Internet: Private network?

by Nepthysia

Back to The Real World.

Unknown2006-07-27 03:01:45
censor.gif that.
censor.gif those greedy SOBs.

I say to them: censor.gif my censor.gif! (I leave that up to your imagination).
Unknown2006-07-27 03:07:44
QUOTE(daganev @ Jul 27 2006, 11:02 AM) 311988

It wasn't an anology... I was hoping that people knew the basic concept behind taxes.
Analogies are stupid, it would be like if you were trying to fit a square peg in a round whole.

That help quid?


I said nothing about not understanding what you or others were saying, I was derailing the conversation by saying that I detest analogies.
Daganev2006-07-27 03:15:02
let me say this again....


Analogies are stupid, it would be like if you were trying to fit a square peg in a round whole.

That help quid?
Unknown2006-07-27 03:23:11
I know, Daganev, irony is my friend. We canoodle often.
Sylphas2006-07-27 04:22:09
I'm still not convinced that paying for something twice makes any sense. If they need more money, charge the person who wants the content. If you want to screw with the whole flavor of the internet a bit, charge the person who provides the content. It's utterly retarded to charge them both, though.




And just because it's soooo tempting at this point:
Say someone drive to your house using a toll road, paying the toll as normal. Three days later you get a bill in the mail for that same toll, because you're expected to pay for visitors to your house, even though you already pay property taxes and such for living there. Sounds fair, right?
Unknown2006-07-27 07:09:55
The most important thing to remember is that its the ISPs own goddamn fault for overselling their existing infrastructure and not wanting to pay to turn on the millions of miles of Dark Fiber they already have lieing around. Instead they would rather make someone else pay for their ineptitude at providing a service.

Ooo I can do a silly analogy for this...

Imagine I was a butcher and a sold 50,000 racks of lamb for collection at some point, but I still only buy 3 lambs a day from the slaughter house. Next week all my customers come in and want the lambs. So I tell the mint sauce company that they have to buy me 20 thousand more lambs. But wait it gets worse, not only do I tell the mint sauce company that they have to buy the lambs, I fail to mention to anyone that I actually run my own sheep herd and have 50,000 lambs of my own out back, but I can't be bothered paying to send them to slaughter.
Verithrax2006-07-27 11:43:42
We've been over this censor.gif already. doh.gif

EDIT: Watch your language. ~Shiri~
Daganev2006-07-27 15:47:18
Imagine I own a magazine company, and the only thing I publish is letters to the magazine, and I don't hire any of my own staffers. Great magazine right?

Thats what E-bay, My Space, Wikipedia and many other websites are.

The internet is a different breed and economic model than anything else, so experimentaton is necessary.

If comcast is charging google twice, and verizon isn't.. comcast is going to go out of business very quickly.
Sylphas2006-07-27 19:03:07
So you're now arguing that they should have the right to charge twice, but that they won't because they'll lose business? If that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion. AGAIN.
Daganev2006-07-27 19:17:42
But it is the case...

Since google is building sites in other states now
Sylphas2006-07-27 19:44:19
I can say people should be allowed to murder other people, because then the murderers will be killed by angry mobs. Still makes more sense to just ban it in the first place and not worry about letting the murderers and victims sort themselves out.

I think the reason we keep falling to analogies is that people know all the facts, and still disagree. We think that if we can get the perfect analogy, make them see it from our point of view, they'll realize how stupid they sound. Never works, but it's a very real temptation.
Daganev2006-07-27 19:53:07
What I said was 2 things.

1. On the internet paradigms are different, and whos to say that what they want to do is "wrong"

2. If the paradigm is wrong, then the business won't do it because it would be self defeating.

The only way I can see supporting google on this particular issue is if A. You think government regulations in general are needed for everything that could be public. or B. you are a lawyer and want to make money from all the new litigation which will appear.

As a disclosure, I own Google stock.
Verithrax2006-07-27 20:42:01
QUOTE(daganev @ Jul 27 2006, 04:53 PM) 312173

What I said was 2 things.

1. On the internet paradigms are different, and whos to say that what they want to do is "wrong"

You're missing the fact that it is wrong because it would kill content. We don't want content to die. Another reason is that those companies are a monopoly. There is virtually no competition between two o f them, as they service different areas. And finally, because it's unfeasible; Google, to get fast delivery for its content, would have to pay Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and so on. Do you really think every content provider will pay that? The telecom companies can survive without doing this scam. But if they do it, parts of the Internet, important parts, will die. It is better for society that they are regulated. We cannot expect the free market to take care of hwo monopolies behave.
QUOTE

2. If the paradigm is wrong, then the business won't do it because it would be self defeating.

You're mistaking 'wrong' for 'unprofitable' (Typical capitalist pig thinking, that). There's a reason companies don't dump toxic waste just a couple of blocks away from where it's produced. It's illegal. If they were allowed to, many would, because it would be profitable.
QUOTE

The only way I can see supporting google on this particular issue is if A. You think government regulations in general are needed for everything that could be public. or B. you are a lawyer and want to make money from all the new litigation which will appear.

As a disclosure, I own Google stock.

You're going to lose money, then. You're just doing what lots of people seem to do regarding economy. You're sitting on the invisible hand and pretending everything will be alright, believing that what's best for corporations is what's best for the public. Free market economy doesn't even apply here.
Daganev2006-07-27 21:10:29
Verithrax, everything you said is conjecture.

The internet should not be regulated by governements, period. Even the spam legistlation is backfiring.
Sylphas2006-07-28 03:58:30
It's asinine to lump all regulations together as some giant monolithic evil.
Unknown2006-07-28 11:18:30
I know that the issue here is that the internet is a natural monopoly, caused primarily by network effect. Unfortunately my attention span for re-absorbing and trying to summarize the information just died.

Basically the internet is a natural monopoly partially due to the high barriers to entry and partially due to the network effect theory. The basic idea behind network effect is that a particular product becomes more valuable as more people purchase it. Telephones, fax machines, and modems are all good examples of the network effect. If I own a telephone on a network that only connects to one other phone, then there is little incentive for people to join my network instead of the existing telephone network that spans the globe.

The internet is in a similar situation. There are, and have been, attempts to establish a true peer-to-peer network using wireless nodes and self referencing domain name structures. However, these networks don't interface well with information stored on the WWW. So until the wireless node networks hit the critical mass of users, normal people will not switch to it, regardless of any inherent benefits over their current network provider.

Because an alternative network is extremely difficult to drag up to a level of technical competeness necessary to even begin competing with the current internet, combined with the characteristic indicator that natural monopolies have extremely high barriers to entry but extremely low constant margianal cost (n+1 people costs the provider basically nothing more than n people) it can be considered a natural monopoly.

And this is the point where my attention span died. If you go to the Wikipedia article (and if you spit distaste at me for using said site then I will strangle you with your still connected intestines) about natural monopolies, and look at the possible suggestions for regulation one of the options is common carriage competition. This is similar to what we have, except that the government is trying to remove itself from this system of competition.

If someone wants to carry this further that would be lovely. Otherwise I'll probably regain interest later today.
Daganev2006-07-28 14:29:03
QUOTE(Sylphas @ Jul 27 2006, 08:58 PM) 312293

It's asinine to lump all regulations together as some giant monolithic evil.



Preventive regulations are always stupid. That is, regulations that are created because people think something might go wrong but have no proof of anything wrong actually happening.
Unknown2006-07-28 14:49:45
But saying that the internet should not be preventatively regulated is different from saying that any legislation, regardless of how warranted, is stupid because it regards the internet.

I understand you don't feel that this particular discussion point is necessarily warranted, and I obviously don't feel it to be self-evident. I just wanted to point out that what you just said is different from what Sylphas was responding to.
Hazar2006-07-28 15:09:40
QUOTE(daganev @ Jul 28 2006, 09:29 AM) 312377

Preventive regulations are always stupid. That is, regulations that are created because people think something might go wrong but have no proof of anything wrong actually happening.


Good. Then let's get rid of all of Europe's anti-nazi regulations, and get rid of Israel's UN mandate.

Better to prevent than to experience and regret.
Daganev2006-07-28 15:20:02
QUOTE(Hazar @ Jul 28 2006, 08:09 AM) 312401

Good. Then let's get rid of all of Europe's anti-nazi regulations, and get rid of Israel's UN mandate.

Better to prevent than to experience and regret.



I don't get your point.

Nazis rose in Germany and across Europe, so its not preventative anymore. Are you suggesting we have anti Nazi laws in the U.S?

I'm not sure what the UN mandate has to do with anything, that was also done post facto.

You can't arrest a person because they live in an area with high crime and statistics show that they arem ore than 50% likely to commit a crime in the future.