apparently, corporations ARE the law AND the government by "virtue" of paying them off. faux "news" shouldn't even exist based on the anti-trust laws. instead, murdock has been able to pay off the laws and create and support a false reality through broadcasting and publishing by propagating lies and misinformation, creating a huge chasm between people in this country who didn't used to be vehemently (and likely soon to be violently) against each other. in a 1 minute political conversation, one can almost instantly discover the faux talking points of their dedicated viewer.
that's not even considering being able to pass off completely inaccurate garbage as fact. how does the FCC reconcile false (what is passed off as) journalism?!
lies are truth. truth is a lie.

I heard there is a name for it... "Fox Derangement Syndrome".

Recommended read: Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic

History repeats itself.

And it's worse now that everyone is - justifiably - deathly afraid.

But it's always been much easier to peddle lies. Solutions to the complicated problems of the world don't fit on a bumper sticker, as I may have said once or ten times.

Oh, and by the way - just so the Fannie and Freddie "pushing bad loans" comment doesn't go unpunished:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/things-everyone-in-chicago-knows/

Not Mr. "know it best" Krugman again.... !

He's very sharp.

Okay, trying to get the thread back on track.

There's a lot of misunderstanding going on here.

In the first place, the announced Google-Verizon "deal" isn't ANY type of a business arrangement. It is simply a jointly agreed-upon and filed suggestion by Google and Verizon on how the government might handle the net neutrality issue. They are not doing anything together here other than agreeing on a suggested course of action to recommend.

THAT'S IT.

And for further background, so that you understand where this comes from and where we are now:

There is currently NO regulation of the internet. Except for the existing regulation of the telcos and the cable providers regarding how they provide service to your house as "telecommunications providers," (which is minor) there is absolutely no regulation of the internet, itself.

There are no rules governing how, where, when, why, for how much, to whom, etc., etc., etc., internet service should be provided. There is no regulation of the service or the content, no regulating bodies overseeing it - nothing.

The FCC doesn't have jurisdiction, the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction. Nobody has jurisdiction or regulatory authority over the internet.

So, a few years ago, some people started to get worried that, as the internet was becoming more and more important to everyday people, that leaving it unregulated would allow it to become some type of monopolized, high-priced conduit only for big corporations (never mind that in 15+ years of unregulated development, it seems to be doing just fine, but...). As is the case with things like this, others warned those who were seeking regulation of this communication network/business/social environment at this stage that demanding regulation now would probably do way more harm than good, but, that didn't stop the interest.

So, for the last couple of years, Congress and the FCC have been trying to figure out how to regulate the internet, to keep it "safe" and "fair" for everyone.

And they haven't been successful. At all.

The FCC - under Pres. Obama's appointee, Julius Genakowski - has announced the FCC wants to get into the business of regulating the internet. Genakowski has announced some ideas about how he might do it and asked the public and Congress to comment on his proposals. So far, he's been told - by many of the companies that have interests in the internet, some of the public, by Congress and by the Courts - that none of his ideas are likely going to be adopted and/or work.

And that's where it stands right now. Some people think the internet should be regulated, like a utility, but everyone realizes that no one has the authority to do that and some people, like the FCC and some members of Congress, are trying to figure out if/how it can be done.

So, what you have here now, is Google and Verizon having gotten together to respond in the wake of all of that, and making this public suggestion that says: "We think you might be able to regulate the internet a bit, and here's our suggestion on how Congress and the FCC can and should do that."**


So, with that backdrop, so that everyone understands where we are and how we got here, let's pick up the discussion:



See above. This is not even close to an anti-trust issue. Google and Verizon are not doing anything anti-competitive here. This is not a business deal and it does not affect a market. They have merely agreed on a joint suggestion for a framework under which Congress and the FCC might be able to move forward with some type of regulation of the internet, generally.



Anti-trust laws, like many other Congressional Acts (but even moreso with respect to the Anti-trust laws, in particular, for several reasons) are subject to the vagaries of court interpretations, political and economic climates, etc., etc. Look into the history of the anti-trust laws and you'll see a VERY checkered history of application and interpretation, with the laws going virtually unused for decades and decades, then being enforced lightly, only in the strictest terms, then being used quite liberally, then going unused for another decade or so, then re-applied with more force, etc., etc.



8 months is closer to a year (12 months) than not.

But what you are missing is everything that happened in between (i.e. the Comcast decision, which essentially rendered the initial FCC inquiry on Net Neutrality, which the response you linked to was from) virtually moot.

That was the point. The item you linked to is basically a response to an already, long-dead initiative.



Nope. Exactly the opposite.

Much like the recorded music business, the traditional porn business has been gutted by the advent of the internet and high speed data access. Sure, there are new "upstarts" that are making money, that never did before - just like iTunes is making money while the traditional record business swirls around the bottom of the toilet - but the established porn business has been trampled by the ability to get the stuff fast and free over the internet (and the porn producers/distributors are way less sympathetic plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases than even record companies are).



Really? I don't think you really understand these issues, either with respect to how the internet was built out, or with respect to the regulation of certain industries.






Finally, you have to read some of the comments that follow those Krugman screeds. One of my favorites on that one simply says: "Paul Krugspin."

Ha!

The guy really has just become a horrible, horrible propagandist. It's why he has zero credibility anymore, as an economist and in Washington.






**As a political reality, "Net Neutrality" is dead for now. Even Democratic proponent of Internet regulation have basically said: "We're not prepared to tackle this, right now." The Google-Verizon proposal will likely go nowhere. At least for the foreseeable future (and it will likely NEVER be adopted, as suggested, in any event).

So sad to see so much brain power waisted.

No, he's absolutely right about 99% of the time. It's not a waste at all, in fact he always backs up his opinions with real economics - unlike the other side, which just spews fear and hype.