[Mikes]

... it looks like the private industry will do what the government officially couldn't.

Haven't seen this posted yet. I'm sure there are better articles on it, but most of the other ones I found were in German.

http://www.extremetech.com/internet/122747-isps-to-become-copyright-cops-this-summer
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/15/american-isps-to-launch-massive-copyright-spying-scheme-on-july-12/

A 3-6 strikes law for the Internet? Really?

Devils advocate: How long till ISPs will start warning any heavy downloaders for "supposedly" committing piracy in order to reduce network load?

[Alex Heartnet]

Copyright law has been abused in creative ways before to censor free speech, among other things.  It is sadly not uncommon to see Youtube videos get taken down due to 'copyright violations'.

This is why internet companies should be owned by the public and not by for-profit CEO's or government agencies.  If cable companies had a co-operative business structure, they would be far more willing to meet demands asked by their users.

[jr2]

The problem is actually probably caused by internet companies being 'owned' by the public... that is, any members of the public with enough money to buy shares.  Then said shareholders want their share of the profits, and, unfortunately, perhaps the best way to give shareholders more profits isn't exactly in line with the best interests of its customers.  No?

Maybe if they could create a company that shared its profits with its customers as a certain amount off of their monthly bill, and was governed by its customers?  So customers would of course want money off of their bill, and push for things good for the company, however, they would also want excellent service, and would push for things good for the consumer as well.

I don't know if that would necessarily work out well for the employees, however.  But, if they were unionized, probably would be fairly well balanced.

[Alex Heartnet]

The problem is actually probably caused by internet companies being 'owned' by the public... that is, any members of the public with enough money to buy shares.  Then said shareholders want their share of the profits, and, unfortunately, perhaps the best way to give shareholders more profits isn't exactly in line with the best interests of its customers.  No?

I provided that link to what a co-operative is for a reason, as not many know about it.  It is not the same as a corporation.  A co-operative is truely owned by the public and not by a bunch of wealthy shareholders.  (To be fair, that link in my last post is kinda hidden in plain sight, I can barely find it myself)

...In many respects, cooperatives resemble other businesses. They have similar physical facilities, perform similar functions, and must follow sound business practices. They usually incorporate under State laws and require bylaws and other necessary legal papers. Members elect a board of directors to represent their interests. The board sets policy and hires a manager to run the cooperative's day-to-day business.
Even though cooperatives are similar to many other businesses, they are distinctively different. Some differences are found in the cooperative's purpose, ownership, control, and distribution of benefits. Cooperatives follow three principles that define or identify their distinctive characteristics:  They are user-owned, user-controlled, and user-benefited...

Would this maybe make for a better way of running internet companies?  Our current system clearly isn't ideal.

[Aardwolf]

No major existing ISP is going to make that change. If we want a cooperative, we have to make it ourselves.

[jr2]

Well, if the results benefit the customers (and they should), then it'd be ideal... customers I think are really fed up with being used by profit-hungry, mono/duo/trio/quadro-polistic companies.

Which isn't to say that all large companies are bad... they just have a tendency of getting that way is all (power corrupts...) and, once in a position of abusing power, they generally resist all attempts to get them to change (and have the means to do so usually).  Maybe because the people in charge forget where all their wealth / power came from... yes, they helped propel that company to the top... but they somehow think that just because people pour tons of their hard earned money into their company to get a product or service that's in high demand, somehow means that it's now the consumer's duty to continue to support the company, while the company does less and less in return (or maintains the same level of service as the user base, and thus the revenue, increases more and more, reducing the service they provide to a dry husk of what it once was).

[samiam]

Obama is a moron.

However, he's a good politician.

It's interesting how Citizens United gets passed and all the sudden everyone wants to lower the corporate income tax and enforce IPs.

[jr2]

How about we lower the corporate income tax rate and close all of the dumb loopholes? Make everyone pay a flat rate (no idea what a good rate would be but figure that out) no more paying companies to maintain literal armies of employees whose only goal is to comb through the monstrosity that is the tax code, trying to find ways to save money.

a) Make 'em pay their darn taxes, same as everyone else that doesn't hire people to do black magic on their taxes (need to close a lot of those loopholes, too)

b) lower the rates so they aren't insane.

c) profit, as all of the effort wasted in avoiding taxes that were too high now goes to taking care of business

[samiam]

I'd agree, I just noted it as an example of corporate dollars at work.

[Aardwolf]

So, what does it actually take for someone to start a 'new' ISP (and have access to the rest of the existing Internet)? Is it even possible?

[Mikes]

How about we lower the corporate income tax rate and close all of the dumb loopholes? Make everyone pay a flat rate (no idea what a good rate would be but figure that out) no more paying companies to maintain literal armies of employees whose only goal is to comb through the monstrosity that is the tax code, trying to find ways to save money.

My professor always used to say that a flat rate would make things even more unfair than they are now. The moment you look in detail at what a flat tax would mean for individual businesses you will quickly find out how right he was. The tax system is a complicated mess, no doubt, but outright ignoring circumstances does not make things more fair - the contrary.

[Aardwolf]

I thought we were talking about ISPs and copyright dickery?

[jr2]

How about we lower the corporate income tax rate and close all of the dumb loopholes? Make everyone pay a flat rate (no idea what a good rate would be but figure that out) no more paying companies to maintain literal armies of employees whose only goal is to comb through the monstrosity that is the tax code, trying to find ways to save money.

My professor always used to say that a flat rate would make things even more unfair than they are now. The moment you look in detail at what a flat tax would mean for individual businesses you will quickly find out how right he was. The tax system is a complicated mess, no doubt, but outright ignoring circumstances does not make things more fair - the contrary.

It wouldn't be unfair, just harsher.  Everyone would have to pay their percentage.  If you make less, you pay less.  If you make more, you pay more.  Now, I think perhaps there should be a 'floor', where, if you make under a certain amount, you don't have to pay as much, and if you make less, you pay less... but the slope should be gradual.  They already have this, however, the loopholes etc mean that, if you hire a professional to work the ropes for you, you pay jack squat (or a ridiculously low amount), and, if you don't, you'll probably pay the whole shebang.  (If your income is high enough, that is.)  I think that if you make over a certain amount, you have to pay... let's say corp tax is 17% and you don't make enough to have to pay 17%, but you don't make little enough to pay nothing.  Whereever your income lands, that's your number.  No squealing and trying to get out of it.  Your income means you pay, say, 10%.  Pay up. End of story.  No fudging the numbers.

[samiam]

The good thing about progressive corporate income tax is that it helps small firms and prevents market concentration. Otherwise, a flat tax disproportionately affects startups.

However it'd be better for everyone to scrap the corporate income tax entirely and replace it with a personal income tax, since a corporate tax falls heavily on wages and is actually a pretty regressive tax.

[Aardwolf]

If you want to talk about corporate income tax, make a topic for it.



Now to reiterate my previous on-topic question:

What does it actually take for someone to start a 'new' ISP (and have access to the rest of the existing Internet)? Is it even possible?

[jr2]

It's possible... you either have to connect to the internet backbone or connect to a large company that does.  (I don't think the larger companies get internetz thru Time Warner, lol)..

Google how much for a T1 or T3 line.. you'll get companies that are I think connected to the backbone.  Not entirely sure about all this, but it's right there for the Googling.

EDIT: There's also OC3 and OC12..  Read this:

 http://www.broadbandlocators.com/t3.php

[Aardwolf]

Bleh... I liked to think I understood something about how the Internet works, but here I am asking this:

What is this "backbone" of the Internet?

I was under the impression that there was no single underlying "backbone" to connect to... That if you wanted to provide broadband Internet access, you had to connect to someone else's cables/satelite/whatever. And that whoever that "someone else" is is going to be a private ISP, meaning that  your ability to provide broadband access Internet access is at the mercy of whatever ISP(s) you are connecting to, and they could (legal repercussions notwithstanding) block sites, limit bandwidth, or cut off your access altogether!

Or do you mean to suggest that there is a network of publicly owned "big fat cables"?

[jr2]

I wouldn't say they are all publicly owned.  And no, there is no single Internet 'backbone'... Think of a Hydra.    The Internet's original purpose was to provide reliable communication for the US government control centers in the event of a nuclear war... its original designation was "ARPANet"

And, to answer your question as to what the backbone is: clicky

Spoiler:

The Internet backbone refers to the principal data routes between large, strategically interconnected networks and core routers in the Internet. These data routes are hosted by commercial, government, academic and other high-capacity network centers, the Internet exchange points and network access points, that interchange Internet traffic between the countries, continents and across the oceans of the world. Internet service providers (often Tier 1 networks) participate in Internet backbone exchange traffic by privately negotiated interconnection agreements, primarily governed by the principle of settlement-free peering.

[Aardwolf]

Derp @ your lmgtfy link... "internet backbone" doesn't sound like a technical term which would have a wikipedia article, or even be used by more than a couple of doofuses looking to put a name to something. It's just the biggest, fattest set of cables.

But yes, I sort of forgot that the Internet began as a US government project and thus "public"... although how much of the existing "backbone" was part of that I couldn't tell from a cursory examination.

[Nuke]

cables used the be thicker before the advent of packet switching. ****ing wikipedia filling my head with useless information.