Aright, first premise. You haven't justified this. The presented evidence indicates that this being legal has no negative effects on the internet.
have you even been reading?
abusing your position in one market to gain an advantage in another is bad for the market and bad for the economy as a whole.
this is not hard.
allowing netflicks to pay ISP's to degrade lovefilms service (lets say by pushing all netflicks packets to the front whenever both are in a queue) is no different than allowing intel to pay retailers to push back the launch of AMD products which is already illegal.
Or perhaps I've misread your position. do you maintain that this kind of abuse of the market is not bad and or that we don't need basic antitrust and anti-monopoly laws?
So long as lovefilm's stuff is delivered within the advertised parameters of the service, I do not have cause for complaint. How exactly the ISP provides the service they advertise is not really my problem. They could be cashing netflix stuff locally and also advertising "no lag ever for netflix subscribers with our service" if they wished. That is not a concern at all.
right, so facebook come to you and say "hey, there's this new startup, hardly any users on your network yet. hardly anyone has ever heard of them but we're worried about them. we'll give you X million to make sure their page loads like a flash animation in the days of dialup for any of your customers and anyone who's connection gets routed across your network". what do you do?
Did I pay for a dialup connection? If so, sucks to be me, I should probably buy something that isn't crap. If, on the other hand, the ISP elects for whatever reason not to provide their contractually obligated services....they should be liable for the damages. If it can be shown to be intentional, punitive damages could also be appropriate at a judge's discretion.
capefeather wrote:The second is this insistence on concentrating on increasing average wealth regardless of the cost. This is something that people definitely disagree with as well, and is definitely not a given. Maybe my personal objection can be summed up as, "As a fan of Rawls, this is completely incompatible with my beliefs." Are people really suggesting that we should continue to increase the disparity between rich and poor because the rich are, on average, more "valuable"? Are people really suggesting that we screw over one individual in favour of another, based on who has more wealth? Because this is the implication that I'm seeing here. I could easily increase the average wealth of society by killing people at random.
No. The point is that "how much money do I have compared to Bill Gates" is not actually important. What's important is "how much money do I have". Absolute values of wealth are important, but relative wealth is not actually much of a concern. He could have twelve mansions or fifteen, and it would impact my life not at all. However, if I've got an extra few bucks in my pocket to buy something additional DOES matter.
It also happens that equality in outcomes has a social cost to create. It is not natural, and even if artificially created, will rapidly destabilize. If every person in a town had their net worth set to the same amount, in a year, there would be a massive spread in outcomes because people are different, and want different things. Thus, any amount of equality has an ongoing cost in the form of wealth redistribution plans, which have a non-zero overhead cost.
The aforementioned destabilization will inherently channel wealth to those who produce it. If I spend my year partying with booze and hookers, I am likely to have little wealth at the end of it. On the other hand, the guy who elected to start making booze will probably have more than he started with. There is no "screwing people over". If I chose booze and hookers, and I got booze and hookers, I was not screwed over. I got exactly what I wanted. If what I wanted did not include "save money for retirement", then...guess what I don't get.
So, we ignore the disparity. It will always exist unless people are standardized to want the same things(and what a boring world that would be). We don't suffer the overhead cost of a wealth redistribution system. We also don't suffer the problem of massively incentivizing the state of being needy. 'Cause, frankly, Mr Booze-maker probably also enjoys booze and hookers, but is thinking long-term about his access to them. If there's no long term reason to be productive...people tend to gleefully take the freebies, and to hell with the future.
capefeather wrote:A big problem that I'm seeing here is that we're placing too much trust in a human's ability to exercise good judgment, regardless of mitigating factors. Quite frankly, even disregarding being drunk (Actually, why even "infringe on the rights" of a drunk driver? He doesn't actually intend to kill people!)
Wanted to address this clause. Intent is irrelevant. I can say every single day that I want to help those starving people in Africa, and really, really intend to send them money...but if I never do, and instead spend the money on booze and hookers, my intent does not matter one whit to those starving people.
Market centric philosophy is big on "revealed intent". IE, if you spent all your money on booze and hookers instead of helping starving people...you really did want the first one more, regardless of what you said. So, you can SAY that you didn't want to hurt people, but if you chose to guzzle down the booze, get behind the wheel, then plow into someone's living room....it doesn't matter a damned bit. The outcome is the same regardless of your words, and your actions make you responsible.
morriswalters wrote:How many ISP's do you think exist in any geographic location?
This is a real problem. It is one that is also almost wholly created by government-enforced monopolies. Government and broadband providers have signed rather a lot of deals limiting competition in this area, and this issue is best fixed by axing such monopolies to begin with.