[tomder55]

I hadn't noticed how do you handle collecting taxes on items purchased outside the US? It may not be a problem for you but it sure is for us. If the item is purchased locally it attracts a tax if purchased on the net cross border it doesn't.

sales taxes are a different challenge. These are rules for access ;much like the various creative fees and taxes associated with telephone and cable services . Currently there are no national taxes .(but I suspect some locals have charges related to the infrastructure ) . What I am referring to will be national fees and taxes ;and the justification will be to pay for the FCC's expanded role .

[tomder55]

NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein has an interesting editorial published at the Hoover Institute .
Hands Off the Web | Hoover Institution

[paraclete]

Yes interesting indeed comparing the internet to Fedex and justifying higher service for higher cost. Thing is corporates have the ability to constuct private networks and cut out the middle man, so this is just about regulating the middle man

[NeedKarma]

Epstein is wrong on a bunch of points. He uses Fedex as an example of prioritazation of services but that market is very competitive - users have a choice. Not so for internet access.

Also he says:

But rejecting net neutrality does not let ISPs pick winners and losers by offering different tiers of service. Any customer can buy what he or she wants.

That is also patently false. The ISPs would indeed prioritize whatever service pays them the most. There is NO customer choice of picking what the he or she wants, witness TV "packages" instead of choosing the individual channels.
Telco and cable have a bad track record of bundling services to extract the maximum revenue, the internet should not be part of that.

[tomder55]

witness TV "packages" ... which the cable networks would NOT get away with if there weren't exclusive areas of service .

[NeedKarma]

And that's not going to change due to the enormous barrier to entry, so let's protect the consumer from price gouging.

[talaniman]

You know how business works (Any business). They will use any means necessary to maximize profits, and that includes manipulation, and destroying the competition. Implying they should make there own rules, or have no rules is plain crazy.

They work hard at getting exclusive areas of service Tom, like I say, any means necessary. They need rules of how they get money. Hell even then no matter how strict the rules they still find ways to make more profit. They broke up Ma bell but she came back even bigger as AT&T. So did the banks.

Same with cable companies. You haggle about regulations and they make MO" MONEY!

[tomder55]

They work hard at getting exclusive areas of service Tom

no they don't... they are awarded the quasi public utility status through cronyism . The same public utility model that will happen on net .

[NeedKarma]

So if that market opens up (telco/cableco), no regulation, no protectionism, how do you envision what will happen? What's the most likely scenario in your opinion?

[paraclete]

Good Question, it just sounds like the old anti regulation argument to me

[tomder55]

no one said "no regulation " .There are obviously activities on the net that should be regulated ,or outright prohibited . I think professor Epstein did a good job comparing the net to Fed Ex tiered fee system. Had the USPS adopted a similar system I believe they wouldn't constantly face funding issues. When you say "He uses Fedex as an example of prioritazation of services but that market is very competitive - users have a choice. Not so for internet access." I say why not ? If it is not competitive ,it's because governments at the local level prevent competition. It would seem to me that exclusive zones are in fact against the very concept of net neutrality . I would think that the government having the ability to set fees is against that concept too. Even a quasi-government service like AMTRACK has a tiered fee structure depending on the time you board their trains. If I'm a net customer who only uses the net to check my email ..and has no use for high speed access to watch video ,then why should I be forced to pay for the higher level of access ? Conversely ;if my business depends on the high speed ,then why shouldn't I pay a premium for it ?

Of course the great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry .In the effort to achieve parity you stifle innovation ....as witnessed by the ATT announcement .

Further , regulatory capture more likely will ensure that your greatest fears will come true . Has all the new regulations in the banking industry broken up banks too big to fail ,or has it cemented the concept into the American system ? This is 1930s government cartel creation all over again. It gave us Ma Bell for decades ,which stifled innovation in phone service until a judge finally broke it up .

[NeedKarma]

great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry

The government doesn't want to organize the net (whatever that means), it wants to keep the status quo (net neutrality) which the U.S. carriers are trying to screw up for their financial gain.

[cdad]

Tom, I have to agree with NK here. Im not quite convinved you know how the net works or how access to the internet actually occurs. For the person that just wants to check email there are many "free" internet providers already. But the bigger question is why many markets lack competition. It is because large coporations dont want everyone to have internet service. If they did they would branch out into areas where it is virtually nonexistant. As far as banning activity on the internet that goes against the very priciple of the internets creators. The internet was always meant to be free and open. The only regaurds to regulation were those of protocal so everyone can speak to one another through the network.

As far as high speed goes incase you havent noticed th spam that clutters the internet and closes it down is yet another creation of big business. Ads have moved from static pictures with links to now videos that you may be forced to watch while you surf any one of millions of sites. It causes pages to load slower and mucks up the whole thing in the process. Im not for creating fastlanes. I would rather see a free and open internet then one that is controlled and regulated out of existance.

[paraclete]

Of course the great conceit here is that the government has a better ability to organize the net than private industry .In the effort to achieve parity you stifle innovation

The great conceit is that the market is the panacea for everything, the market cannot be trusted not to engage in monopolistic behaviour and business will always exploit opportunity. The place for business is in innovation, in creatively working within regulation. The place for government is to set the boundries to ensure equality

[tomder55]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtNTNqNizFs

[paraclete]

Well what is that pixilated message about?

[talaniman]

Propaganda

[paraclete]

I gather Obama did a speech on something he has been chasing for a long time

[talaniman]

Look at the date on this Feb. 25th 2015. They probably edited the word together but couldn't match the video with the audio.

[paraclete]

It's political satire