Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

[Tyler van Houwelingen]

Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowellTodd,

To agree with your point of free market failures, I would have to add Walmart. 

To counter your point I would say - Utilities and regulation are required when an industry MUST have a single player given physical constraints.  Eg. you can only have one highway grid or one electrical grid for safety and practical reasons.   You regulate it to ensure it works properly without monopoly power.  

Information transport networks, which really now have no physical limitations (from wireless), will probably go the way of a comodity fairly rapidly, that is unless of course you regulate the hell out of it.  It is interesting to note that the other networks you mention (electricity, gas, water, etc) were not low value or commodities when the "networks" were being first rolled out.   e.g. the aztecs & romans with water networks. 

At least three players (cable, DSL, wireless1) is enough to keep any free market in check.    If there is money to be made, more networks (e.g. WiFi, WiMAX) will be built until there is not money to be made.   Why regulate this??     

ty



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bradford Peterson 
  To: SeattleWireless Talk List 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 5:57 PM
  Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell


  Well I somewhat disagree that information is not a market. Information didn't 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 didn't 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





------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20070103/e1444fcb/attachment-0001.html