The Govt Invented The Internet?

[hblask 1]

Why do you keep bringing up that multiple people were working on the same thing at the same time? Einstein and Hilbert were both working on the theory of general relativity at the same time. Leibniz and Newton came up with Calculus at the same time. Do you think it's just coincidence that sparks of genius just appear? I think it's safe to say human discoveries always leverage off of older ones.

Yes, that's exactly my point -- this notion that the govt creates advances in technology is silly. The best it can do, if they are lucky, is see where the arrow points and get there the same time as everyone else. But if that's the case, why do it? And this example demonstrates that dramatically, I think. The pieces were in place, the govt jumped in and took credit for "creating" those pieces, innovation stopped for 30 years until it was privatized. But the govt gets credit for inventing it? LOL.

[hblask 1]

Change it to government has been involved in the advancement of humanity and you have plenty of evidence.

But then the question is, on average, does the involvement of large bureaucratic organizations (private or public) slow or speed development of any given new technology? Given the inefficiency of most govt programs, is there some reason to believe it is suddenly efficient when it comes to cutting edge technology?

[vbnautilus 48]

The pieces were in place, the govt jumped in and took credit for "creating" those pieces

The people who developed the key pieces have gotten the appropriate credit for it. Leonard Kleinrock at UCLA published the first paper on packet switching. Vint Cerf (Stanford/DARPA) & Robert Kahn (DARPA) developed TCP/IP Robert Metcalfe (Xerox) invented EthernetTim Berners-Lee developed HTML while working at CERNLarry Roberts (MIT/ARPA) built the first functioning long distance network

, innovation stopped for 30 years until it was privatized. But the govt gets credit for inventing it? LOL.

The government shares credit for it, yes. Please provide evidence for "30 years of stagnation" until privatized.

[hblask 1]

Please provide evidence for 30 years of stagnation; until privatized.

OK, maybe 25, although most pieces were in place by the mid-60s.The pieces were in place by 1970, what happened between then and 1990? Minor modifications of what they had already done. I was using the internet by 1984, and it really didn't change until 1994 or 1995. That's a decade right there where basically nothing meaningful happened, at the exact same time that the personal computer was revolutionizing how we think about computers (independently of the net). The govt basically had this network and didn't know what to do with it. When people talk about "the internet", they are not talking about this dinky little network where researchers could FTP technical documents; they are talking about Amazon and Ebay and FCP and online newspapers. That all happened in a very short time after it was opened for commercial use.

[CaneBrain 95]

LOL at using the deregulation of the airline industry as proof of the POSITIVE impact of private sector control. Yes, sometimes you get a nice, low fare. Most of the time you get an ok fare at best AND the airline is allowed to bump you off the flight if they feel like AND they dont have to be on time AND they dont have to help you out if you are delayed AND it is almost impossible to sue them for anything other than luggage falling on you and injuring you (or throwing you off the plane because you are a Muslim) AND there is no business on the planet that DISCOURAGES competition more than the airline business AND a million other things.Yeah, airlines are great now. Thank god we deregulated. That way it was up to the airline's whether or not to pass a bill of rights for fliers. Guess which way it went.

[hblask 1]

Maybe you don't remember airlines before deregulation. If not, you should look into it. It wasn't a means of transportation used by the masses; it was for the elite. The term "jet set" refers to the fact that only the richest in society could afford air travel. There were only a couple of airlines.It may seem bad now, but before deregulation it was a joke.

Airfares, when adjusted for inflation, have fallen 25 percent since 1991, and, according to Clifford Winston and Steven Morrison of the Brookings Institution, are 22 percent lower than they would have been had regulation continued (Morrison and Winston 2000). Since passenger deregulation in 1978, airline prices have fallen 44.9 percent in real terms according to the Air Transport Association. Robert Crandall and Jerry Ellig (1997) estimated that when figures are adjusted for changes in quality and amenities, passengers save $19.4 billion dollars per year from airline deregulation. These savings have been passed on to 80 percent of passengers accounting for 85 percent of passenger miles.

[CaneBrain 95]

Maybe you don't remember airlines before deregulation. If not, you should look into it. It wasn't a means of transportation used by the masses; it was for the elite. The term "jet set" refers to the fact that only the richest in society could afford air travel. There were only a couple of airlines.It may seem bad now, but before deregulation it was a joke.

thats because it cost more then. look into how many airlines (budget) have been sunk by shady business practices (particularly temporary price drops to drive the competition off main, popular routes) since deregulation. American Airlines has been sued over this price practice 3 separate times. They do it. It is widely known. And the budget airline loses the lawsuit EVERY time due to phrasing in the deregulation document. Every passenger that has ever sued for being bumped has lost. Congress cant even pass a law requiring that airlines cant use deceptive practices in their rewards programs because it "relates" to price. like many policies, deregulation was a good idea when it was passed. Now, despite what the airlines (who gain by asserting it) say about prices, deregulation no longer helps keep fares low. All it does is stifle competition, afford the major airlines teflon legal protection, and ensure that passengers will still be treated like cattle during long delays.And quoting the ATA which is the key wing of the airlines lobbying efforts to stay deregulated is like quoting MSNBC to prove a liberal point. In Airline Law, we learned that many people dont buy the ATA's figures at all. In the 70s, it probably helped reduce the "jet set" label. In the present, limited regulation could easily remedy some of the more egregious things airlines do while not affecting prices at all. If anything, getting the major airlines to stop driving budget airlines out of business by using temporary price flooring could help increase competition.

[vbnautilus 48]

OK, maybe 25, although most pieces were in place by the mid-60s.The pieces were in place by 1970, what happened between then and 1990? Minor modifications of what they had already done. I was using the internet by 1984, and it really didn't change until 1994 or 1995. That's a decade right there where basically nothing meaningful happened, at the exact same time that the personal computer was revolutionizing how we think about computers (independently of the net). The govt basically had this network and didn't know what to do with it. When people talk about "the internet", they are not talking about this dinky little network where researchers could FTP technical documents; they are talking about Amazon and Ebay and FCP and online newspapers. That all happened in a very short time after it was opened for commercial use.

First of all, this is like saying that there was a hundred years of stagnation after Edison's invention because bulbs were still using tungsten filaments. Only minor modifications were done since then; we stagnated until the 1990s!Secondly, it's entirely inaccurate. There were constant technological changes happening since the early sixties which allowed for the exponential expansion of the internet that happened in the late 90s. 1973 Cerf & Khan develop IP1973 ARPANET connected to Europe1978 TCP/IP specification first created1979 UUCP and Usenet invented at Duke1981 TCP/IP standard finalized & publishedmid eighties- ARPANET and MILNET connected to unviersities and several businesses including HP1989 first multi-protocol network formed by bringing together the Space Physics Analysis Network (SPAN) and NASA's NSN1989 CERN starts making TCP/IP connections with the world1990 Archie/WAIS1992 international domain name system finalized(the mid 70s through early nineties were characterized by advances in network infrastructure and low level communication protocol advances)1990 - 1992 hypertext and WWW concepts developed1993 first graphical browser developed at NCSA at U Illinois ( i remember using Mosaic! ) this is the part that was funded by al gore's bill1994 Netscape navigator(the late 80s through early nineties developed technologies to USE those networks in more and more useful ways. once a certain point of usefulness was reached things took off commercially. trust me, my mom wasn't going to be buying shoes via a Telnet VT100 text terminal in 1984. )

[CaneBrain 95]

check out U.S v AMR Corp (140 F.Supp. 2d 1141) for a full explanation of "predatory pricing" and how deregulation allows it (and it also implies why it helps the major airlines keep a monopoly which lets them charge what they want).

[Mercury69 3]

I invented tin foil hats. BOOK IT!!!

[hblask 1]

thats because it cost more then.

Why did it cost more? Because it was regulated. This is stunningly obvious by looking at every previously regulated-then-deregulated industry (trucking, phones, airlines, to name a few key ones).

look into how many airlines (budget) have been sunk by shady business practices (particularly temporary price drops to drive the competition off main, popular routes) since deregulation. American Airlines has been sued over this price practice 3 separate times. They do it. It is widely known. And the budget airline loses the lawsuit EVERY time due to phrasing in the deregulation document. Every passenger that has ever sued for being bumped has lost. Congress cant even pass a law requiring that airlines cant use deceptive practices in their rewards programs because it "relates" to price.like many policies, deregulation was a good idea when it was passed. Now, despite what the airlines (who gain by asserting it) say about prices, deregulation no longer helps keep fares low. All it does is stifle competition, afford the major airlines teflon legal protection, and ensure that passengers will still be treated like cattle during long delays.

The problems you describe are problems with *partial* deregulation and lack of enforcement of common laws against force and fraud. I would have no problem with a law that says "if you sell a seat and the plane overfills, you have to make the situation right for the customer, including any actual or implied costs". To me, it is fraud to offer a seat then not have it available and then not compensate for the passenger's loss. I don't think the govt should control pricing, even the imaginary "predatory pricing". Such a thing has never been a valid business strategy and never can be. It's just an excuse that whiners use to explain why they can't compete in the real world. Which brings us inevitably to the next issue:We also need to deregulate airport access. Right now that process is extremely political, and seriously harms competition. All airports should sell every spot at the terminal on an auction held weekly (auctions would have to be for flights a year from now, or some other meaningful lead time). Let the airlines compete, rather than grandfathering in the old, inefficient airlines.My understanding is that right now, the main routes are subsidizing the smaller routes. Why? Why should the New York to Chicago flyer subsize the Mankato to Bismarck flyer?Competition is not the problem in the airline industry, it's the vestiges of regulation and flawed enforcement.And even with all these problems, it's still 1000 times better than it was in the 70s. Just think if we could take it the rest of the way.

[hblask 1]

check out U.S v AMR Corp (140 F.Supp. 2d 1141) for a full explanation of "predatory pricing" and how deregulation allows it (and it also implies why it helps the major airlines keep a monopoly which lets them charge what they want).

This description looks OK. Do you have an english version that describes it differently:

United States v. AMR Corp., 140 F. Supp.2d 1141 (D.Kan. 2001)On April 27, 2001, the District Court for Kansas ruled that the Department of Justice had failed to show that American Airlines had driven smaller low-cost competitors out of its hub at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport by engaging in predatory pricing and predatory capacity conduct. American had not violated § 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2), the court explained, because it had not priced its services below an appropriate measure of cost, but had simply matched the prices of its competitors; in addition, there was no dangerous probability that American would be able to re-coup its supposed profits by subsequently engaging in supra-competitive pricing. In sum, American had engaged "only in bare, but not brass, knuckle competition." The Department of Justice has appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As described here, I don't see a problem.

[El Guapo 8]

Al Gore? Isn't he the one that stopped climate change?

Nope. He created it.

[CaneBrain 95]

Why did it cost more? Because it was regulated. This is stunningly obvious by looking at every previously regulated-then-deregulated industry (trucking, phones, airlines, to name a few key ones).The problems you describe are problems with *partial* deregulation and lack of enforcement of common laws against force and fraud. I would have no problem with a law that says "if you sell a seat and the plane overfills, you have to make the situation right for the customer, including any actual or implied costs". To me, it is fraud to offer a seat then not have it available and then not compensate for the passenger's loss. I don't think the govt should control pricing, even the imaginary "predatory pricing". Such a thing has never been a valid business strategy and never can be. It's just an excuse that whiners use to explain why they can't compete in the real world. Which brings us inevitably to the next issue:We also need to deregulate airport access. Right now that process is extremely political, and seriously harms competition. All airports should sell every spot at the terminal on an auction held weekly (auctions would have to be for flights a year from now, or some other meaningful lead time). Let the airlines compete, rather than grandfathering in the old, inefficient airlines.My understanding is that right now, the main routes are subsidizing the smaller routes. Why? Why should the New York to Chicago flyer subsize the Mankato to Bismarck flyer?Competition is not the problem in the airline industry, it's the vestiges of regulation and flawed enforcement.And even with all these problems, it's still 1000 times better than it was in the 70s. Just think if we could take it the rest of the way.

The regulations you think are good are not allowed under the current structure.The #1 complaint of budget airlines after predatory pricing is lack of access to good terminals.The owner of Virgin Airlines (Branson?) sued Heathrow and several large airlines over the preferential treatment given to more established airlines in terms of times and terminals. Limited regulation would allow competition which would lower prices further. Its not that govt should control price.....right now they are not allowed to do anything that "relates to prices, routes, or service." Which means they cant do anything at all. We should have learned by now that no regulation is just as bad as lots of regulation. A lot of the problems with the airline industry could be solved by basic legislation. The passengers bill of rights failed because it "relates" to services. They can bump people because a law against it would "relate" to services. (See Nader v. Allegheny Airlines) You are describing all the things that regulation could solve but is not allowed to. My point is that the deregulation goes much too far (whereas you think it hasnt gone far enough.....though i dont see how it could go farther).The common law fraud allegation did NOT work in a bumping lawsuit. They ruled deregulation covered it. You are not seeing exactly how far the airlines can go under the current structure. You can only sue an airline for three reasons: crash (automatic liability), injury from luggage falling or flight attendant negligence, and just recently racial discrimination. of course this ignores the big problem....it is almost impossible to make a profit as an airline. Only by screwing the customer is it possible. I am almost always against gov. control of a business. But I think it should at least be considered when a business proves that it cannot be profitable when run by a private entity. And we are close to that point. Airlines push out competition, raise prices on water, luggage, change fees and they still lose money. If I trusted Washington at all I would say we should nationalize the airline industry. But they would probably do even worse so there are no good options.

[hblask 1]

What you are describing is a lot of partial deregulation, which is frequently worse than full regulation -- see the CA energy picture, the S&L Crisis, the Mortgage meltdown, etc, etc. If there is a partial deregulation, what tends to happen is that once we agree that regulation should be "partial", then the interested industries rig the rules to favor them. A lot of what you are complaining about with airlines can be eliminated with full deregulation, and a few definitions of terms. For example, is it fraud to offer a ticket and then bump a passenger? And if you do get bumped, what kind of compensation is due? Stuff like that I don't consider so much "regulation" as "definition". And yes, the line between the two is very very blurry. Basically, we need to define special cases that are force or fraud, and what they are for various industries.