Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

[Bradford Peterson]

Well I somewhat disagree that information is not a market. Information
didn¹t just happen because of the internet.

Direct mail, call houses are just one example of data that is owned by the
compiler and is marketed internationally. The reason that internet sales
have not been taxed is because of the work of direct mailers. If they didn¹t
have nexus, meaning service within a state for a short explanation, then the
individual states could not tax a business in another state unless they
actually had a physical address within the state.

Aside, Washington state is trying to forget the Nexus issue and get internet
companies to pay by setting up individual taxing agreement with other
states. I hope they are challenged and the federal rules come into play.

Back to the issue. Information is owned by those who hold it. Individuals
usually give away that write through a subcription or when we click user
agreements to use a site of become a member of some site.


On 1/2/07 2:17 PM, "Todd Boyle" <tboyle at rosehill.net> wrote:

> At 06:33 AM 1/2/2007, Tyler wrote:
> 
>> The Free markets have ALWAYS worked in the past, why not here (wireless)?
> 
> Ahh but free markets do NOT always work.
> 
> Marxists, or state planners, etc. shouldn't say markets *never* work.
> 
> But you shouldn't be so simplistic either.
> 
> In fact, information architectures are one of the classic examples, cited by
> economists, journalists and many others, where market capitalism FAILS to
> work.   On some level you must be aware of this.  For example it's even in the
> constitution, that a right to privacy is established.  Otherwise there'd be
> "Free Markets" in your personal information. There are countless examples.
> False advertising for example.
> 
> Wireless networks, and the Internet, are an information architecture.  They
> are not a system for distributing water, electricity, natural gas, etc.   They
> have *some* of the characteristics, but the value of the *information*
> completely dwarfs the commodity aspect:  the advertising, the media content,
> the phone and communications capability,
> 
> Now as a result of your mistaken assumption, you think regulators should allow
> 'the market' to install whatever lying, creeping propaganda streams are most
> profitable into our homes, and the freedom to block whatever they want and
> drown the rest in SPAM and viruses, freedom to merge into a near-global
> monopoly, with power to control elections, overturn governments etc.   No.  I
> don't think so.  
> 
> I'm not sure whether the government will ever protect the information commons;
> if it doesn't, then people will gradually appreciate the value of locally
> owned and operated Internet-- like yours.  But don't ever imagine that you own
> it.  You are a tiny minority stakeholder in the value of the information that
> is flowing over the internet.  The parties to the traffic are the owners of
> that. 
> 
> Todd. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> Talk at seattlewireless.net
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seattlewireless.net/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070102/e0ed29bd/attachment.html