The reason you've had such trouble with the phone and cable companies is because they are government-sanctioned monopolies. If these companies were forced to compete in the markets where they are given monopolies, they would need to provide better service to gain and retain customers.
So instead of asking for MORE government intervention, Woz, you should be asking for the government to get the hell out of the way. You say that "every time and in every way that the telecommunications carriers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed." Well they only ever gained that power or control because of the government. When companies must compete, the customer is king. That is the situation today. The Internet is free and open because of the lack of government interference.
So yes, let's ask the FCC to keep the Internet as free as possible - by keeping their hands off.
While this type of argument has a certain emotional appeal to some people, it's entirely lacking a rational or empirical basis. Historically, we saw the results of unregulated industry long ago and it was obvious, at a time before anyone on this forum was alive, that it was an utterly corrupt, vicious, failure. Unfortunately, it was so long ago, and Americans have so little knowledge of history that many of them seem to forget that without regulations trusts and monopolies form naturally. The problem, then, is obviously not too much government intervention, it's not enough or ineffective government regulation.
The current FCC are a perfect example of ineffective government regulation. Their statement could just as easily have been written by Lewis Carrol to be uttered by a citizen of Wonderland. The improper and undue influence of industry is written all over it. And all of this is ultimately the result of the attack on government orchestrated by the right (i.e., the moneyed interests) over the past 50-60 years. Government regulators are now so emasculated that industry effectively writes the regulations.
Verizon itself has used Android's openness to ban features and block apps, even going so far as to block Google search widgets on some phones.
If Verizon starts selling the iPhone, are they going to ban features and block apps from running? If not, do they have the network capacity to handle the millions of iPhone users that will switch to their network?
"The local phone providers don't have any obligation to serve all of their phone customers with DSL," Wozniak wrote, "They also have no requirement to service everyone living in the geographic area for which they have a monopoly."
The FCC should breakup these city and state phone and cable monopolies.
Android is open to the carriers not open to the user. My son got an Android phone from Verizon and he is stuck with Bing as the only search engine. They do not offer him any other choice. To use Google he has to go to the Google web page or download a Google App, he can not change his default search provider in the browser. So Google is killing their self by not holding some control over their OS. Verizon cut off the hand that feed them the free OS. Lots of other things are locked up on the Verizon Android phone to.
Android is open to the carriers not open to the user. My son got an Android phone from Verizon and he is stuck with Bing as the only search engine. They do not offer him any other choice. To use Google he has to go to the Google web page or download a Google App, he can not change his default search provider in the browser. So Google is killing their self by not holding some control over their OS. Verizon cut off the hand that feed them the free OS. Lots of other things are locked up on the Verizon Android phone to.
Yes, proof that the either the FCC have no idea what they are doing, or, they know exactly what they are doing but are engaged in double-speak to obfuscate the fact that they just sold the public out to corporate interests.
The problem in North Korea is that its government is unregulated, so it's exactly what one would expect it to be. Regulation of the powerful is a necessary condition for Freedom.
"Regulation" has multiple contexts. Citizens of North Korea are strictly regulated by Kim Jong Il's regime. Kim Jong Il's regime isn't directly regulated, but it certainly IS being regulated. If KJI were to truly let loose and attempt to carry out all his whims, you can guarantee that the global community will come down on N.Korea like a ton of bricks.
I think "formal" regulation is a hindrance to freedom, but the implied regulation of people who stand up for "what's right" is freedom's stimulus.
Of course "what's right" is somewhat ill-defined, but there are a few principles we can all mostly agree on.
"Regulation" has multiple contexts. Citizens of North Korea are strictly regulated by Kim Jong Il's regime. Kim Jong Il's regime isn't directly regulated, but it certainly IS being regulated. If KJI were to truly let loose and attempt to carry out all his whims, you can guarantee that the global community will come down on N.Korea like a ton of bricks.
I think "formal" regulation is a hindrance to freedom, but the implied regulation of people who stand up for "what's right" is freedom's stimulus.
Of course "what's right" is somewhat ill-defined, but there are a few principles we can all mostly agree on.
-Clive
I have to disagree. The foundation of freedom, despite the apparent paradox, is regulation. Regulation by law of both the government and the citizens. The North Korean regime is not regulated at all in terms of restricting what they can do to their citizens. In contrast, for example, the U.S. government is strictly regulated by the constitution, the courts and the electorate. Where we run into problems, where freedom is compromised, is when we bypass or ignore these regulations (for example, the patriot act) or when this regulatory process is subverted by moneyed interests -- i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations who use that money to pervert the regulatory process in their favor.
True freedom is not possible without a strong and equitable social contract, which necessarily means regulation. When that social contract is undermined, freedom is undermined as well. The only way to maintain that social contract is through the formal process of laws. Where there is no formal regulation, there will be no freedom.
I have to disagree. The foundation of freedom, despite the apparent paradox, is regulation. Regulation by law of both the government and the citizens. The North Korean regime is not regulated at all in terms of restricting what they can do to their citizens. In contrast, for example, the U.S. government is strictly regulated by the constitution, the courts and the electorate. Where we run into problems, where freedom is compromised, is when we bypass or ignore these regulations (for example, the patriot act) or when this regulatory process is subverted by moneyed interests -- i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations who use that money to pervert the regulatory process in their favor.
True freedom is not possible without a strong and equitable social contract, which necessarily means regulation. When that social contract is undermined, freedom is undermined as well. The only way to maintain that social contract is through the formal process of laws. Where there is no formal regulation, there will be no freedom.
The government is supposed to be regulated by the Constitution, not business (except as it relates to interstate and international commerce). Government should be minimally involved in all aspects of our lives, letting competition and freedom of choice drive businesses to offer the highest quality at all price points by squeezing out inefficiency. Government regulation and involvement increases inefficiency, fraud, waste and lack of choice.
The government is supposed to be regulated by the Constitution, not business (except as it relates to interstate and international commerce). Government should be minimally involved in all aspects of our lives, letting competition and freedom of choice drive businesses to offer the highest quality at all price points by squeezing out inefficiency. Government regulation and involvement increases inefficiency, fraud, waste and lack of choice.
Nonsense. It's the government's job to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and predatory corporations just as much as it is their job to protect us from foreign invaders and criminals on the streets. Competition and "freedom of choice" won't do that, and history is replete with of examples of when it did not, and none of when it did. Government regulation preserves our freedom by not letting the powerful and wealthy wrest it from the people.
I fail to understand how Android's contribution should help support restrictions in favor of carriers. Is the FCC saying Android affects demand for network capacity? Is the FCC saying Android represent the whole handset market? Whatever it is, it sounds unusual.
I really do hope FCC maintain the right to review this each and every year and move all carriers and networks to where it should be for consumers.
Nonsense. It's the government's job to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and predatory corporations just as much as it is their job to protect us from foreign invaders and criminals on the streets. Competition and "freedom of choice" won't do that, and history is replete with of examples of when it did not, and none of when it did. Government regulation preserves our freedom by not letting the powerful and wealthy wrest it from the people.
After taking a beautiful Christmas break away from tech-turned-political debate, I have returned out of curiosity, only to find this chuckle-worthy banter.
Ultimately, the responsibility falls on "we, the people," to enforce freedom. We attempt to do so by means of government, which is supposedly an extension of our collective will, but government can only go so far to protect our freedoms before it begins trampling on it.
As outsiders, we can take a look at out-of-control N.Korea and say that it must be regulated, but if you ask a N.Korean citizen why (s)he lacks the freedoms we have, (s)he will say that government is to blame.
The moment a government stops being an extension of one's collective will, one loses his/her freedom. Few will agree that the US government represents their will, and even fewer will agree that the U.N. represents their will... and so begs the question: who regulates the regulators?
Individuals do. You and I. WE are responsible for ensuring freedom.
We can certainly use an established government to help, but the smaller and more localized it is, the better it represents the will of a given populace. That is why The Founders advocated for a collection of local state governments to have all the rights and for the powers of the Federal government to be limited. The closer we become to a singular Federal government, the less representative that government is of our will, and the less free we become.
Comments
The reason you've had such trouble with the phone and cable companies is because they are government-sanctioned monopolies. If these companies were forced to compete in the markets where they are given monopolies, they would need to provide better service to gain and retain customers.
So instead of asking for MORE government intervention, Woz, you should be asking for the government to get the hell out of the way. You say that "every time and in every way that the telecommunications carriers have had power or control, we the people wind up getting screwed." Well they only ever gained that power or control because of the government. When companies must compete, the customer is king. That is the situation today. The Internet is free and open because of the lack of government interference.
So yes, let's ask the FCC to keep the Internet as free as possible - by keeping their hands off.
While this type of argument has a certain emotional appeal to some people, it's entirely lacking a rational or empirical basis. Historically, we saw the results of unregulated industry long ago and it was obvious, at a time before anyone on this forum was alive, that it was an utterly corrupt, vicious, failure. Unfortunately, it was so long ago, and Americans have so little knowledge of history that many of them seem to forget that without regulations trusts and monopolies form naturally. The problem, then, is obviously not too much government intervention, it's not enough or ineffective government regulation.
The current FCC are a perfect example of ineffective government regulation. Their statement could just as easily have been written by Lewis Carrol to be uttered by a citizen of Wonderland. The improper and undue influence of industry is written all over it. And all of this is ultimately the result of the attack on government orchestrated by the right (i.e., the moneyed interests) over the past 50-60 years. Government regulators are now so emasculated that industry effectively writes the regulations.
Net result: consumers pay more
I can't see how a completely unregulated market could produce any other outcome.
That's the best case scenario.
If Verizon starts selling the iPhone, are they going to ban features and block apps from running? If not, do they have the network capacity to handle the millions of iPhone users that will switch to their network?
"The local phone providers don't have any obligation to serve all of their phone customers with DSL," Wozniak wrote, "They also have no requirement to service everyone living in the geographic area for which they have a monopoly."
The FCC should breakup these city and state phone and cable monopolies.
Android is open to the carriers not open to the user. My son got an Android phone from Verizon and he is stuck with Bing as the only search engine. They do not offer him any other choice. To use Google he has to go to the Google web page or download a Google App, he can not change his default search provider in the browser. So Google is killing their self by not holding some control over their OS. Verizon cut off the hand that feed them the free OS. Lots of other things are locked up on the Verizon Android phone to.
Yes, proof that the either the FCC have no idea what they are doing, or, they know exactly what they are doing but are engaged in double-speak to obfuscate the fact that they just sold the public out to corporate interests.
The problem in North Korea is that its government is unregulated, so it's exactly what one would expect it to be. Regulation of the powerful is a necessary condition for Freedom.
"Regulation" has multiple contexts. Citizens of North Korea are strictly regulated by Kim Jong Il's regime. Kim Jong Il's regime isn't directly regulated, but it certainly IS being regulated. If KJI were to truly let loose and attempt to carry out all his whims, you can guarantee that the global community will come down on N.Korea like a ton of bricks.
I think "formal" regulation is a hindrance to freedom, but the implied regulation of people who stand up for "what's right" is freedom's stimulus.
Of course "what's right" is somewhat ill-defined, but there are a few principles we can all mostly agree on.
-Clive
"Regulation" has multiple contexts. Citizens of North Korea are strictly regulated by Kim Jong Il's regime. Kim Jong Il's regime isn't directly regulated, but it certainly IS being regulated. If KJI were to truly let loose and attempt to carry out all his whims, you can guarantee that the global community will come down on N.Korea like a ton of bricks.
I think "formal" regulation is a hindrance to freedom, but the implied regulation of people who stand up for "what's right" is freedom's stimulus.
Of course "what's right" is somewhat ill-defined, but there are a few principles we can all mostly agree on.
-Clive
I have to disagree. The foundation of freedom, despite the apparent paradox, is regulation. Regulation by law of both the government and the citizens. The North Korean regime is not regulated at all in terms of restricting what they can do to their citizens. In contrast, for example, the U.S. government is strictly regulated by the constitution, the courts and the electorate. Where we run into problems, where freedom is compromised, is when we bypass or ignore these regulations (for example, the patriot act) or when this regulatory process is subverted by moneyed interests -- i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations who use that money to pervert the regulatory process in their favor.
True freedom is not possible without a strong and equitable social contract, which necessarily means regulation. When that social contract is undermined, freedom is undermined as well. The only way to maintain that social contract is through the formal process of laws. Where there is no formal regulation, there will be no freedom.
I have to disagree. The foundation of freedom, despite the apparent paradox, is regulation. Regulation by law of both the government and the citizens. The North Korean regime is not regulated at all in terms of restricting what they can do to their citizens. In contrast, for example, the U.S. government is strictly regulated by the constitution, the courts and the electorate. Where we run into problems, where freedom is compromised, is when we bypass or ignore these regulations (for example, the patriot act) or when this regulatory process is subverted by moneyed interests -- i.e., wealthy individuals and corporations who use that money to pervert the regulatory process in their favor.
True freedom is not possible without a strong and equitable social contract, which necessarily means regulation. When that social contract is undermined, freedom is undermined as well. The only way to maintain that social contract is through the formal process of laws. Where there is no formal regulation, there will be no freedom.
The government is supposed to be regulated by the Constitution, not business (except as it relates to interstate and international commerce). Government should be minimally involved in all aspects of our lives, letting competition and freedom of choice drive businesses to offer the highest quality at all price points by squeezing out inefficiency. Government regulation and involvement increases inefficiency, fraud, waste and lack of choice.
The government is supposed to be regulated by the Constitution, not business (except as it relates to interstate and international commerce). Government should be minimally involved in all aspects of our lives, letting competition and freedom of choice drive businesses to offer the highest quality at all price points by squeezing out inefficiency. Government regulation and involvement increases inefficiency, fraud, waste and lack of choice.
Nonsense. It's the government's job to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and predatory corporations just as much as it is their job to protect us from foreign invaders and criminals on the streets. Competition and "freedom of choice" won't do that, and history is replete with of examples of when it did not, and none of when it did. Government regulation preserves our freedom by not letting the powerful and wealthy wrest it from the people.
I really do hope FCC maintain the right to review this each and every year and move all carriers and networks to where it should be for consumers.
Nonsense. It's the government's job to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and predatory corporations just as much as it is their job to protect us from foreign invaders and criminals on the streets. Competition and "freedom of choice" won't do that, and history is replete with of examples of when it did not, and none of when it did. Government regulation preserves our freedom by not letting the powerful and wealthy wrest it from the people.
After taking a beautiful Christmas break away from tech-turned-political debate, I have returned out of curiosity, only to find this chuckle-worthy banter.
Ultimately, the responsibility falls on "we, the people," to enforce freedom. We attempt to do so by means of government, which is supposedly an extension of our collective will, but government can only go so far to protect our freedoms before it begins trampling on it.
As outsiders, we can take a look at out-of-control N.Korea and say that it must be regulated, but if you ask a N.Korean citizen why (s)he lacks the freedoms we have, (s)he will say that government is to blame.
The moment a government stops being an extension of one's collective will, one loses his/her freedom. Few will agree that the US government represents their will, and even fewer will agree that the U.N. represents their will... and so begs the question: who regulates the regulators?
Individuals do. You and I. WE are responsible for ensuring freedom.
We can certainly use an established government to help, but the smaller and more localized it is, the better it represents the will of a given populace. That is why The Founders advocated for a collection of local state governments to have all the rights and for the powers of the Federal government to be limited. The closer we become to a singular Federal government, the less representative that government is of our will, and the less free we become.
-Clive