Clay Jones for November 11, 2014

..yep, that about sums it up. I suspect we shall see more of the same from the regular posters here.People do indeed vote against their interests. Unbelievable.

It sounds like what my gas utility is doing now but I end up paying for the gas and the utilities service.

Remind your Republican Congressmen that Net Neutrality ensures that Rush Limbaugh will not get throttled back by ISPs controlled by the Liberal Media.(Yes, I was able to type that with a straight face.)

This cartoon is, unfortunately, spot on.

On the surface – Net Neutrality seems good, and fair, and American.

Then look at it from the Telecom’s perspective. They took the risk of putting in infrastructure. They spent billions laying copper, fiber optics and relay stations. Now the government is telling them how they can execute their business model to recoup their costs.

This really becomes a property rights issue. The telecoms are like the Rail barons of yesteryear. They are private companies creating these installations with the expectation of making a profit. If you take away their right to use their investment as they see fit – you will most likely see less investment and then we all lose.

The automobile and public roads broke the stranglehold that the railroads had on commercial freight. We should consider creating public communications channels if we want access for all and allow the businesses to continue to operate their for-profit activities.

Wow – The anti corporate whiners came out of the woodwork this morning. Mikefive complains they make too much money and sizeofpea claims I’m clueless.

Listen folks, we live in a capitalistic society where capital ownership grants us rights. That’s a good thing because if you deprive people of their capital rights (Read here: Many African and South American Countries) you scare investors away.

Investment is a good thing – It’s what provides Satellites, Cell Towers, fiber optics, copper, phone lines, repeater stations, etc. etc.

I know you all feel entitled to Broadband whenever and whereever you are but harken back to 15 years ago and many of us didn’t have it. We have it now because Privately Held companies were willing to invest in infrastructure based on a theory that they would be allowed to use that infrastructure to make profits. You may resent them for the profits they now make based on their forsight but they took the risk and made the investment so they should be able to manage their infrastructure as they see fit.

If you want to exert more control over how they manage traffic then we should either buy the systems off of them i.e. eminent domain and run it as a public service like roads or we should compensate them for the losses these regulations will impose on them.

Progressives whine and snivel about how Corporations are sitting on the sidelines with their stacks of cash and not investing in the economy. Well here is why. They are worried that as soon as they make that investment – Some politician will pass a law that makes the investment worthless.

Let’s be clear here – Internet service is not polluting the environment and it isn’t a risk to most stakeholders. From that perspective they should be lightly regulated and let the market sort out winners and losers.

i have to admit, i’m confused, he says one thing, but appoints a comcast lobbyist to head the FCC. actions vs. words?

It’s A. about corporate monopolies, and B. even if you’re on cable, at some point the internet uses the airwaves, or PUBLIC utities, making their “investments” piddlng in comparison, especially to their profits.

@mikefive – You can call my argument false all you want but ask yourself this simple economics question. “Why are corporations sitting on the sideline with piles of cash rather then investing the money and getting a good return?”

I know my company is holding off on investments until there exists less risk of loss.

I can tell you don’t think like an investor but let me help you understand their thought process.

If ROI * Perceived_RISK < 1 they won’t invest.

Right now Companies have a very real fear that the politicians in Washington will pass some new regulation or requirement that will devalue their investments.

Obamacare made Employees more expensive for companies that, up until now, had not been providing health care. We can quibble over whether or not those employees deserve health care but it had a Real and Negative effect on their investment.

I’m not conjuring up Bogeymen. My wife and I consider the regulatory risk to our investments just like we evaluate other risks. We aren’t the only ones doing this. You, too, should be considering those risks when you invest your hard earned wealth. It’s paid off for me btw – I’ve avoided several losses because I got out soon before the Government ruined a couple of companies.

“Anything Obama’s for – I’m against.”Be careful with blanket statements like that. Obama supports breathing. Does that mean you’re going to stop breathing?

And that danged Al Gore who no, didn’t invent the internet, only wrote the legilsation to have the military users make it public, was for neutrality too, so it’s got’ta be wrong, right?

Why should the government that invented and financed the net have anything to say about it? That’s for the businesses that profited from government protecting them. Good old capitalism. Without government having its back, it just lies down and dies.