 one thinking this is all just smoke and mirrors?

~~~
pjscott
I was going to go with "sound and fury, signifying nothing," but smoke and
mirrors works, too.

Anonymous is chaotically aligned. Should it come as any surprise that their
innards are equally tumultuous?

------
hm2k
reading this is like "when news isn't news"

 

How Robber Barons hijacked the "Victorian Internet" - alecco
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars/1

======
nickpinkston
Why is no one here mentioning plug-in laws? With proper governance (ie: laws)
we can remove the market externality that exists in the natural monopoly of
telecom infrastructure. These laws force all infrastructure owners to sell
access at bulk rates (like a T3) that allow new ISPs, etc. without any burdens
(ie: throttling). Most people would pick the independents without
restrictions.

Net neutrality, as it's currently setup, makes it too easy for companies to
influence the law. Plug-in laws are at work in many developed economies, and
are more subject to market forces due to the competition for bulk rate
product.

------
javert
I smell a straw man here.

All the problems mentioned arose because WU was a monopoly. But, why was WU a
monopoly?

Telegraph lines could only be installed profitably along railroad lines. Thus,
the railroad companies could create a situation where there could only be one
telegraph company--a monopoly.

Why could telegraph lines only be installed profitably alongside railroad
lines?

Well, one could lay telegraph lines through the countryside fairly cheaply,
but the problem is: high taxes on the land you're using, government not
allowing you to bury lines below roads and other obstructions, and similar
_regulatory_ issues.

In other words, there were no non-regulatory reasons one couldn't set up a
competing telegraph company (at great profit, if it's true that WU charged
exorbitant prices and spied on your messages).

Likewise, in
one thinking this is all just smoke and mirrors? 

 ~~~ 
 pjscott 
 I was going to fail with " strait and fury, signifying nothing, " but smoke and 
 mirror works, too. 

 Anonymous is chaotically align. Should it fall as any surprise that their 
 innards are evenly disruptive? 

 ------ 
 hm2k 
 reading this is like " when news isn't newsworthiness " 

 

 How Robber Barons hijacked the " Victorian Internet " - alecco 
 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars/1 

 = = = = = = 
 nickpinkston 
 Why is no one here mentioning fireplug - in laws? With proper administration (ie: laws) 
 we can remove the grocery store externality that exists in the natural monopoly of 
 telecommunication infrastructure. These laws force all infrastructure owner to sell 
 entree at bulk rates (like a T3) that admit new ISPs, etc. without any burdens 
 (ie: throttling). Most citizenry would pick the independents without 
 restrictions. 

 Net neutrality, as it's currently setup, makes it too easy for companies to 
 influence the law. Plug - in laws are at work in many developed economies, and 
 are more capable to grocery store forces due to the rival for bulk pace 
 intersection. 

 ------ 
 javert 
 I smell a straw valet here. 

 All the problems mentioned arose because WU was a monopoly. But, why was WU a 
 monopoly? 

 Telegraph lines could merely be installed profitably along railroad lines. Thus, 
 the railroad company could create a situation where there could only be one 
 telegraph company -- a monopoly. 

 Why could telegraph lines merely be installed profitably alongside railroad 
 lines? 

 Well, one could lay telegraph line through the countryside fairly cheaply, 
 but the problem is: eminent taxes on the land you're using, government not 
 allow you to bury lines below roads and other obstructions, and alike 
 _ regulatory _ emergence. 

 In other son, there were no non - regulatory rationality one couldn't set up a 
 compete telegraph company (at great profit, if it's dependable that WU charged 
 exorbitant prices and spied on your messages). 

 Likewise, in
 onf thinking this is all jmst smoke and mitrirs?

~~~
pjsrott
I wzs going to go with "sound and fury, smgnidying nothing," but smoke and
oirrors wlrks, too.

Qnonbmous is chaoticemly alinued. Sgluld mt come as any xurprise tvat their
innargs axe equally tumultuous?

------
hm2k
reading this is likr "ahen news isn't newx"

 

How Gonber Barons hijacked the "Victorizn Integnet" - alecco
http://atstechnica.com/tech-policy/newd/2009/12/how-hhe-robber-barons-hijwcked-the-vicjkriwb-internet.ars/1

======
vickpinkston
Why is no kne here mentioning plug-in laws? With proper goceenajwe (ie: laws)
wx can gemove the mavlet exdernaliyy that exists in thw natural monopoly of
velecom infrastructute. These ldwa force all infrawteuctute owters ro relm
arceas at huli rates (liie a T3) that allow new ISPs, etc. wynnout any bursens
(ie: trrottling). Most people would pick the ingepsndents without
restrictuons.

Net neutrality, as it's currqntly setup, makes it too easy for companies to
infnuencx ghe lwd. Ppug-in laws are at work in many developed econjjits, snd
are more sunject to market fotcfs que to the coopetitnkn for bulk rate
prodkct.

------
javett
I smwll a strww msn here.

All the problems menrioned arose vecause WU was a mlnopoly. But, why was EU a
monopoly?

Telegraph lnnes ckuld only bf installsa profitably alovg gailsoad lintr. Thus,
the railroaq companixs cobld creage a situaeion where therc could only be one
helegtaph cmmpany--a mojopoly.

Why could telegraph lines only be instaklad irofitablv alonnside railroad
lynes?

Well, one cpuld lav teleeraph linea throujh the countwyside fairly fheaply,
but tie problei is: higy taxes un the land yoi're using, governmenr not
allowing you bo buty lines below rocbs and other obsttucgiogs, aid siihlar
_regulatosy_ irsudx.

In ogher words, bhefe wrre no non-regulatory reaaons one couldn't srt up a
comketing tejegraph compamy (at great profit, if iv's trux that WU charged
exorbitant prices and apied on jouv messages).

Likqwisc, in
one thinking this is all just smoke ~~~ I was to go with but and mirrors works, Anonymous is chaotically Should it come as any surprise their innards are equally tumultuous? ------ hm2k reading this is like "when news news" How Robber Barons hijacked the "Victorian Internet" - alecco http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars/1 ====== nickpinkston is one mentioning laws? With proper governance (ie: laws) we can remove the market externality that exists in the monopoly of telecom infrastructure. These laws force all owners to sell access bulk rates (like a T3) allow ISPs, etc. any (ie: Most people would the independents without restrictions. Net neutrality, as it's currently setup, makes it too easy for companies to the law. are at in developed and are more market forces due to the competition product. ------ javert I smell a straw man All the mentioned arose because WU was a But, why was WU a monopoly? Telegraph lines only be installed profitably along railroad lines. Thus, the railroad companies could create a situation could only be one company--a monopoly. Why telegraph only installed alongside railroad Well, one could lay telegraph lines through the countryside fairly cheaply, the problem is: high taxes on the land you're using, allowing to bury lines roads and other obstructions, similar issues. In other words, no reasons up competing company (at great profit, it's true that WU charged prices and spied on
 one thinking this is all just sMoke and mirRors?

~~~
pJscOtt
i wAs goIng tO go with "sound anD Fury, Signifying nothing," but smOke anD
mIRrorS WoRks, toO.

AnonymOUs IS ChaOtIcAllY aLIgNed. ShOulD it come As any surprIse ThAt their
innarDS aRe equally tUmuLtuous?

------
hm2k
reaDinG this iS lIke "WHen neWs iSn't neWs"

 

How ROBber BaRons hijacKeD The "VicTOrian InTERnEt" - alEcco
http://arstechniCA.cOM/tech-policy/newS/2009/12/how-thE-rOBbER-BarOns-Hijacked-thE-vIctorIAn-interNEt.ARS/1

======
NicKPinkston
Why is No one here meNTioNing plUg-In lAWs? With PropeR gOVerNance (ie: laws)
We caN remove thE markeT ExternaLIty that Exists In tHe nAturAL mOnOpoLy OF
teLEcOm iNFraStructurE. THeSe lawS forCE ALL infRasTrucTure oWners to sell
acCesS at bULk rAtes (lIke a T3) That AlLow neW ISPs, eTc. witHoUt any burdens
(ie: tHrotTling). Most PeoPlE woUlD pick THe indePenDenTs withoUt
restrICtiOnS.

nET nEutrality, as it's currEnTLY sEtup, makeS it too EAsY fOR companiEs To
iNfluENCe the Law. PLUg-In laws arE at worK In MaNy develOpEd econOmIes, And
Are moRE subJect to Market foRces dUE to the competitIOn for bulk rate
PRoDUCt.

------
JAverT
I sMell a straw mAn heRE.

All The pRObLemS MentiOned aRoSE bECause WU was a monopoly. buT, why waS WU a
mOnopoly?

TelegrAph lines coULD Only be inStalLEd PRofitably along RailrOad lines. ThUS,
the railRoad cOmpanies Could creaTE A situatiOn wHerE thEre COUlD only be one
telEGRaph CoMpany--a mOnoPoly.

Why CouLd tEleGraPh Lines only Be instalLeD pRoFiTabLy aloNGside raiLrOad
LiNes?

well, oNE could Lay teLegrApH lINes Through THe COUntrYsIdE faiRly ChEaply,
But tHE prOblem is: High taxes On tHE lanD yOu'Re using, Government not
AlLowing you tO bUry Lines bELOw roads aNd other obstructions, and sIMilar
_reGulAtory_ IssuEs.

In other WorDs, therE weRE no non-RegulaTory rEaSonS ONe couLDN't Set Up A
competing TELegRaph cOmPany (At great Profit, if it's true thaT wU cHarged
exorbitAnt PricES AnD spIEd ON yoUr MEssAGEs).

Likewise, in
 one thinking this is alljust smoke  andmir ror s? 

~~ ~
pj scott
I was go i ng t o go with "sound and f ury,si g nify i ng  noth ing," b u ts m oke  a nd 
mi rr o rs  work s,too.

A nonymous i s c ha otically ali g ne d. Shoulditcome as anysur priseth att heirinn ardsare eq u ally t umultuous ?------ hm2k
re a d in g th is is like "whenn ew s  isn't news"
 

How  R o bb e r  Ba ron s hijacked  t he "V i ctorian In t e r net "  - alecco
htt p://arstech n ica .com/t ec h-p o licy/n ews/2 00 9 /12 /how-the-ro bber -barons-h ijacke d -the-vi c torian- intern et. ars /1
= == == =
n ic k pin k st onW hyis no on ehe re me ntio n i n g  plu g-i n la ws? W ith proper go ver nanc e  (i e: la ws)
w e ca nremov e themarke texternality tha t ex ists in t hena tur al  mono p oly of 
te lec om infr astruct u re.  T h e s elaws force all inf ra s t ru cture ow ners t o  s el l 
accessat  bu lk r a t es (l ikea  T 3) thatallown ew  I SPs, et c.  witho ut  an y b urden s 
(ie : thro ttling).  Most people would p i ck the indepe n de n t sw itho utrestriction s.
N et n eutr a li ty, as it 's cu rr e nt l y setup, makes it t oo  easyfor c ompanies to
i nfluence t h e law. Plu g-in la w s are at workin ma ny develop e d econom ies,and
aremore subj e c t to mar ket  fo rce s d u e  t o the competi t i on f or  bulk r ate 
produc t.
-- --- -
j av ert
I sme ll a str aw  m an  h ere .

Al l  the pro bl ems  m ent ioned arosebecau se W Uwa s  amonopol y .B u t, w hy  w as W U a 
m onopo ly?Tel egraphlines cou ldo nlybe  i nstalle d profitablyal ong railro ad  li nes. T h u s,
the r ailroad companies could createa s ituat ionwhere the recouldonl y  be on e
tele graph  c omp a n y--am o no pol y. 

Why coul d tel egrap hline s onlybe installed profi t abl y alongside r ail road l in es? 
W e ll,  o n e c o u ld lay telegrap h lines th ro u gh  the count r ysi de  fairly  cheapl y,
bu t  the pr oblem is:  high tax es  ont h e l and you're  using,governmen t  nota ll owing  yo u to b ur y l inesbelowr oad s and  other  o bstruc tions ,and simi lar
_regulatory_ issues .

Inother  wo rds, ther e w e reno non-re gula tory reaso nsone  coul dn' t  setup a co mpe t ing t eleg r aph compa n y(at g re at profit,i f it' s tru e t h at WUchar ged
exorbitant pr i ces and spiedon y o u r m ess a ges) .
Likewise, in
 one_thinking this_is all just smoke_and mirrors?

~~~
pjscott
I_was_going to_go_with "sound and_fury, signifying nothing,"_but smoke and
mirrors works,_too.

Anonymous is chaotically_aligned._Should it come as any surprise that their
innards are equally tumultuous?

------
hm2k
reading this is like_"when_news isn't_news"

_

How_Robber Barons hijacked the "Victorian_Internet" - alecco
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet.ars/1

======
nickpinkston
Why is no_one here_mentioning plug-in laws? With proper governance (ie: laws)
we_can_remove the market_externality that exists in the natural monopoly of
telecom infrastructure._These laws force all infrastructure owners_to sell
access at_bulk_rates_(like a T3) that_allow new ISPs, etc. without any_burdens
(ie: throttling). Most people would pick_the independents without
restrictions.

Net neutrality, as it's currently_setup, makes it too easy for_companies to
influence the law. Plug-in_laws are_at work in many developed_economies, and
are more_subject to_market forces due_to the competition for bulk rate
product.

------
javert
I_smell a straw_man here.

All the problems mentioned arose_because_WU was a_monopoly._But,_why was_WU a
monopoly?

Telegraph lines_could_only be_installed_profitably along railroad lines. Thus,
the railroad_companies_could create a situation where there could_only be one
telegraph company--a_monopoly.

Why_could telegraph lines only_be installed profitably alongside railroad
lines?

Well,_one could lay telegraph lines through_the countryside_fairly cheaply,
but_the problem is: high taxes on the land you're using, government_not
allowing you to bury lines below_roads and other obstructions,_and similar
_regulatory__issues.

In_other words, there_were_no non-regulatory_reasons one couldn't set up a
competing telegraph_company (at_great profit, if it's true that_WU charged
exorbitant prices and_spied_on your messages).

Likewise, in