The Internet Robber Barron Act

[LinuxFanBoi]

http://www.infoworld.com/t/regulation/atts-net-neutrality-doublethink-636


George Orwell would be proud of AT&T's latest series of ads.

The company is attempting to convince us that it favors Net neutrality and an open Internet, when in fact it is lobbying hard for the opposite result. The strategy was foreshadowed in October when Sen. John McCain, the recipient of more telco money in the last two years than anybody in the U.S. Senate, authored a bill disingenuously labeled "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009." But if McCain and AT&T were being honest, they would have called it "The Internet Robber Baron Act."

Once again, nothing says "I'm right" like enormous campaign contributions.

[LowSky]

AT&T is getting annoyed at iPhone users because they use there phones. Its kinda crazy it cost $95 on average a month for iphone service, and they want to limit what you do at that price. Maybe if they sold plans more structured to people use instead of fixed price models, and didn't discount phones below cost, these companies could make money.

Its about $35 for phone service
another $10 for unlimited text messages
and another $30 for DATA service
Dont forget taxes, and maybe insurance too.
There's your $95 right there.

Worst part is that "Unlimited" data plan is actualy limited to only 5GB of data a month, And as fast as these guys claim 3G is, its still kinda slow compared to Wifi/cable connection. You also cannot tether the phone to a computer as per their dumb rules.

I think these companies get away with too much, but it is really our fault as consumers. We allow these companies to charge so much.

Don't forget companies like Comcast want to regulate the traffic on their networks. They use excuses that some people abuse their share, but in actuality how is it abuse when you call a product unlimited, and then in the fine print, propose such limits.

The problem with many of these companies is we allow them to become giant and brooding and wasteful. They rather spend money on bribes (oops, I mean contributing to campaigns) so they gain someone on their side to propose beneficial laws that hurt normal people.

Oh and here is a fun ting to know. Dont pay for text messages if you have a Blackberry or iPhone or similar phone. Here what you do. use your email account and learn each companies mail address for each persons phone number so mine for example might be 2125551234@vtext.com (not my real one). Why does this work, well the thing is the carries make you pay for data service on these phone for internet and email, and usually allows you to link your email to your phone, they might give a free email account too. So just send a message using email and you can save $10 a month on an unlimited texting plan.
Here's list of the big 4 in the US



Carrier Send Email to phonenumber@....
AT&T @mms.att.net
Sprint @messaging.sprintpcs.com
T-mobile @tmomail.net
Verizon @vtext.com (text only)
@vzwpix.com (pictures and videos)

and if a bunch of your friend use IM programs use those to text for free over the data line
Gmail, Yahoo, AIM all have phone based versions of the IM clients

[alphaniner]

Don't forget companies like Comcast to regulate the traffic on their networks.

Oh the humanity!

[murderslastcrow]

They have internet-only Skype phones in the UK. I just hate the idea of someone trying to tie down the internet. It sounds so outrageously criminal. It's changed our lives. And Americans are just the kind of people to allow this to happen to themselves. I hope we can wake up and smell the roses when they start to get frustrated and steal the internet from the average Joe.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Oh the humanity!

If I pay for "unlimited internet service," That's what I expect to get. I suspect that Cox has begun implementing their peak hour bandwidth limitations because I'm noticing a disparity between the speed I get during typical business hours and what I get after about 7pm. But it's only about 10%. Or it could be that the load of their business customer traffic is just allowing me to take a smaller slice of the pie, which I understand and I can live with.

As for my ISP toying with my speeds on different protocols, Cox hasn't gone that far or ever even tried to my knowledge. If they did, They wouldn't hear the end of it. After all I pay them somewhere in the neighborhood of $160-$200 a month, I better be able to use whatever Protocol I want with no monkey business.

I get the feeling that once apple opens the iPhone up to any carrier, AT&T will soon after be in bankruptcy, and I wont shed tear one for them. Their service is horrid, and the iPhone is the one thing people can have if they choose AT&T that they cant get from anyone else. Why should they invest in their network if people are going to knowingly subscribe to the worst carrier in the US just to have arguably, the coolest phone available.

What has them so frightened by net neutrality is the fact the the internet has become so powerful a tool, that it can be used to replace the services that telecoms have been able to [over]charge secretly for, for decades. Yes I'm talking about phone and TV. Why pay separately for all three when one medium can deliver them all and the user can pay for only one service?

[pricetech]

What net neutrality really means is that companies like google, who serve up content on someone else's backbone won't have to pay according to how much they use.

The analogy I use to explain my opposition is this:
Semi trucks pay a larger amount of road taxes than I do driving my little Metro. They should, because they cause more wear on the road surfaces and foundation than I do. "road tax neutrality" would mean that I would have to pay the same amount as a semi truck even though my little car takes a negligible toll on the road.

I'm not ready to pay more for what I use just so someone else can pay less for using more.

P.S. I loathe att myself, for my own reasons which aren't relevant to the other in the forums.

[handy]

Over the next few years we will see major inroads made into the changing of the internet by some big corporations, who plan on owning & controlling the internet as much as they possibly can.

Where they have their way, their will be national limits placed on freedom of information available & the methods of data transfer, P2P will be stopped wherever possible.

Subscription services (particularly video based) will grow dramatically.

The old ways are being replaced. Easy internet in the lounge room, where HD movies are watched via the entertainment centre directly off of the internet will become the norm.

Portable hand held devices that both send & receive video via internet to personal or public sites will proliferate.

The youth will love it, therefore support it & pay for it, so there goes the internet as we now know it.

In multiple parts of the world there have & are attempts by governments to censor/control internet content & usage.

I think that this is all a part of the planned & very soon to be seen changes, where giant corporations, such as Intel, AT&T, Sony, NewsCorp & the like start to implement their desired changes which will supplant the old style TV networks & printed newspaper/magazine media, & some...

Physical video sales (as video tape was made redundant by DVD) will dwindle away, as is the physical purchase of music CDs. People will just subscribe to internet service providers, buying various packages of media download limits/month.

Many supermarket foods already have RFID chips in their labels, it is only a matter of time before someone comes up with a scanner that takes stock of the contents of your pantry & refrigerator (as best as possible), adding it to the elegant looking dumb terminal fitted in your kitchen that allows you to see what you have, what you need, you edit it, then send it over the net to your supermarket so they can do the delivery to your door of your weekly order.

White goods will become net connected!

If the carriers get to be allowed to be more than just the carriers of data, which is what they are trying to do in the States (& elsewhere too I'm sure) then they are really going to be sitting on a more than gigantic money spinner, & their political clout will of course be substantial.

The following link is dated February 2006, & is particularly relevant to the topic:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

This one is from 2004, & is interesting also:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/28/internet_end_nigh/

Intel's focus on the Cloud:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/18/the_intel_cloud/

This guy wraps up the future of TV in his own way pretty succinctly:

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-hey-check-out-the-future-of-television-2009-8

[LinuxFanBoi]

If you oppose net neutrality, you are publicly acknowledging that you support every restriction big business wants to place on you're use of the internet, and give up the right to bitch when the internet is transformed into a tool to extract money from the people who use it.

Net neutrality is absolutely essential. end of story. If you oppose it you are allowing yourself to be a tool of the corporations.

[Hwæt]

Don't forget companies like Comcast want to regulate the traffic on their networks.

To be honest, I don't know a single person in the world who would go past the 250GB up/down bandwidth limit on a standard Comcast Internet subscription. Hell, the only people I can possibly think would go over that would be server admins, but what decent administrator would run a server on a residential ISP?

EDIT- Despite this comment, I would like to say that I am in full support of Net Neutrality.

[alphaniner]

If you oppose net neutrality, you are publicly acknowledging that you understand the concept of private property, and you don't believe in ends-justifies-the means solutions.

Fixed that for ya.

Seriously, have you seen the bandwidth percentages of net usage? The consumers are dictating the evolution of the internet. The media companies are simply giving them what they want, in a way that is most profitable for themselves. It's called the free market.

I don't favour their intentions any more than you do, but the whole 'the internet is a basic human right' shtick is rubbish. The internet is a product, a commodity. You and I have no more claim over it than we have over our local newspaper.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Seriously, have you seen the bandwidth percentages of net usage? The consumers are dictating the evolution of the internet. The media companies are simply giving them what they want, in a way that is most profitable for themselves. It's called the free market.

So Let me get this streight, allowing my ISP to limit certain things that I want to do on the internet but not limiting things that are profitable is "free market?" You're confusing "Free maket" and "Market manipulation."

And don't you dare use the quote feature to attach my name to something I did not say.. that's libel, jerk.

[Exodist]

If you oppose net neutrality, you are publicly acknowledging that you support every restriction big business wants to place on you're use of the internet, and give up the right to bitch when the internet is transformed into a tool to extract money from the people who use it.

Net neutrality is absolutely essential. end of story. If you oppose it you are allowing yourself to be a tool of the corporations.
QFT.

I agree with this. If big companies have their way using the internet will be as costly as cell phone usage. Not to mention all the fees you will have to pay to have your site on the internet, not hosting charges, data cost for bandwidth usage.. Yea it will happen..

[Exodist]

So Let me get this streight, allowing my ISP to limit certain things that I want to do on the internet but not limiting things that are profitable is "free market?" You're confusing "Free maket" and "Market manipulation."

Yea just wait till they start charging a premium charge to visit websites like Newegg and Bestbuy. If Net Neutrality isnt passed. That is what will happen.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Yea just wait till they start charging a premium charge to visit websites like Newegg and Bestbuy. If Net Neutrality isnt passed. That is what will happen.

I guarantee the cable companies will throttle sites like Hulu that offer essentially the same thing they do, only Hulu doesn't charge me a subscription while at the same time taking money from the sponsors who pay for add time. Same thing with the telecos. You think AT&T is going to allow you to connect to Skype over their network? F*ck no they wont! they want you to pay them for telephone service when you could get it from someone else at little or no cost.

They will manipulate their competition first and foremost, then the high volume traffic second. Net neutrality is designed to let the free market work as it should, it is opposed because sometimes the free market economics hurts when you can't compete.

How about this? I own a large chain of department stores and I'm losing business to a competitor. I'll just cut a deal to make it so that everyone with internet service from the largest internet providers can't connect to my competitors site.

Still think net neutrality is a bad idea?

[pricetech]

If you oppose net neutrality, you are publicly acknowledging that you support every restriction big business wants to place on you're use of the internet, and give up the right to bitch when the internet is transformed into a tool to extract money from the people who use it.

Net neutrality is absolutely essential. end of story. If you oppose it you are allowing yourself to be a tool of the corporations.

Really ??

Just because I don't think the same way you do, I'm too stupid to think for myself ?? I'm a pawn of the evil corporations ??

Aren't you contradicting yourself ??

From a previous post in another thread:
it's not free for me, why should it be free for them?
which was in response to the statement:
Wifi encryption is unethical. When will people wake up and realize that the internet wants to be Free!

Which is it ??

[harrisonk]

Hello

About the Internet cap (or restriction) you guys get a lot compared to Bell Canada plans for High speed Internet,
Here is their basic plan (it is for those who use the Internet twice a month)

1 GB Internet usage,
500 Kbps (Kilo bits per second) download (because we live outside of our town it would be slower than advertised)
other 'fun' stuff.

Harrisonk

[Gizenshya]

Our freedoms are constantly being attacked by a bunch of fat, greedy white old men. The same has been true for... ever.

I prefer to create my own little bubble and pretend it all isn't happening.

I always take carrots. I don't know why.

[alphaniner]

So Let me get this streight, allowing my ISP to limit certain things that I want to do on the internet but not limiting things that are profitable is "free market?"

Yes. Fight for what you want but at least get your facts straight. You don't have a right to unfettered internet usage. You're paying a fee in exchange for a service. The ISPs OWN the pipes your internet usage travels across. Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist for the media companies. The crap they pulled during the early days of the cell phone explosion was genuine market manipulation. But controlling how their property is used is not.

And regarding the quote... I think you're going a bit overboard, but nevertheless I apologize.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Really ??

Just because I don't think the same way you do, I'm too stupid to think for myself ?? I'm a pawn of the evil corporations ??

Aren't you contradicting yourself ??

From a previous post in another thread:
it's not free for me, why should it be free for them?
which was in response to the statement:
Wifi encryption is unethical. When will people wake up and realize that the internet wants to be Free!

Which is it ??

I'll make two points here, You're allowed to think differently than I. You're even allowed to speak your mind, it's your first amendment right, and I wont infringe upon it. But you're not thinking differently than the people who seek to cripple the internet by giving themselves the legal authority to manipulate who gets to do what. It has nothing to do with paying more for using more, that's not what net neutrality is really about. Thats what the corporations what you to think it's about. The corporations through their bought and paid for politicians and the news media want you to think that with net neutrality, you'll have to pay the same rates Google and Yahoo have to pay. this is not true in the least.

And stealing internet access from someones access point is not the same as net neutrality. The difference there is, I pay for my access therefor I have the right to open it or close it completely as I see fit. What I don't have the right to do it sell access to my network, and then restrict people from doing business with my competition in an effort to squash them. Perhaps i get my subscription from Cox comminucations, sell access to my WiFi, but I don't want my customers to know that they could get it cheaper from someone else, so I block them from accessing my competitions sites and services, or worse, charge them a fee to do so.


Yes. Fight for what you want but at least get your facts straight. You don't have a right to unfettered internet usage. You're paying a fee in exchange for a service. The ISPs OWN the pipes your internet usage travels across. Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist for the media companies. The crap they pulled during the early days of the cell phone explosion was genuine market manipulation. But controlling how their property is used is not.

You're right and you are wrong, they may limit certain aspects of your access to their network, but not selectively as a means of squashing their competitors. If you're a windows user, Microsoft owns the OS and licenses you to use it. Microsoft can't tell you that you can't use someone else's browser on the OS that they license you to use just because it happens to be a competing product. these are the shenanigans Net neutrality is going to eliminate.

[Gizenshya]

NO, alphaniner, you are wrong. The Internet belongs to us all. Those companies got into the business knowing full well the purpose of the internet, and ethical use. Net neutrality (and other things, like no censorship) are essential for the free world.

The second there is a law of the sort that puts corporate greed over civil rights, we are a beaten people. All the millions who have fought and died will have done so in vain. It will be the beginning of the end.

And yeah, I'm serious.

Study your history and you'll begin to understand the importance of these things and how they accelerate the destruction of governments and lives.

[SmittyJensen]

Our freedoms are constantly being attacked by a bunch of fat, greedy white old men. The same has been true for... ever.

I prefer to create my own little bubble and pretend it all isn't happening.

I always take carrots. I don't know why.
same here. life sucks :)

[Hwæt]

NO, alphaniner, you are wrong. The Internet belongs to us all. Those companies got into the business knowing full well the purpose of the internet, and ethical use. Net neutrality (and other things, like no censorship) are essential for the free world.


+1



Study your history and you'll begin to understand the importance of these things and how they accelerate the destruction of governments and lives.

If you look back to the 1800s when the telegraph companies had free reign, you could actually see how they used their power to manipulate elections, and crush competitors.



Our freedoms are constantly being attacked by a bunch of fat, greedy white old men. The same has been true for... ever.

I'm sorry, but "old white men" are not the epitome of evil. Greed and a hunger for power know no racial boundaries.

To be quite honest with you, I'm tired of it being ok to bash white men in particular. Racism is bad no matter whom it is directed at!

[handy]

...
The ISPs OWN the pipes your internet usage travels across.

Actually that isn't always the case. In my country a past government privatised most of the national carrier - Telstra, so now Telstra are all about profit for their shareholders & directors, & of course that means making as hard as they legally can for any competitors that they have.

So they contract out to other private ISPs or phone companies for that matter, who have to buy a whole lot of whatever Telstra will sell them, so the Telstra competitor can get a discount & therefore stay in business.

Some ISPs & a phone company has put in their own exchanges in some parts of some of the capital cities here.

In the U.S. there are laws that disallow the carriers from being more than that with regard to the internet. The carriers have been fighting these laws & are apparently starting to erode them through Congress.

One of the links in my previous post talks about this. Here it is again:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

[pricetech]

I'll make two points here, You're allowed to think differently than I. You're even allowed to speak your mind, it's your first amendment right, and I wont infringe upon it. But you're not thinking differently than the people who seek to cripple the internet by giving themselves the legal authority to manipulate who gets to do what. It has nothing to do with paying more for using more, that's not what net neutrality is really about. Thats what the corporations what you to think it's about.

So I'm just gullible and deceived then ?? Any time someone brings up the subject of "constitutional rights" in a discussion, it usually means they're desperate for something to say.

Did you even read my analogy, much less understand it ?? The proponents of Net Neutrality want you to believe that all corporations are evil and that those evil corporations have some sinister plan to block our access to information they don't like.

They don't want you to know that the "level playing field" they refer to is exactly as I described it. Content providers who consume lots of bandwidth but don't own the pipes will no longer have to pay a premium price for that premium usage. That's not fud from some evil corporation, that's fact.

Who do you trust most, or distrust least, with the future of the Internet, the free market or the government ??

The free market brought us, in a period of 10 years, from my first cell phone, an old "brick" which did little more than talk, to a premium cell phone which offers me more services than I'll ever use for less money, both in the cost of the phone and cost and availability of services.

The free market has brought me, in that same period of time, from dialup that sucked even then to broadband at the same monthly cost.

The free market, and free market philosophy, is a key part of the freedoms we enjoy today.

The government has brought me nothing but taxes and lies. I'd just as soon they stay out of it.

[Chris Edgell]

Is there any inbetween being offered?

When taking a cab, you either pay by the mile, or pay by the zone--but nowhere does everyone get in the cab and all pay the same price no matter what.

Same with medicine...no, wait, they want everyone to pay the same price...zero, then spread that over the people with money.

Somebody's got to pay, we need to focus on how that is spread around. Or is that asking too much?

[johnb820]

It is my understanding that ISPs make an enormous profit off of providing Internet service and have been reluctant to spend that money on upgrading their grids. Like cell phone companies, the intent is to strangle the market and I believe it is in the best interest of the country to make sure reluctant corporations do not hold back progress. Net neutrality is essential.

[Exodist]

Yes. Fight for what you want but at least get your facts straight. You don't have a right to unfettered internet usage. You're paying a fee in exchange for a service. The ISPs OWN the pipes your internet usage travels across. Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist for the media companies. The crap they pulled during the early days of the cell phone explosion was genuine market manipulation. But controlling how their property is used is not.

And regarding the quote... I think you're going a bit overboard, but nevertheless I apologize.

Lets change the way your thinking on this a tad.

Lets say you own a business and you wish to do online business. Your local provider is Comcast per se. OK you pay for a site, pay comcast to host. More the likely you get a modest bandwidth usage a month. Not bad.. But now, your site is only available to Comcast providers, you now have to pay Verizon, Timewarner, Bellsloth and all the others a modest individual fee as well. See how this can hurt your business.

Now lets take this to a family point of view. You get basic cable and value package internet. This normally cost a modest fee as well, about 100USD currently. You hop on the net, speed seems good. You go to the Ubuntu forums, all good Yes.. Everyone is talking about a video on Youtube, you hop over there and dang. You get a URL message from Comcast requiring you to pay for PREMIUM service to watch Youtube or even Hulu.

Your prob saying, hey "Its their Networks!". The Internet was built by by a joint venture of local governments, universities for graduate students and the military. The big cable companies seen how big the net was getting and decided to join the bandwagon. They knew before getting involved that the net was free for all and non restricted before making any investment. But they did invest by building networks and they charged ample fees to cover the cost. Now they claim it belongs to them and they are loosing money on a TAX FREE SERVICE. That is correct, internet usage is tax free. The cable companies ONLY want to make their pockets fatter.

[Chris Edgell]

Thank you. Very clearly stated.

Hwaet, I thank you for addressing the old white men issue, I agree.

[LinuxFanBoi]

So I'm just gullible and deceived then ?? Any time someone brings up the subject of "constitutional rights" in a discussion, it usually means they're desperate for something to say.

IMO, You have been brain washed by Big business, and their paid for media goons and bought off politicians like John McCain to believe that what they want to do is in support of the free market. When in fact they are after the power to manipulate the market.

This is not about forcing the semi-trucks of the internet to pay their fair share. They want the rule of law to allow them to manipulate the free market all while convincing you that this is good for you at the same time. I guess it's working.

Why on earth you are bashing me for bringing up the constitution when in fact I used it to defend your right to speak your mind regardless of how convoluted your opinion, is beyond me. The constitution is the foundation that this country was built on, and the minute we loose faith in it or doubt it's power, is when this country will crumble to the ground as a result.


Who do you trust most, or distrust least, with the future of the Internet, the free market or the government ??

This is the line big business has been trying to get people to buy into every time they face regulation to curtail their anti free market shenanigans. The reason the FCC has been pushing for net neutrality is to preserve the free market and ensure that it's allowed to work unrestrained. I'm no fan of big government, but I'm even less a fan of big business. If there is one thing that has been proven over the last few years it's that nothing good can come of a government who allows an industry to do what ever they want with no oversight.

[pricetech]

IMO, You have been brain washed by Big business, and their paid for media goons and bought off politicians like John McCain to believe that what they want to do is in support of the free market. When in fact they are after the power to manipulate the market.

This is not about forcing the semi-trucks of the internet to pay their fair share. They want the rule of law to allow them to manipulate the free market all while convincing you that this is good for you at the same time. I guess it's working.

Ok, so now I'm brainwashed.



Why on earth you are bashing me for bringing up the constitution when in fact I used it to defend your right to speak your mind regardless of how convoluted your opinion, is beyond me. The constitution is the foundation that this country was built on, and the minute we loose faith in it or doubt it's power, is when this country will crumble to the ground as a result.

Not bashing you. This discussion is not about the constitution. My experience has been that when constitutional rights are invoked out of context, it's usually due to a lack of substance. If you felt bashed, then for that I apologize.



This is the line big business has been trying to get people to buy into every time they face regulation to curtail their anti free market shenanigans. The reason the FCC has been pushing for net neutrality is to preserve the free market and ensure that it's allowed to work unrestrained. I'm no fan of big government, but I'm even less a fan of big business. If there is one thing that has been proven over the last few years it's that nothing good can come of a government who allows an industry to do what ever they want with no oversight.

All I've seen proven over the last few years is that government intervention only makes matters worse. No surprise to me since that's the way it's always worked.

Look, this is becoming too political a discussion for the forums. I'm a bit surprised the mods haven't closed it. Let's you and I agree to disagree and leave it at that.

OK ???

[LinuxFanBoi]

Ok, so now I'm brainwashed.

Yes. Acceptance is the first step.


Not bashing you. This discussion is not about the constitution. My experience has been that when constitutional rights are invoked out of context, it's usually due to a lack of substance. If you felt bashed, then for that I apologize.

Never said it was. I said you have the right to speak your opinion even though you are wrong.


All I've seen proven over the last few years is that government intervention only makes matters worse. No surprise to me since that's the way it's always worked.

It's governments job to ensure that their people's best interests are protected. By people I don't mean those who bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions.


Look, this is becoming too political a discussion for the forums. I'm a bit surprised the mods haven't closed it. Let's you and I agree to disagree and leave it at that.

OK ???

Famous last words, spoken by many who have lost an argument. Concession accepted.

[pricetech]

Famous last words, spoken by many who have lost an argument. Concession accepted.

If that makes you happy, go for it.

[Gizenshya]

...

You're an old white man, aren't you?

:p

Seriously, I'm a white male who will hopefully be old one day. Probably not fat or greedy, though. Those guys are evil.

I mean politicians. Politicians are evil.

[pricetech]

...

You're an old white man, aren't you?

:p

and fat from my wife's cooking, but not greedy.




I mean politicians. Politicians are evil.

I'm glad you cleared that up. With that I agree.

[Hwæt]

All I've seen proven over the last few years is that government intervention only makes matters worse. No surprise to me since that's the way it's always worked.

Incorrect. Had the government not bailed out the banks, we would be in a flat out depression. Banks are the hammers that drive the nail of capitalism into the wall. Without them, we cannot get loans, and the entire capitalist system crumbles. Loans are used to buy materials, materials are used to create products, and without loans, you make the entire pyramid fall apart.

Had the banks not been bailed out, there's a pretty good chance that the majority of people that you know would be living in cardboard boxes right now, because the banks would have repossessed all of the homes and items that they had supplied loans for, liquidated them, and then gone out of business, taking many families and other businesses with them.

Think before you speak, young padawan.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Incorrect. Had the government not bailed out the banks, we would be in a flat out depression. Banks are the hammers that drive the nail of capitalism into the wall. Without them, we cannot get loans, and the entire capitalist system crumbles. Loans are used to buy materials, materials are used to create products, and without loans, you make the entire pyramid fall apart.

Had the banks not been bailed out, there's a pretty good chance that the majority of people that you know would be living in cardboard boxes right now, because the banks would have repossessed all of the homes and items that they had supplied loans for, liquidated them, and then gone out of business, taking many families and other businesses with them.

Think before you speak, young padawan.

Not to mention that government intervention and government oversight are two distinctly different things, had there been oversight there would have been no need for intervention. You just can't trust human beings with such large amounts of money to "do the right thing" without someone keeping an eye on things.

[pricetech]

Think before you speak, young padawan.

Young ??

[Hwæt]

Young ??

It's a star wars reference.

[pricetech]

Incorrect. Had the government not bailed out the banks, we would be in a flat out depression. Banks are the hammers that drive the nail of capitalism into the wall. Without them, we cannot get loans, and the entire capitalist system crumbles. Loans are used to buy materials, materials are used to create products, and without loans, you make the entire pyramid fall apart.

Had the banks not been bailed out, there's a pretty good chance that the majority of people that you know would be living in cardboard boxes right now, because the banks would have repossessed all of the homes and items that they had supplied loans for, liquidated them, and then gone out of business, taking many families and other businesses with them.

Think before you speak, young padawan.

The banks would not have failed if not for the government forcing them to lower their standards and loan money to people who could not pay it back. Foreclosures haven't decreased since the bailout. The media simply isn't making a big deal out of them anymore.

And I get the star wars reference, I'm just not used to being referred to as "young".

[Hwæt]

The banks would not have failed if not for the government forcing them to lower their standards and loan money to people who could not pay it back.

Do you have a source for this? Like a bill that actually passed through both parts of the congress, and was signed by the president? There were never any government regulations forcing banks to give out sub-prime mortgages, that was purely because of unregulated greed.



Foreclosures haven't decreased since the bailout. The media simply isn't making a big deal out of them anymore

Source? The foreclosures we see now are nothing compared to what would happen if the banks were to go out of business.

[Gizenshya]

The banks would not have failed if not for the government forcing them to lower their standards and loan money to people who could not pay it back.

This is a common misconception.

Hasty generalizations are common in this day and age. The one mentioned earlier about whether government always screws things up or always makes them better is also a good example of a false dichotomy. Only seriously paranoid people think the gov is bad 100% of the time or good 100% of the time. Though, there is considerable disagreement about what the limits of government power should be.

Regarding the failed banks... this is an incredibly complicated subject, and to explain all the significant factors would, quite frankly, take far more time time than I'm willing to put in. Just know there are dozens of major factors, and each one is intertwined with each other in a complex network of cause and effect relationships.

But I will say this...

It is impossible to have a good economy forever. It can be drawn out for a while, but it will always eventually go into a recession. The longer the good times are drawn out, the worse the recession. The lighter the recession, the shorter the time until the next recession, and the higher the chance of the next one being a depression. The government has a partial say in the matter, as do the people and corporations, and other factors.

In 1912, there was a big recession. All the safeguards that were in place at the time were maxed out to get the economy back on track. The safeguards remained lower after the recovery (clearly because of greed on the part of the new fed reserve board privitization), and left us wide open for the great depression. When that initial recession hit, "our pants were down," because we had already stretched out the economic safeguards. There was no buffer to take the blow, and the bottom fell out.

In the '90's, the interest rate was kept too low for too long, as many important figures pointed out (even at the time, while it was low). Greenspan is a very intelligent man, but this is often considered his big screw up. Anyway, early 200's, they started changing the interest rates too fast (both ways), and this began to halt the market at high interest rate. They then decreased the rate fast (and impatiently) to avoid a recession. This then caused (along with many other factors) stupid people who don't understand what variable-rate mortgages are to buy homes they couldn't afford. The economy started overheating, and they shot the rates back up, and then things hit the fan. The sudden increase in interest rates caught a lot of stupid people (that I mentioned earlier) to realize that they actually couldn't afford all the crap they bought.

Just before this recession, our buffers were already low (because of getting out of a slow economy in the mid-200's). Now, our buffers have been more than maxed out. The US (and other governments) had to go beyond the normal measures-- they created the mass bailout. Individual corporation buyouts have been made in the past, but nothing like this. The governments are essentially betting that the economy will recover (in the next year or two). If another recession hits before then, it will easily be the worst recession in US history. If not, I hope they change rates and regulations slowly, to keep things stable. Whatever the case, before anything else happens, we need to work our buffers back up.

here is some more oversimplification of the perfect storm...

Banks gave stupid people loans. This isn't a problem in itself, actually. It would have been fine if the rates didn't fluctuate extremely fast like they did.

Fannie mae and the like would have been fine as well, if we had a more stable rate, or slower changing rate.

the rate changing would have been fine if banks, other lending institutions (and related companies) had more reasonable capital-asset ratios.

Banks would have had better capital-asset (and other) ratios if people gambling on the stock market didn't expect constant, and impossible-to-attain infinite steady growth from these banks and institutions. Then the rates could have changed fast, and stupid people could have gotten (and been burned by) loans without 'braking the banks.'

In other words, if any one of things wouldn't have been in the dire conditions at the same time, things would have been fine. None of them were catastrophic on their own.

The big problem with the whole thing is that recessions are inevitable. The longer the time span between recessions, the lower the buffers get. The lower the bufferes get, the worse the recession is, and the longer it takes to get out.

Adding more buffers helps this with recessions... but adds a great deal to the turmoil that would be caused when a depression hits.

Everything is a trade-off. The only way to completely get rid of the cycle is to go communist (theoretically, anyway). But that creates more problems that are far worse.

In other words, life sucks. /story

[pricetech]

This is a common misconception.

Hasty generalizations are common in this day and age. The one mentioned earlier about whether government always screws things up or always makes them better is also a good example of a false dichotomy. Only seriously paranoid people think the gov is bad 100% of the time or good 100% of the time. Though, there is considerable disagreement about what the limits of government power should be.

Regarding the failed banks... this is an incredibly complicated subject, and to explain all the significant factors would, quite frankly, take far more time time than I'm willing to put in. Just know there are dozens of major factors, and each one is intertwined with each other in a complex network of cause and effect relationships.

But I will say this...

It is impossible to have a good economy forever. It can be drawn out for a while, but it will always eventually go into a recession. The longer the good times are drawn out, the worse the recession. The lighter the recession, the shorter the time until the next recession, and the higher the chance of the next one being a depression. The government has a partial say in the matter, as do the people and corporations, and other factors.

In 1912, there was a big recession. All the safeguards that were in place at the time were maxed out to get the economy back on track. The safeguards remained lower after the recovery (clearly because of greed on the part of the new fed reserve board privitization), and left us wide open for the great depression. When that initial recession hit, "our pants were down," because we had already stretched out the economic safeguards. There was no buffer to take the blow, and the bottom fell out.

In the '90's, the interest rate was kept too low for too long, as many important figures pointed out (even at the time, while it was low). Greenspan is a very intelligent man, but this is often considered his big screw up. Anyway, early 200's, they started changing the interest rates too fast (both ways), and this began to halt the market at high interest rate. They then decreased the rate fast (and impatiently) to avoid a recession. This then caused (along with many other factors) stupid people who don't understand what variable-rate mortgages are to buy homes they couldn't afford. The economy started overheating, and they shot the rates back up, and then things hit the fan. The sudden increase in interest rates caught a lot of stupid people (that I mentioned earlier) to realize that they actually couldn't afford all the crap they bought.

Just before this recession, our buffers were already low (because of getting out of a slow economy in the mid-200's). Now, our buffers have been more than maxed out. The US (and other governments) had to go beyond the normal measures-- they created the mass bailout. Individual corporation buyouts have been made in the past, but nothing like this. The governments are essentially betting that the economy will recover (in the next year or two). If another recession hits before then, it will easily be the worst recession in US history. If not, I hope they change rates and regulations slowly, to keep things stable. Whatever the case, before anything else happens, we need to work our buffers back up.

here is some more oversimplification of the perfect storm...

Banks gave stupid people loans. This isn't a problem in itself, actually. It would have been fine if the rates didn't fluctuate extremely fast like they did.

Fannie mae and the like would have been fine as well, if we had a more stable rate, or slower changing rate.

the rate changing would have been fine if banks, other lending institutions (and related companies) had more reasonable capital-asset ratios.

Banks would have had better capital-asset (and other) ratios if people gambling on the stock market didn't expect constant, and impossible-to-attain infinite steady growth from these banks and institutions. Then the rates could have changed fast, and stupid people could have gotten (and been burned by) loans without 'braking the banks.'

In other words, if any one of things wouldn't have been in the dire conditions at the same time, things would have been fine. None of them were catastrophic on their own.

The big problem with the whole thing is that recessions are inevitable. The longer the time span between recessions, the lower the buffers get. The lower the bufferes get, the worse the recession is, and the longer it takes to get out.

Adding more buffers helps this with recessions... but adds a great deal to the turmoil that would be caused when a depression hits.

Everything is a trade-off. The only way to completely get rid of the cycle is to go communist (theoretically, anyway). But that creates more problems that are far worse.

In other words, life sucks. /story

I don't believe I could have said that better or more thoroughly. My hat's off to you.

I'm done.

[samh785]

Yes. Fight for what you want but at least get your facts straight. You don't have a right to unfettered internet usage. You're paying a fee in exchange for a service. The ISPs OWN the pipes your internet usage travels across. Don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist for the media companies. The crap they pulled during the early days of the cell phone explosion was genuine market manipulation. But controlling how their property is used is not.

And regarding the quote... I think you're going a bit overboard, but nevertheless I apologize.

In a just society, access to information should be universal and free. The internet is almost universal, all we need is the free... or at the very least cheap.