its largest customers. Is that okay? Should the corporation be able to do that? Should they also be allowed to have a "super-slow-lane" for non-paying commuters?I think there's a difference between dictating what may or may not be said in an entire medium and a car lane.


My opinion: Let them do what they want to their hardware and focus more on getting us out of this Time Warner-AT&T monopoly.That'd be nice, but if they're the only business in town and they can pay off the government, we're fucked. We're not going to go back to the stone age just to be rid of them.

There need to be checks on big busines, because every laissez-faire society has been marked by extrordinary corruption and monopolies. I'm no more fond of the tyrants in the business sector than I am in the gubment.

[CoHo]

On a side note, I wonder how this compares to our previous monopolies



The effects on society were widespread and deeply influential in the way individuals carried out their lives. The most poignant example is effect railroad rates had on the Grange Movement. During the second half of the 19th Century, farmers increasingly relied on the railroads to transport their crops to the rest of the nation. These individuals were powerless to avoid the exorbitant rates of the railroad companies. The dominant analogy of the industry at the time was that of the Octopus. This beasts' tentacles control several different fields which feed on "the flesh of the yeoman farmer, diligent artisan, and honest merchant" (Chalmers).

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-95-96/corporate-monopolies/development_rrmon.html

[Ka.avik]

There need to be checks on big busines, because every laissez-faire society has been marked by extrordinary corruption and monopolies. I'm no more fond of the tyrants in the business sector than I am in the gubment.

Thank you.:worthy:

This is the concept that that libertarian anarchist/propertiest whose name I don't remember and who hasn't been back in a long while, could never believe: that people are evil. Their natural bent, in the lack of rules whether they be a bunch of "friends" scowling at them or a police officer with a hefty ticket, is to be as selfish as the possibly can be. Regardless of whether their stealing pennies from their mother's dressertop or millions from their customerbase, if people can get away with some form of iniquity or deceit, they will.

These days I kinda think the corporations are at least as, if not more, powerful than the governments. Look at it this way: how much do you pay in taxes, and how much money goes to your largest corporate vendor? By the time you play follow-the-money, giant mega-corps like at&t-timewarner-disney-aol-timelife get a very substantial paycheck from you personally. I think this needs to stop, as it is exactly where they're getting their power -- from you, the poor end user.

[Nadiar]

This is the concept that that libertarian anarchist/propertiest whose name I don't remember and who hasn't been back in a long while, could never believe: that people are evil.

This isn't true. Inherently, humanity is good. If it were inherently evil, it wouldn't need to justify its actions when it does evil. We all have the capacity to do evil, but it takes actually being 'broken' to actually BE evil. We normally call those people psychopathic.

[jittus rye]

Inherently people are self gratifying, which is seperate from good and evil.

[meshou]

This isn't true. Inherently, humanity is good. If it were inherently evil, it wouldn't need to justify its actions when it does evil.While I don't think people are necessarily inherently evil, making excuses to justify your behavior so you can do whatever you want and still feel like you're a good person doesn't exactly build my confidence in the whole "people are good" thing. If people can fill their entire need to be good without actually being good, the goodness of humanity is suspect.


We all have the capacity to do evil, but it takes actually being 'broken' to actually BE evil. We normally call those people psychopathic.It's a funny thing that a good many politicians and higher up business people are psychopaths.

Away from the good and evil thing, I think people are fundamentally selfish (which I see as a neutral trait-- hard to survive or stick up for yourself if you aren't), and I think that, as a rule of thumb, people exercise the power they have.

[Nadiar]

While I don't think people are necessarily inherently evil, making excuses to justify your behavior so you can do whatever you want and still feel like you're a good person doesn't exactly build my confidence in the whole "people are good" thing. If people can fill their entire need to be good without actually being good, the goodness of humanity is suspect.

It's a funny thing that a good many politicians and higher up business people are psychopaths.

Away from the good and evil thing, I think people are fundamentally selfish (which I see as a neutral trait-- hard to survive or stick up for yourself if you aren't), and I think that, as a rule of thumb, people exercise the power they have.

The flaw is that people expect 'Good' people to go around living life as altruistic saints.

I never understand this point of view, since they don't also expect 'Evil' people to go around being devils.


I'll try to use the word Selfish to explain my point of view. People constantly say "everyone is selfish, because they help people because it makes them feel good. They only did it because they wanted to feel good, therefore there is no true altruism"

Aside from the point that I do good things for people and normally feel bad about it, the very statement itself proves that we are inherently creatures of Good. After all, 'Good' is just the effort to preserve our species. If helping other people releases endorphins, then we've been biologically programmed to help people.

Evil would be if we recieved joy in seeing members of our species suffer. Now, I know we all get sort of a perverse pleasure out of this, but they've actually done studies on babies that show they're altruistic, and that the schaedenfreude aspects of our existance are learned behavior.


I don't believe in an axis consisting of "Good" "Neutral" "Evil"
The true axis is "Good" "Apathy" "Evil"

Neutrality could only be determined if someone had ALL of the facts, and still chose to do nothing. That rarely happens. Normally we have an extremely limited subset of the facts, and have to make a choice based on them.

[Dom]

I think this is unfair, but then I'm a liberal minded Brit and thus would, it seems to be suggesting that the internet's role has changed, what started as an 'information superhighway' has become a money making economic phenomina. As such people will always be thinking about how to make more money from it.

If someone owns a netwrok there is part of me that conceeds they should be able to do what they like with it, however, when this ownership forms a monopoly then it is, or could be, grossly unfair to let them do what they like.

What happens to the acedemic and research uses of the net? Do they get a free upgrade to the high speed lane? After all that is what the internet was firsts designed for?

If the slow lane is no slower than now, and the pay for fast lane is a faster option then I think no one will mind, however I rather think this isn't whats planed.

It's all about making money, and it's annoying that, we don't have many toll roads here, but I think we'd all go nuts, if the governement paid to build a road, and then let the construction company or mainatance company start to charge a toll on it!?

[Xander]

Typical upper management "genius".

Anyhow we get out of this in the same fashion as everything else. We vote by our actions. They can charge whatever they like but if your not a customer then you don't pay. Plus they'd be opening themselves up to the combined hacking of most of the world as people determined to get round the excessive fees try and try over and over to break the system.

If this was their system and they built it and maintained it then I wouldn't have a problem but they didn't. They were subsidised (ie payed to do it IMO), which makes it partially the tax payers system and the piece that they are providing is the linkage between all other projects connected to it and therefore they have a duty to those people to not squeeze them dry.

I don't think the idea will ever come to pass except in a similar way to now where those with more money can attain higher speeds etc.

[Nadiar]

you won't be able to vote by your actions, since all of the backbone providers plan on doing this as a united front. Unless your action is "I won't use the Internet at all"

[Xander]

you won't be able to vote by your actions, since all of the backbone providers plan on doing this as a united front. Unless your action is "I won't use the Internet at all"
Is that not an option?

Surely there would remain free sites regarless of what they charge. Plus if your really addicted then there are internet cafes and computers elsewhere through which you could get your fix. It's not like access to the internet is some irrefutable right.

It has always been the case that those things which are popular are more available to the rich than the poor. Even if the whole internet were free and really high speed then the rich who can afford not to work will have more access to it purely because they have more time.

As I said though, I doubt it will ever get so far as to make internet access unaffordable. That would be commercial suicide. It's the little guys who make big business work. The fat cats only sit on top and dream up what thier cusion should look like next.

[Ka.avik]

you won't be able to vote by your actions, since all of the backbone providers plan on doing this as a united front. Unless your action is "I won't use the Internet at all"

Not only is that a valid choice I've given serious consideration long before now, but for many there's the "borrow a connection from the idiot neighbor who not only shells out for the telcos but didn't properly lock down his WAP"

Xander is right about not pricing things too high. I mean, they will just as gasoline is making people a fair bit of money but the imperial citizens demand the finest bread and the best circuses. What would the point of being an empire be if not to provide T1s to the home of those who knew how to work the sytem?

[htb]

Originally Posted by meshou
if they're the only business in town and they can pay off the governmentThe only company I fear is one that is state-owned, like Amtrak or Fanny Mae/Freddy Mac. It will operate independently of the market and -- worse -- the law, while it enjoys a certain protected status. Large private enterprises, on the other hand, are routinely checked by antitrust, the FTC and their own nearsightedness and ponderous bulk. Consumers put these firms out of business all the time -- technically. Unfortunately, the same populism that congressmen follow when they traduce corporations also drives them, in part, to corporate welfare.


Originally Posted by CorporateWhore
Let them do what they want to their hardware and focus more on getting us out of this Time Warner-AT&T monopoly.Yes. The less constraints, the more likely sharp little companies will innovate; at the very least forcing the big players to compete.