"Property Value change" isn't "actual harm". I gambled that my property would have equal or higher value later. It didn't. That's on ME, not anyone else.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Nonsense. I might not like the view of a smelting plant, even if they could keep all the externalities there. I might think the risk was too high. I might think it was too loud.
There's plenty of non-externalities that might make it less desirable to live there.
In my "utopia"? If they pollute, it's effectively property-damage of neighboring properties, no different from littering or vandalism.
If they can keep their pollution on their own property without it leaking anywhere else (actually damaging someone else's property) then that's their business.
Obviously, that's not going to happen that often, so they'd be on the hook for making me whole after any damages were caused.
I'm completely fine with that, actually.
If I want to control the neighboring properties, I should buy them.
Awww, look at the cute little Statist making all kinds of unfounded and inaccurate assumptions.
I would have a problem with it and I might even move away if it happens, but my moral convictions tell me that I have no authority to tell them what they can do with their land.
Zoning is also unethical, telling people what they can do with their own privately owned property.
Not as far-fetched as you might think. Gen Con has massively outgrown the hotel capacity of downtown Indy, and the shortage has been causing a LOT of complaints from attendees.
In an ethical society, nobody needs a license/permission to sell the fruit of their own labor to others.
And the same libertarians in question would tell you:
- that conscription is morally wrong, and should be verboten.
- that taxes are theft.
- that people have the right to refuse to serve on juries
Any law which doesn't also have an actual demonstrable victim (and "society" is not a victim) are immoral and should be repealed.
Maybe. Nothing (today) forces TWB in that scenario to lease outside plant spectrum to anyone.
Although, as noted in my replies above, there's plenty of reason to suspect unbundling will be a requirement down the road, so this positions them well to quickly profit from it when it happens.
That's fine. That's almost certainly going to happen at some point anyway (given the rules forbidding local broadband initiatives being overturned today), so it positions them well to profit no matter who you want to be your end-use connectivity provider.
Again - go back to ECON101.
When companies' costs are raised, especially in a manner where they are raised on all the various merchants of a service, prices generally go up to account for it.
The law of capitalism means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a regulation to raise the price of anything - all it can do is reduce the profit a corporation takes.
Regulation means compliance. Compliance means paperwork. Paperwork means overhead. Overhead means expenses. Expenses mean increased costs passed on to customers.
You owe the Oracle a copy of a transcript showing that you have passed ECON101.
How companies like Time Warner will defeat Net Neutrality: Self-divestiture.
The "Time Warner Cable/Internet" you know of today becomes a myriad of companies specifically designed to continue on with business as usual while still adhering to the letter of the law:
- Time Warner Broadband - a company which does nothing more than operate Hybrid-Fiber-Coax outside plant (the actual wires on the actual poles).
- Time Warner Cable - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above), and provides cable-video service on that outside plant
- Time Warner Transit - a company which does nothing more than provide wholesale (non-retail, non-mass-market) internet connectivity to ISPs and other service providers. As a wholesaler, TWT is not encumbered by net neutrality regulations.
- Time Warner Internet - a company which leases spectrum from TWB (above) to provide IP connectivity to end-users. It obtains *all* of its internet connectivity from TWT (above), and charges metered billing to all its end-users (you pay a flat rate PLUS you pay "by the bit", the same way you pay for water or electric today).
Netflix, et al, will have to tithe properly to TWT if they want access to TWI's customers, since TWT is the only path to GET to TWI's customers. The FCC can't really punish TWI for this move, without opening up an even messier Pandora's box of trying to tell ISPs "which upstreams they HAVE to obtain connectivity from".
Yes, it'll all be a LITTLE more complicated than that, but they've got teams of lawyers to work out the details.